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 Hurricanehink (talk | contribs) at 16:49, 2 January 2006 (→Images for each storm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archives: 1.

Template:SampleWikiProject

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]


Categorization

Over the last couple of days I've undertaken a categorization project which would have boggled my mind had I actually stopped to think about it ahead of time...creating well over 100 categories and adding maybe 1000 new categorizations to articles. This work is ongoing; I'd guess I'm 60-75% done. In no particular order:

  • I went through every top-level and second-level category (Category:Tropical cyclones and its children) and cleaned them out. Cyclone articles were moved out of top-level categories and into the basin and season categories. I created new categories as needed for each basin (Category:Pacific typhoons, Category:Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclones, etc.). I checked for entries listed in the wrong alphabetical order and fixed them. I also re-categorized the categories slightly so that everything fits in a tree under Category:Tropical cyclones (though many articles and categories are also categorized outside of this tree, for instance).
  • I made new categories to help people in finding articles to work on. See Category:Hurricane articles needing attention and its children (yeah, I know, it should be "Tropical cyclone articles needing attention").
  • I categorized every Atlantic, EPacific, and WPacific season article. To make this easier I created {{Atlantic hurricane season categories}} and other templates (one per basin, obviously, though all basins aren't taken care of yet). (I did not go back before the 1880s since the categorization for multi-season articles hasn't quite been worked out.)
  • I created categories for every Atlantic, EPacific, and WPacific season (to match the categorization I'd just done). Here I used another template, {{Atlantic hurricane season}}.
  • I created a new category, Category:Retired Atlantic hurricanes to work on as my testbed for categorization. I categorized all retired hurricanes (yes, I know it's a name that's retired not a hurricane...particularly in some older seasons before retirement was worked out properly) into this category.
  • I went through all Atlantic hurricane articles (starting with the retired ones, then the cat5s, then going through all of them). I included {{hurricane}} in each. I added {{Template:infobox hurricane needed}} (a new template I created for categorization) where no infobox was present. I categorized each by season.
  • I did the same for the Pacific typhoon articles (and I'm now working through the Pacific hurricane ones).
  • For disambiguation articles (already categorized as, e.g., Category:Atlantic hurricanes) I've added them to the categories for each season. This has some disadvantages since someone looking at the season category might be drawn to a disambiguation page that isn't actually helpful for them. However it is pretty cool to look at (for instance) Category:1997_Atlantic_hurricane_season and see each storm listed.

TODO

  • Go through each article and categorize it by strength (e.g., Category:Tropical storms or Category:Category 1 hurricanes). For west pacific storms (which don't use categories), we need to decide whether we want to use this system or a different categorization (typhoon versus super-typhoon). We also must decide whether these categories should be separated by basin.
  • Figure out how to handle other basins. The N Indian ocean can probably be handled on its own in the same way as the current three (but emptier since we have much less data). Southern hemisphere basins are a little trickier, particularly since the pacific and indian tend to run together (are these the same basin or not?). Currently the categories are Category:Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons, which I didn't create but seems okay; I moved the south atlantic articles (all 1 of them) in with these. One problem here is because these don't fit a single year (e.g., 2004-05_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season) categorization outside the tropical-cyclone tree is a bit harder (does it go in Category:2004, Category:2005, or both?).
  • Finish up the current categorization efforts on other basins. As I said I'm working through the EPac now.
  • Figure out how to do more categorization automatically. For instance the infobox already has "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" in it; we should be able to fit Category:2005 Atlantic hurricane season into the template to have it entered automatically.

Jdorje 04:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Western Pacific basin does classify storms by category (per the Saffir-Simpson scale; with 75mph (Cat 1 hurricane) being a Cat 1 typhoon etc - see the 2005 Pacific typhoon season - it lists the scale), only it's more commonly not referred to by categories, and only by typhoon vs. super typhoon (>130 knots)... -- NSLE | Talk 10:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. In that case the problem is simply that the categories are misnamed (they use "hurricane" instead of "tropical cyclone"). Jdorje 21:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to note: the Atlantic and Pacific basins have different criteria for categorizing tropical storms (in the Pacific, storms have to be a little bit stronger to reach the different categories as opposed to in the Atlantic, reflecting the different nature of the two oceans).
Mkieper 22:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale has 119, 154, 178, 210 and 250 km/h minimum sustained winds for Category 1 through 5 hurricanes respectively; the typhoon scale has 119, 154, 178, 210, 240 and 250 km/h for Category 1 through 4 typhoons, Super Typhoon and Category 5 typhoon respectively; I don't know where you're getting the above from. -- NSLE | Talk 00:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update

  • I finished filling out the existing categorizations.
  • I made sure all hurricane articles are categorized by strength. I created new categories Category:Hurricanes of unknown strength and Category:Tropical cyclones by strength.
  • I filled out some categories for the N Indian ocean basin.
  • I started working on the S Hemispher basins, but here I didn't get far. The hurricane articles are no problem, but the season articles are. Currently there are three season articles, all with different naming convention. I feel the convention should be 2005-2006 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. However other articles call it seasons (which is just plain wrong, but an easy mistake for northerners to make) or 2005-06 (which will be fine until we get to 1999-2000, 1899-1900, 1500-1799, 0000-999, etc.).
I started the S. Hemisphere basin pages, so I should be able to help out in that area. I think it should be kept as 2005-06 and for the turn of the century it should be 1999-2000. Those articles may never happen though, I spent a lot of time just trying to find information on the 2004-05 season. --Holderca1 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jdorje 07:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Michelle | Talk to Michelle 18:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Michelle | Talk to Michelle 18:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have just a few thoughts on this:

  • Make sure to keep these templates separate from the article-building templates. They may need a separate section in the project page.
  • Make sure they all have a consistent appearance. Current templates follow the style of {{most intense hurricanes}}.
  • Don't go overboard in making them. I really don't see why we would ever want to know what season had the second-earliest third storm of a season, and adding that column makes it impossible to integrate the table with text.
  • For the earliest-formed-storm table, how do you resolve it with the one in 2005 Atlantic hurricane season?
  • The most important one that is missing is {{deadliest hurricanes}}.

Jdorje 05:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pacific typhoon seasons and North Indian cyclones

Just to let you know, I am currently working on the Northeastern Hemisphere in the tropical cyclone project. The North Indian seasons are almost done, and the Western Pacific is slowly coming along. I am basically doing this all myself, so it is going to take some time, but this sector of the Tropical Cyclone project is coming along. A todo list to finish:

  • 1950-1984 Pacific typhoon seasons (all separate articles)
  • Decadal articles for Pacific typhoons back to 1800
  • Century articles for Pacific typhoons back to 1600
  • Pre-1600 Pacific typhoon season
  • 1982-1984 North Indian cyclone seasons (Done)

Come to think of it, you should appoint someone in charge of each basin. I notice the Southern Hemisphere seasons is going nowhere, the Eastern Pacific is almost done, and the Atlantic is done except for minor things (infoboxes). Hurricanehink 20:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think appointing people will work...we need people to step up to take responsibility for each basin. Having one person in charge of each basin (except possibly the Atlantic basin, which is both larger and closer to most editors' hearts) is probably a good idea, but we need volunteers for this. For the moment it sounds like you've volunteered for the EPac and Nindian basins. Jdorje 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The NIndian is done right now, so now I am working on WPAC. Maybe you should personally ask someone if they're interested. Hurricanehink 02:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, on another note, I had at one time started calling the NIndian basin the "northern indian ocean tropical cyclone" basin. You have since renamed it as "north indian cyclone" basin. Your name is better...however a lot of things (categories, etc.) may have to be renamed to get everything to match. On a related note, "Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone" basin is also too long (though not as bad as the old NIndian name). Jdorje 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad. I just thought based on the formats of the other basins (Pacific typhoon, Atlantic hurricane) that it would North Indian cyclone. Sorry to cause extra work, but on the bright side, the basin is done!

Storm articles

I have recently gone through almost all the storm articles.

  • I added structure where needed. Usually a short summary, then a "storm history" section, then an "impact" section. Longer articles generally already had their own structure which I didn't mess with (except sometimes to rename "effects" as "impact").
  • I improved grammar, spelling, and wikification. My guideline for dates is that the first date in each paragraph, and the first date in each month, must have the full entry (like "December 3"). Each following date may be shortened ("the 4th"). Previously some articles were confusing because halfway through the article it gets hard to follow what month you're in.

Jdorje 22:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and next up: making sure every article has a storm track. I now have the technology to create storm tracks to add to every article, and with the help of a bot in future I hope to be able to update these storm tracks easily (as the best-track data is improved). I may someday use a bot to upload a storm track for every storm, to add tracks to lots of season pages...this would be rather pretty (imagine 1988 Atlantic hurricane season with a bunch of small storm track images) but the storm-track generator isn't ready for it yet. Jdorje 22:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications for new articles

What should be the qualifications for new articles? Ignoring the text requirment (because any topic could have enough information for a new article), how should we decide what articles are worth it and what should be merged back to a seasonal article (if one exists)? Here are a basic outline that will be fine tuned for qualifications:

Atlantic

  • Over a certain dollar figure in damage
  • Over a certain number of deaths (50 in U.S, figure differs elsewhere)
  • Extremely notable (Longevity, extremely unusual location like Vince or Alice)
  • Any retired hurricane (already done)

South Atlantic

Eastern Pacific

  • Deadly landfalling hurricane (Iniki, Kenna, 1959 cane)
  • Longevity (John)
  • Any retired hurricane (already done)

Western Pacific

  • Important Record holder (Tip)

(See below for possible ideas)

North Indian and Southern Hemisphere

  • Over a certain dollar figure for damage
  • Over a certain number of deaths

For Western Pacific, there seems to be no continuity. As with any other basin, current storms get an article without much thought. Haitang (which was a Cat 5 before weakening and hitting Taiwan, only 7 deaths), Khanun (only 14 deaths), or Nabi (21 deaths) are perfect examples of this. Maybe it is just my raging anti-sub pages attitude, but I am sure there are other typhoons much more deserving than these 3. The problem is that few know or care about the area until a big one comes. In the last 10 years, 13 storms with over 100 deaths didn't have an article (2 of which I redirected back to their seasonal articles), while all of the recent typhoon Articles caused less than 25 deaths. Were their tracks notable? Not particularly. There weren't overwhelmingly damaging. So why, aside from that they were current, do these have articles? I just want to reach some sort of concensus.

In addition, should storms like Forrest, whose record isn't terribly important but still a record, have their own article when the record and history could simply be mentioned in the seasonal article?

Feel free to edit the list above to more accurate qualifications. Hurricanehink 03:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to too my own horn here or something, but I agree and would think that this season in the WPac (awfully quiet!) the only real "noteworthy" storm was Typhoon Longwang, for the fact it has killed the most people of all the storms this season, and caused quite a bit of damage. Then again, Longwang could still probably be expanded a bit more, with an impact section or something. I say that a NWPac storm should cause at least, say, 75 to 80 deaths or US$50 million in damage, or form at an awkward position to get an article. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 05:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want to ignore the text requirement? The text requirement is the only one that's really neutral. Damage, deaths, and longevity are all just estimates by whatever source you happen to trust (and most current hurricane articles have NO sources for these values). In my opinion the SOLE criteria should be article quality (not length, but quality). And yes, the Forrest article is entirely useless, except for the pictures. Jdorje 08:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that just about anything could have enough for an article. It just would be really boring and repetitive. You could say all the circumstances on its formation, why it moved where it did, elaborate like hell, and have a long article for a pointless storm. We should have a reasoning for making an article other than the text requirment. We need some sort of continuity so we don't make too many articles. This way we won't create too many articles in the coming years. I am not saying getting rid of all the pointless articles (just some), but having a concensus so we don't give an article for every new storm. Hurricanehink 14:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely. That's why my criteria is article quality, not article length. By these standards I agree (for instance) that Arlene should have been merged back in, but I don't think Cindy should be. In particular, no amount of lenghth of text on storm history is enough to justify a separate article, since the storm history can be summed up with a single picture. But if there's enough info on the impact, then that can justify an article. Jdorje 23:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point about quality. However, if the quality happens to a copy and paste of the seasonal article, I say it should go until either more information is available or more is actually written. Plus, what about Southern Hemisphere storms? When and if someone does a historical archive, what do we do about all of the storm pages? I had the same dillema with the Pacific Typhoon articles. Should those articles be merged in (with the exception of extremely notable) or should they remain as is? Hurricanehink 20:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree, for the sake of archiving this section, that the 2 requirements are:

  • Sufficient information
  • Notable enough for its own article

Though notable can be disputed, use discretion. Here I define what I think is notable enough.

Longevity: Longevity is typically rather boring for its own article, and only record-long storms should get it. John (longest worldwide), Ginger (2nd longest Atlantic, was long believed to be the longest until re-analysis), and 1899 San Ciraco (extremely damaging and long). Alberto, the longest in August with a big loop, was deleted because it was not extreme on its own.

Strength: Category 5 hurricanes should not automatically get their own articles. If it was a fish storm as a weak Category 5, then it should remain a section in the seasonal article. Not unless it was extremely intense or damaging at sea should it have an article.

Damage/Deaths: As of now, nearly every storm that caused more than $500 million in damage has their own article. If a storm causes only $60 million in damage, no deaths, and made landfall somewhere, it will likely not have its own article unless there is another factor about the storm that made it notable. Hurricane Bret from 1999 is an example of this. It was the least damaging major hurricane since 1964, and hit the only unpopulated area on the United States Atlantic/Gulf coastline. Deaths is a different story. Old hurricanes that were very deadly do not have information. Every hurricane since 1950 that killed more than 50 is at least on the suggestion list.

Off-season: Typically, off-season storms don't get an article, mainly due to lack of effects from the storms. Those that were especially notable like Alice (2 calendar year hurricane), 1952 Groundhog Day Storm (Only Feb. storm and made U.S. landfall), or Ana (Only April storm, 1 or 2 deaths) get one.

Just use discretion, and wonder this when creating an article:

  • Can this information be added to the article?
  • Is this storm worthy of having an article: notable enough or enough information.

Are these rules sufficient? Hurricanehink 17:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Storm Article Request/Suggestion List

If there are any hurricane/typhoon/cyclone articles that you think should be created, list them here. It will go like this. Note: Not all of these will get an article. It is simply a list. Feel free to debate. Hurricanehink

Finished

Finished storms are located here.

Retired WPAC Storms

I vote yes, mainly for the Recon sinking. CrazyC83
Agreed, and there should be sufficient information in the JTWC article. HurricanehinkHurricanehink 04:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I vote no unless information backs up that storm. CrazyC83
Big no. There was no damage associated with the storm. I bet it was retired in respect for the 1976 storm. The 1976 Pamela was bad to Guam, so when this Pamela hit Guam, they feared it greatly. I will remove this entry unless someone says otherwise. Hurricanehink

Atlantic Storms

See also List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes.

Yes, if information can be found. Same with all the other historic storms mentioned below up to 1949. It's amazing what we can find in hurricanes past! CrazyC83
True, but nearly every one before 1800 only has death stats. Look at the Great Storm of 1780, not much can be said aside from location and effects. Hurricanehink
Maybe, until research is done, we could give them sections of a broader page, such as Historic Atlantic hurricanes. CrazyC83
That is an awesome idea! It might be a little reduntant with the seasonal pages, but I think that sort of page could emcompass many of these early hurricanes. Hurricanehink
Agreed with Hink. Crazy C's idea is probably the best idea, because info on all these old storms is sketchy at best. Hurricane Eric
The question is, what do we do with the seasonal articles? For this storm, the information that exists says it killed 1000 people as it moved through the Gulf of Mexico in early 1590. This means we will have three places for these deadly storms; Decadal articles, List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes, and Historic Hurricanes. Maybe we could add storm summaries beneath the list of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes, rather than creating an article to say most of the same information. Hurricanehink
Of course, all that would be a placeholder; if enough information is found, the articles are ripe for the taking. CrazyC83 19:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True. So how should we do this? Put every one of these old hurricanes in the file. What will define as a historic hurricane? What about Unnamed but historically significant hurricanes from the list of notable tropical cyclones? What is the time period for this? Hurricanehink
No, due to lack of good info. Hurricane Eric
Agreed. It should just have a part in the deadly hurricanes page. Hurricanehink
Possible, but not likely yet. Hurricanehink
Yes, if the information is found. CrazyC83
Yes, per above. I also vote renaming it the Golden Isles Hurricane of 1893 because that's the name of the region it struck. Trust me, I live in Georgia and have a condo down there. The islands from Jacksonville to Charleston are called the Golden Isles by the locals. They used to be called the Sea Islands (hence the name for the 1893 Sea Islands Hurricane in August of that year.) Hurricane Eric

It is worthy but info may be scarce. If good info is found, I say yes, otherwise debatable. Hurricane Eric

Isn't that the problem for all of them... Agreed for any 1000+ deaths one that has enough info. Hurricanehink
Again, the deaths demand an article but the info must be found first. The Monthly Weather Review is sketchy and I know no other source. Hurricane Eric
Death toll screams yes, but info is scant. Debatable. Hurricane Eric
Deaths say yes, but info might be hard to find. Debatable. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
Again, it warrants an article, but the information needs to found. Yes once it is. CrazyC83
Agreed. If info is found, definite yes. Hurricanehink
Debatable, per Michelle. Hurricane Eric
I vote no for now based on the fact that info is going to be slim. Hurricane Eric

Good info here: [3]. Yes, per above. Hurricane Eric

Conditional Yes: info may be scant but this storm is worthy. Hurricane Eric.

No based on minimal info. Hurricane Eric

A lot of information can be found here. Hurricanehink
I vote yes. CrazyC83
Debatable. Fairly notable, but minimal damage. Hurricane Eric
Personally, I vote no. There might be info, but it didn't do that much. For all we know, in re-analysis, it will be classified a minimal hurricane. It might not, but it is simply a subtropical storm that became tropical in the off-season. I don't think the fact it became a major hurricane should effect it. I know I nominated it, but this would likely be a boring storm. Storm history, then what else? Hurricanehink
I vote no. Yes, it caused 51 deaths, but there is next to no other information on the storm. It was a short lived tropical storm, and there is little information beyond that. If there is, then I'll change my vote. Hurricanehink
There is enough info, but Irene caused no damage or deaths. It is doable, based on track and rainfall amounts, as well as a rare Atlantic to EPAC crossover storm. Weak to moderate yes. Hurricanehink 23:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed here as well. CrazyC83
I vote no. A Venezuelan troop helicopter just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Other than that it was largely a fish-spinner. Hurricane Eric
Sounds good. I was thinking that, but I just wanted a consensus. I'll wait a day to see if anyone objects. Hurricanehink
I say the same; but with one reservation: helicopter information. If enough on the crash can be made up to create a good section, a weak yes. CrazyC83
Wait a second, I thought it was a school choir in a plane, not a helicopter. Hurricanehink
From the Monthly Weather Review.
A Venezuelan Air Force Plane carrying a school choir to Europe crashed while attempting to land at Lajes Air Force Base in the Azores while the storm was in progress and 68 people were killed.
Still debatable. Hurricanehink
No storm from 1978, extremely bizarre event. If the information can be found and an article assembled, I vote yes. CrazyC83
There is enough information for a storm history in the MWR. Just need some Trivia to fill up the article. Moderate yesHurricanehink
Got a pic as well. Some trivia could include that it was the only tropical or subtropical storm to form in January, though Alice in 1954 and likely Zeta from this year lasted until January. Also, January is the only month without a tropical storm formation. Anyone have any other trivia? Hurricanehink
Hmm, not too much else. I think I'll change it to a Weak no, based on lack of effects. If you have much other trivia, then go ahead to make the article. I'm just saying I won't. Hurricanehink
I know it was removed, but there is plenty of information located here.

Hurricanehink

Damage stats here. I vote Yes, based on its importance in Texas hurricane history. Hurricanehink
Interesting choice, so I say yes. Important Texas storm, and fairly damaging. Hurricanehink
Disagreed with Hink. The bill was fairly high but info is minimal and deaths were few. Hurricanes Cleo and Dora were in the same boat but they had more info on them. If there is enough info on this one to construct an article, I would say yes. Until I see that that's the case, I say debatable. Hurricane Eric
MWR has some nice information. I still say Yes. Hurricanehink

Eastern Pacific Storms

Way to little info. I found some minor info about that in the 1943 Monthly Weather Review, but I doubt there is enough information for a full article. It formed, strengthened, hit land, and killed 100. Not too much else you can say. Hurricanehink
Actually, the Monthly Weather Review might have enough information. Small to moderate yes.
Debatable IMO. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
Weak yes if info is found (haven't we heard this before). Hurricanehink
I say yes. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
Sounds good. Hurricanehink
Agreed, I vote yes. CrazyC83
I know I removed this earlier, but the section in the season page is getting rather lengthy, and it is notable for its damage in California (I don't know what it did in Mexico). Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Considering what other storms are getting articles, I say yes for this, provided sufficient information exists. If it is just a direct copy and paste (more or less) from the article, then strong no, but if new and original information not in the article, then Pretty big yes. Hurricanehink
Weak yes for its unusually high damage for such a rare storm. Good info must be found though. Hurricane Eric
Agreed with Hurricane Eric. It needs the information and to be tested out. However, I vote yes if a good article can be made. CrazyC83
But where is the info? If all you have is death and damage stats, you might want to hold off. It does deserve it, but info is the key for any good article. Hurricanehink
Yes if info on track and damages are available. Hurricanehink
Agreed. CrazyC83
Strong yes with good info, debatable without it. Hurricane Eric
Most of the deaths came from the breakage of a dam on Mexico's Cajoncito River. It was one of only three Northwest Mexican October Category 4 landfalls, and the closest to hit Baja California. In addition, it was one of six Mexican Cat. 4 landfalls. Any other trivia? Hurricanehink
"One of only three NW Mexico October Cat4 landfalls" is too trivial even to qualify as trivia ;-). Jdorje 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking that after I wrote that. I'm just trying to fill in some trivia for the potential article. Hurricanehink
The preliminary report is available. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it can have its own section in the Allison article. Many sources say Cosme's circulation was the same as Allison's circulation (rare EPAC to Atlan storm). I would be fine if someone made a Cosme article, but it could have its place in Allison's. Hurricanehink
In that case, shouldn't we just rename Allison 1989 to Hurricane Cosme-Allison? Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I'm waiting for a consensus here. Hurricanehink
I like Hink's idea about a section for both storms. I am against renaming though since Cosme not only weakened to a tropical depression, it degenerated to a remnant low before becoming Allison. Hurricane Eric
Agreed, each article should be separate but linked as Cosme degenerated. Multi-name articles should only apply for storms that actually cross over intact and change names (that would keep the name under current rules). CrazyC83
Ugh, just checked NHC. Like usual, there is very little info. According to the report, Cosme caused 30 deaths. That's about it. No reports of actually impact of the storm. I say No for its own article, and Moderate yes as its own section of Allison. Hurricanehink
Unusual choice that I thought I'd throw out there. I vote no (yea, I nominated it), but someone who likes EPAC storms might be able to put a good article together given how recent it was. Hurricanehink
I don't have a lot of EPAC knowledge. On the fence, that would be one to throw a sandbox article and evaluate. CrazyC83
Damage was fairly light. But I feel bad for those 18 people and that boat was probably pretty expensive. I don't know, debatable. Hurricane Eric
The Lithuanian freighter M/V Linkuva was lost, en route to Long Island, California. Nothing else for impact, other than tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings. There was, however, important reconaissance missions flown in during the rapid intensification cycle, showing the difference between dvorak and reconaissance, curtosy of here. Hurricanehink
Another one I'll throw out there. EPAC doesn't have that many deadly storms, so any one that does is fairly eventful. Hurricanehink
I vote yes, primarily on the overall lack of events from the Eastern Pacific. However, I'd still vote yes if it was an Atlantic storm. CrazyC83
This storm isn't that notable. It was only notable in that fairly weak season. So I'm going to say no. I would say a resounding no if it were an Atlantic storm since 12 deaths in a storm is sadly quite common here. Also, the damage bill wasn't that high. Hurricane Eric

Western Pacific Storms

No, based on lack of info. Hurricane Eric
Agreed. Hurricanehink
Yes. JTWC has some info on this one.
Yes if good info can be found. Hurricane Eric
Yes if good info can be found. Hurricane Eric
Strong yes Hurricane Eric
Yes if good info can be found. Hurricane Eric
I personally vote no, but it is debatable. Hurricanehink
Yes. Hurricanehink
Moderate yes. Strong, deadly, and Philippine name retired. Hurricanehink
No. Hurricanehink

North Indian Storms

I vote no. The deaths would scream yes, but the lack of info screams no. At most, more can be added to the Pre-1980 North Indian cyclone seasons, with an appropriate redirect. Hurricanehink
Agreed, but if the information can be found, strong yes. CrazyC83
Therein lies the problem for every pre-1900 storm. All you have is one date for a landfall, and the deaths that happened from the storm. Not much more can be said. Hurricanehink

Southern Hemisphere Storms

A list of retired names is in Attachment 2B of this WMO document. That's a lot of retired names. Some of them already have articles, BTW. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle

Comments

Removed TS Frances (somewhat damaging but very short track) and 1908 March cane (not enough info). From EPAC, I removed Gilma (Cat. 5 fish), Ekeka (Cat. 3 January fish), Elida (Cat. 5 fish), Hernan (Cat. 5 fish), Hurricanehink 16:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Typhoon Freda. There already is an article on the extratropical renmant; the Columbus Day Storm of 1962. Hurricanehink 02:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed EPAC Retired storms (Adele and Iva) because they were fish storms. Names were likely just removed. Hurricanehink 02:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Bridget and Olivia. I replaced the list at the notable storms list with 100+ deaths only. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea with the deaths. Too many otherwise. I removed Greta and Guillermo. Hurricanehink 23:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added every WPAC typhoon that caused more than 200 deaths. Feel free to remove them if they don't deserve an article. Hurricanehink 01:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone (including me) makes an article for Liza and Paul, be sure to add template:Deadliest Pacific hurricanes to it and edit the template to reflect the new location. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added every 1,000 plus hurricane, and every 50+ storm since 1950.

Support articles for all of them, if the information can be found. CrazyC83 00:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Danielle (fish storm, no damage) and Isbell (low damage). I still think Lili (1984) should not have an article. Hurricanehink 21:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Ava (per consensus- Cat. 5 fish storm), 12 from 1975 (Not enough information), Madeline (No info), Tina (did little), and 3 WPAC 200 deaths ones (just thought I'd put up those deadly ones).

Removed Kate (2003) (consensus). CrazyC83 02:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Alice (1954) (Lack of info and consensus), Helene (1958) (Lack of info and consensus), and Isbell (1964) (Lack of effects and consensus). Hurricanehink

Removed Typhoon Alice (1979) (Lack of effects, name likely removed) and Edouard (lack of effects and consensus). Hurricanehink 16:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Years with no hurricane article

The following years since 1950 have no hurricane article:

  • 1987 (Possible storms include Arlene or Emily)
  • 1986 (One possible storm is Charley)
  • 1982 (Alberto or Beryl)
  • 1981 (Possible Dennis)
  • 1978 (Amelia with 30 deaths, or Cat. 4 Greta)
  • 1976 (Belle or Emmy)
  • 1973 (Brenda with 10 deaths and thousands homeless, Delia with $15 million in damage, Ellen?)
  • 1968 (Abby, Candy, or Gladys? not much here)
  • 1962 (Possible Daisy)
  • 1958 (Cleo or Helene)
  • 1956 (Betsy, Flossy, or Greta)
  • 1953 (Alice, Barbara, or Carol? Not much here)
  • 1951 (Able or Charlie)

Just in case every season article should have an article, there is the list. Recently done ones include 1984, 1993, and 1997. Hurricanehink 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some years may have to go without an article. 1953, 1968 and 1973 are examples (unless there is a strong consensus)...and just wait until we get down to 1914, there was only one storm that year and it was a weak tropical storm! Does that get an article by default? CrazyC83 16:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking just back to 1950 will be fine. Before then was too unknown. You may be right about those three years, though it would be cool to have every season have a notable storm with its article. Hurricanehink 16:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need to have an article in every season. We shouldn't be creating them just to create them. I am strongly against that and always will be. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought it would be neat to specialize one specific storm for each season. It will probably never happen, but it can't hurt to bring it up. Hurricanehink
My thought for 1978: Subtropical Storm One (1978), since we are on the topic of extremely weird events with Zeta forming. CrazyC83
Not a bad idea. There might be enough information on MWR as well. I uploaded a picture here, so this might be doable. Mention some off season trivia. I vote yes for this one. Hurricanehink 00:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Include 'em! Or remove them from all articles (including the 2004-onwards ones). Jdorje 00:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. We should be consistent across all seasons. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would you lot consider this worthy of discussion? -- Sarsaparilla39 12:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Check out the sandbox. Post your comments somewhere at the bottom. -- Sarsaparilla39 14:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeable Existing Articles

Are there any existing tropical cyclone article that you think should be merged with a season?

Possible ones (just possible examples, and excluding 2005 season ones, I have no opinion on these as of yet):

Atlantic

East Pacific

Linda, Adrian (unless it's retired), and John should probably be renamed to include the year in the title.

West Pacific

Southern Hemisphere

Discussion

Feel free to debate or add others. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly against Ginger, Alice, Linda, and John. Ginger was longest lasting Atlantic storm, Alice was an extremely rare December-January hurricane, Linda was strongest EPAC hurricane, and John was longest lasting cyclone worldwide. All of the others, and the ones I added, I am completely fine with. Hurricanehink 02:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Antje's Hurricane and Ekaka should definitely be merged. The others that I've seen all have enough info to justify a separate article...although in some cases the article quality is too low to allow it to live. Jdorje 04:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But I think your merges leave something to be desired. You are deleting information in the process of the merge. Antje's hurricane has 3 paragraphs plus a source which you cut to one small paragraph. Sure a lot of the information is redundant, but you cut the mention of why it was called Antje's hurricane. Similarly with the 1841 gale you dropped the source reference, and you cut out the mention of 18 feet of snow (I doubt this is a typo; 18 inches of snow is inconsequential) and the mention of the memorial. Jdorje 02:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, forgot about the sources. I put them into the seasonal article. I reiterated Antje's title and changed 18 inches back to feet. For Antje's hurricanet, the first 2 paragraphs are only sentences. I think I got it all now. Hurricanehink 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an eye on this user. Most of the redirects done in the last few weeks were because of this guy... Hurricanehink 02:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all existing articles IMO. They are all historically notable enough, or had enough information to warrant the article. CrazyC83 04:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two more to the list. Both, like usual from that user, have low quality with minimal information that could be extremely easily put into the seasonal article. Hurricanehink 16:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to merging of any hurricane, so long as you keep all the info (including the sources). However I think the problem with this user is low writing quality, not lack of information or notability. So it just needs someone to go in and fix up what he's written. Too bad he won't create an account or I'm sure we could get him to do these things himself. Jdorje 17:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added Allison, Gustav, and Emily to the list. All three are made by the same person, with the usual low quality article for a non-important storm. Hurricanehink 21:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are extremely low quality. I wish that author would follow the conventions used for other articles... Jdorje 21:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed for the moment, although if a better article can be made then keep the article. CrazyC83 06:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added Lili to the list. Same as usual. This one might be able to be kept, as with Emily (1993), but I still think Allison and Gustav should go. Hurricanehink 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Allison (1995) and Gustav, but all others should be kept. CrazyC83 01:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly against merging Alice, Ginger, Linda, John and Gafilo. Partially against merging Fefa, Odette and Zoe. In the case of Odette and Zoe, both are very notable storms and the articles have good info, especially Odette's. Fefa is a notable storm and the article is well written. Agreed with merging Emily (1993), Lili (1996), and Adrian. Strongly agreed with merging Alex (2004), Bertha (1996, not on list),Alberto (2000) , Allison (1995), and Gustav (2002). Most, if not all, are skin-and-bones articles about storms that weren't that notable. They give just a summery of the storm that is best in their respective main articles. That leaves one more article doesn't it: Central America Hurricane of 1857. First off, the name is misleading, the storm occured nowhere near Central America and is named after the ship it sank. I say merge the article with the one on the ship instead of the hurricane season. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Alice2, Linda, Ginger, and John because no one agreed to their removal and they are notable. The only reason I nominated Fefa was because I felt that the name could have been replaced a la Knut rather than retired because its impact seems like a hokey reason to retire a name. I know I nominated it, but I now oppose Zoe becaue it appears to be listed as retired in the WMO document I linked in the article request list above. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vote again after time passed and my views have changed. No for Alex (2004), Adrian, Fefa (unless the name was simply removed), Zoe (it has potential), and Gafilo (potential exists). Iffy on Odette, Emily (1993, potential exists), and Lili (1996, there is potential). I vote for merge for Central America hurricane of 1857 (to be merged with SS Central America), Allison (1995, wow it formed early), Esther (little short, and not notable), and Alberto (2000, it basically only has a storm history). Hurricanehink 01:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added Chaba to the list (little impact), and put Alberto and Bertha there (they have mergal proposals as well). I vote no for Bertha, and yes for Chaba and Alberto. Hurricanehink 15:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto merged, based on consensus. Hurricanehink 02:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done E. Brown. Allison was doomed. Now what's next on the chopping block? Central America Hurricane of 1857, I'm looking your way. Hurricanehink 18:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1857 was executed at 6:10 this evening. It was good writing and I tried to be faithful in the merge. Who's next? Bertha, I hope you've got a will ready! :D Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo. Or not. We appear to have some dissenting voters on Bertha. If it's going to stay, it needs some more info. Lili doesn't have a bright future, but nor does it have consensus. I don't know, what do you guys think? Adrian could be next, it doesn't have a bright future either. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with any of the other ones, especially the 2005 ones. There seem to be 2 communities within this Wikiproject; 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasoners and non-2005ers. While some of us non-2005ers might agree with you (I for one am vehemently opposed to articles such as Alpha and Cindy, as well as Beta to an extent), there are a lot of the 2005 people who want to see everything more and more: more articles, more information, more everything. In addition, there was already a vote for deletion for Cindy, and it failed. Most of the pointless ones are gone. However, if it is longer than the infobox (longer than a stub, even), it should be kept in my book. I am all for the deletion of useless storms, but we are a minority. Perhaps we should just focus on what other articles can be created; most of the notable ones have already been created. Hurricanehink 01:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My emotions and opinions tell me to tell them to go to Hell. My common sense tells me to use diplomacy, which is what I do. But every man has his breaking point. Sometimes, Cindy being a good example, I get tired of listening to it. The more I've had to deal with it, the more I've come to hate the Cindy article. It is almost the bane of my existance. I want so bad to merge it, but I know I'll catch Hell for it. It'd probably be reverted anyway. It's just so aggrivating dealing with these idiots who have no idea what they're talking about and keep saying the same frickin' thing over and over again. It just wears you out. This is probably why I'll never have children. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh. Poor Eric! I know the feeling, but too many people think that piece of crap storm (Cindy) is deserving of an article and is notable. HOW?!?!?!?! It was a tropical storm that killed 2 people. Nothing else! I'll admit I laughed at your description of your anger, but I feel almost the same way. Cindy and Alpha are two very hot topics, and I would love to see them go. But no, we have those who want to keep those worthless storm articles. It killed a few people and was a storm in an active season. Give me a break. It really does wear you out. I guess some people won't sway their opinions... Hurricanehink 03:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the French wikipedia site - ALL storms, right down to the ignored depressions, have articles...[4] CrazyC83 02:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added Erika (1997) to the list. CrazyC83, I will agree with Eric that not every storm needs an article. Few actually need it, and few others deserve one. I do see the argument for it, and unfortunately it seems I am among the minority who doesn't want excessive articles. I don't know. This is one debate I don't like getting in to. Hurricanehink 21:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Michelle | Talk to Michelle
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The Lili track brings back the problem of telling what direction the storm is moving... Jdorje 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

  • Add {{storm path needed}} to the article.
  • (Except for named epac/natlantic hurricanes) make sure the article has a link to the unisys track or storm ID#, prominently placed.

Jdorje 00:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hmm, then I have absolutely no idea. Maybe an email should be sent to JTWC? Hurricanehink 22:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wouldn't a Category 5 hurricane be a major hurricane by definition? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Uh... do explain? NSLE (讨论+extra) 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That doesn't seem complicated though...that's exactly the purpose of disambiguation. Jdorje 20:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I removed the names that were also used for TDs and invests. NSLE (讨论+extra) 11:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
65 is fine in the article, but not the infobox. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds good. Hopefully other Wicanepidians will follow this (what? we hurricane wikipedians need a name). Hurricanehink 22:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 00:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones?

Per Portal talk:Tropical Cyclones#Move to Portal:Tropical cyclones?. I'm reposting the (as yet) brief discussion from there to here. Please state your minds (and note that I'm proposing to move both the Portal and this WikiProject). Blackcap (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(begin copying)

Why is the "C" capitalized? Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words says that it shouldn't be. My recommendation is to move it to Portal:Tropical cyclones. Portal:Artificial intelligence doesn't have the "I" capitalized, and note that our WP article on this is at Tropical cyclone and not Tropical Cyclone (which is a redirect). If there's no dissent, I'll be bold and do it myself. Blackcap (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the C is capitalized to match Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. If one is to be changed, they both should be...and there will be a lot of redirecting to fix (fortunately we make heavy use of templates, like {{tcportal}}, so it won't be as much as it otherwise would). Don't change it unless you're willing to change it ALL. Jdorje 00:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing. I'd best wait a wee bit to get more opinions, though. Blackcap (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(end copying)

As the namer of the wikiproject, I have no particular opinion. We can rename it, but only if those who are going to do the work are willing to do all the work - don't leave it half-finished for the rest of us to clean up. Jdorje 04:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Are there any more templates apart from the ones at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones#Templates and {{tcportal}} for when I make the change? The rest is just using Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, AFAIK... anything I've overlooked? Blackcap (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., here goes: I'm a-moving it now. Blackcap (talk) (vandalfighters, take a look) 00:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.! It's been moved, the templates have been changed, the infoboxes have been moved, it's been de-capitalized, and there are no double redirects according to Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. If I've not done something or I've done domething wrong, please tell me: AFAIK, though, it's all taken care of. Blackcap (talk) (vandalfighters, take a look) 01:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 :

  • There's a section to put a satellite-taken picture
  • There's a section showing the cyclone's track
  • Label to show the cyclone's maximal intensity
  • Summarized statistics for inactive cyclones
  • Détailed statistics for active cyclones
  • Contains info about locations and countries affected
  • Total compatibility between the active and inactive states

Tropical cyclone footer :

  • Initially translated from the English version
  • Rewritten using the strict Wikipedia syntax
  • In the legend zone, the maximal strength of the cyclone is put in bold

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

List of Notable tropical cyclones

This is getting long. Should it be split up into basins, or at the very least, have a list of Notable Atlantic tropical cyclones? This could also list records on the Atlantic records page. The retired storms section is very long, and there are many under Off-Season, Canadian, and Unnamed. With a separate page, there could be more detail, and more organized. Hurricanehink 22:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In short: yes. Jdorje 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The retired ones, for example, should go to List of retired Atlantic hurricanes. CrazyC83 06:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Candidate: Hurricane Dennis

I've started a WP:FAC on Hurricane Dennis, so we can try to make it a Featured Article. The FAC is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Dennis. It already has gotten a little bit of commenting, and any help is appreciated there. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 06:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of minor copyediting. Jdorje 07:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And Raul654 has now promoted it to Featured Article status. :) Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Infoboxes

Some time ago we discussed adding new fields to the infoboxes. Well, I went ahead and added the pressure to the hurricane infobox. I also used some template magic to create Category:Incomplete hurricane infoboxes which I believe should become populated with the articles that have no pressure in their infobox (it's empty now; I think it will be built slowly as the caches are replaced). Next, I'd like to rename "total damages (USD)" as "total damages"; the "USD" is irrelevant since the field has to include the units anyway (including the year) and USD may not always be the best choice; this should be possible to accomplish with a smooth transition using some more template magic. Jdorje 20:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, might not have so many ones without pressures now. Still a great idea. Question: How will the caches be replaced? Mind you, I am more or less computer illiterate, so I am not sure what it means. Do we have do change them one by one, just change the infobox template, or is it automatic? Hurricanehink 21:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what causes the categories to be updated. I'm guessing several levels of cache need to be regenerated. This will happen automatically periodically I guess but I have no idea how long it will take. Once one of the pages using the template is actually edited it should be updated immediately in the category. Eventually they should all make there way there...we're not in any big rush here so we can just wait for them to show up. Jdorje 21:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and I did notice some pages showing that category at the bottom (some WPAC ones, Catarina). Something weird happened, though. In the list of Hurricane articles without pictures or infoboxes, they show every last hurricane season and quite a few hurricane articles that already have pics and infoboxes. I assume that problem will also be solved automatically? Hurricanehink 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images for each storm

I am in the (long) process of trying to upload an image of each storm in Atlantic history. Obviously there are older ones that won't, but I am trying to get, let's say, a lot of them. A lot of storms, particularly retired storms, have them, but what about the lesser storms that don't have articles? The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article used this in a great way, by having the storm track and storm pic right next to each other. If an image helps the reader understand the storm, then why not? I have gone ahead and put what I propose on the 2003 and 2004 Atlantic season talk pages. I am interested to see what is the most recent season in which not every storm has a pic... Is what I am doing fine? A waste? Comments welcomed. Hurricanehink 00:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy site (all images PD, {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}) has images back to 1997. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks, but some of their image archives are temporarily down. Hurricanehink 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I got an example. The 1994 Atlantic hurricane season has an image for each storm. What should we do with them? Should we have a repeat of 2005? That is, having the storm track and image for each storm. Obviously, this can't go back very far, but it helps people understand the storms better. Hurricanehink 02:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, we should show a satellite image and storm track for every storm whenever possible. Jdorje 02:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have 2 years completely done (1994 and 2000). Does Alberto in 2000 work? I will go ahead and do the rest. Will you be able to get the storm tracks for 2000? Hurricanehink 16:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what do you mean by "completely done"? I see only a few pictures. Jdorje 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check their talk pages. I should have said that. Every tropical storm or hurricane has a picture in those 2 seasons. For 2000, I went ahead and put the pics in like 2005. Hurricanehink
I uploaded 2000 and 1994. I also uploaded 2004; I think we should be moving chronologically here. Jdorje 21:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's just what they're expecting though... Just kidding. That sounds good. I'll try to fill in the gap. Hurricanehink 22:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Storm track seasons completed:

  • 1994-2004
  • 2005 (based on forecast data)

Jdorje 07:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene satellite image and storm track.
Ok, before we go further with this, I think we need to stop and think about it a little bit. First of all, we should be using a template for the little storm picture table, that way we can resize or restructure it later if needed. The table's a little ugly as it is (it is asymmetric and has white space for seemingly no reason), and someone could probably fix this with a little wikitable magic. Something like {{storm pics|maintext|image1|text1|image2|text2}} is pretty lengthy, but probably still worthwhile. We could in theory make it even shorter if we use more clever templating, but this would also cut down on the flexibility of the gallery. Jdorje 07:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would be {{storm pics}}. Jdorje 07:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydoke. 2004 done, working on 2003, and will get 2002 later. I am currently trying to align them so they don't overlap by adding more information. I know that every screen is different, but more info can't hurt either way. Hurricanehink 15:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Got them. Now on to 2001's pictures. Hurricanehink 16:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded 1995-1999. Jdorje 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO!

Time out for a second. We don't need images for every freaking storm back to the days of Donna! Let's not do this, it clogs the page with unhelpful images. Many of them suck so bad it's hard to tell what it is. Some are spectacular. But regardless of their quality, so many of them distract the reader from the article and all they do is think about the pictures. Not to mention the fact that people with older, slower or crappier computers want to shoot themselves every time they try to load the page. The bytes add up my friend. That's just a fact. '05 and now '04 load slow for me and my computer is relatively cooperative. I could be talked into pics for every hurricane but not every storm of the season! And this is coming from an obsessive lover and collector of hurricane satellite photos (I have over 200!). My instincts tell me to just find better images to replace sucky ones and leave it at that. But I think it is detracting from the article and many should be removed. I don't know how many seasons you've done it for but please stop, at least for now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. However this argument should be taken over to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, where it is already being discussed. Jdorje 07:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, I forgot about the slower computers. Perhaps they can have a subpage, like Images of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. This could solve the problem of slow computers, but also allows for more than one image for some storms. There could be a warning near the link warning slower computers about the size of the article. Would this be a better solution than removing them all? Some can probably stay, but even every hurricane could get a little much. In addition, this solves the problems for when images are too big for the paragraphs. E. Brown and Jdorje, is this a suitable compromise? Hurricanehink 21:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technical limitations are a concern, but we cannot let them dominate - users with poor connections can always turn off images. Or to put it another way, technical limitations are the reason for the wikipedia guideline that pages should not be over 35k. If you violate this (which those two articles do), you cannot blame it on the pictures when the page loads slowly; the 35k limit is no doubt chosen in part because with a reasonable number of pictures pages larger than that will load slowly on poor connections. Jdorje 21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Since I am fine with any way, I'll let you and Eric battle it out! I just don't want to see another button bar fiasco. Hurricanehink 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jdorje, why do you want pictures for every storm? What value do they hold? If you want each hurricane season article to be a frigging picture gallery, that can be arranged! The text is and should be the most important part of the article. The text tells the story, the pictures tell little. I'm not saying remove all of them, I'm saying at least remove the ones for menial tropical storms. Also, you are basically telling people with sucky computers to go to Hell. The pictures are largely to blame for slow load time. The text is very light. The pictures ARE NOT the focus of the article. What about that fails to go through? Wikipedia is not a frigging picture book. Geez, this is ridiculous. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For most storms the picture is more useful than the majority of the storm history. For the Template:Tcseason and Template:Tcseason the amount of text is much larger than the pictures, so the text still does dominate. Including pictures to accompany the text performs many useful functions that make the article more enjoyable to read. And what's the disadvantage? As far as I can tell, the only drawback is that it makes the page load more slowly. But pages that are too big are going to load too slowly anyway, and you can't blame pictures for that. My question is: why wouldn't we want pictures for every storm??? This is an encyclopedia after all, and wikipedia is not paper. Jdorje 23:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! I have found a website that, provided no one is angry about it, allows me to get pics for every Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane back to 1983. The website, located here, has archived data of satellite imagery for 6 times a day, every day, for 22 years. It isn't limited to the Atlantic either. Most days have imagery of the Eastern Pacific, Eastern Atlantic, Western Pacific, and parts of the Indian Ocean. Hurricanehink 17:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap! That's amazing! That's really, really awesome. The point you should take away from this rant is that it's really cool!
Now, first of all I found and uploaded a pic for the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone: Image:Cyclone_1991_04_29_05_29.jpg. This image isn't that great, and it taught me that the false-color IR images (which are what you've been using) are a lot better than the visible-light images, since (1) they work at night and (2) they have less distortion from the high angle; compare the above image to the IR image. Secondly, I'll note that because all the satellites are geosynchronous, many storms will have a steep angle. However because they're geosynchronous, we can use some image magic (or ImageMagick) and create animated gifs really easily! I'll try to work up a system for doing so and get back to you. Jdorje 22:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and glad you liked it. Hopefully the gifs will work, cause that would be insane for any article! Got a bit of a problem, though. I am currently on 1998 for images for each storm, and there is an image of four simultaneoushurricanes. It works for the article, but what do we do with the image for each storm? Hurricanehink 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Sample article

Do we have a sample article yet? Should it be a season or a specific storm? I saw that notice on one or two other WikiProjects, and wondered if we should as well. Also, should some of this page be archived? It's very long (100 Kb). Hurricanehink 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Hurricane Dennis, it's the supposed FAC. We need one for seasons too...maybe one sample for each basin. As for archives, I believe some archiving has already been done. However any *discussion* archived should first have its results put in the appropriate place on the wikiproject page. Jdorje 03:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea for Dennis. For seasons, it should be 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, 1997 Pacific hurricane season, not sure about WPAC, 2000-2004 North Indian cyclone seasons, and 2004-05 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. Since some of the discussion is still ongoing, I'll leave it as is for now. Hurricanehink 15:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why not? And where should it go and how should it be aligned? Jdorje 03:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Userbox

{{User WPTC}} gives

This user is a member of the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject.

NSLE (T+C+CVU) 10:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying trying to add it to my user page but it conflicts with my contents box. Is there a way to fix this? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive

Hurricane Katrina has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote and help us bring it up to featured standard! Vote here. --Fenice 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones&oldid=33610157"