Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season

ACE

Should we remove ACE as the section is unsourced? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't have to be sourced, it's only Math. There is no reason to delete it. United States Man (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It is math, but not routine math, see WP:CALC. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This explains the importance of ACE. It (along with number of storms) helps classify how active a season is. United States Man (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, but do we have a source for storm by storm ACE in the EPAC? That is my main concern. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That does seem to be a problem. I haven't found anything but I'll keep looking. United States Man (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I did find this just after I saved the last comment. It has everything about this year's storms, including ACE. United States Man (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that reference, is that its based on the operational data and not updated on best track data when its available.Jason Rees (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is better than nothing. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It gives an Accumulated Cyclone Energy value that differs from some of the ones we have at /ACE calcs. It's simple math, not much you can do to source it. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

For once I actually agree with TropicalAnalystwx13, it really is just simple math. I trust that there are enough editors on wikipedia that can keep it straight (even without a source). United States Man (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not really simple math IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with YE. Simple math is having a source that says 7 deaths in Mexico and 2 deaths in Texas, and then adding them together. Doing ACE is much more involved, summing the squares of every intensity above 33 kts. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple math or not, it still doesn't need to be deleted. United States Man (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It does if we can not find a source. The NCDC fixes the problem for 2000-08 and 2012, but what about other seasons? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't fix the problem since NCDC is only preliminary. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How do we know that? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It clearly says "The (ACE) Index calculations are based on preliminary data." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I also looked at the data reports for 2010 which state the exact same phrase.Jason Rees (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, ok, thanks for telling me. Still, it is better than nothing, after all, we could also source that and leave a note saying it is not based on post-storm reviews. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that what Yellow Even said would be the best way to do it. United States Man (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

But that is impractical. In the Atlantic, that would've excluded one entire storm last year. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

@Hink - Well what do you propose we do then? United States Man (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What I've been proposing for years - only have seasonal ACE numbers unless a reputable source has the ACE reflecting the best track. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could do that (or just leave it as is and drop the whole issue). United States Man (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Except we have no source for EPAC seasonal ACE. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We can use this for if a season was below, normal, or above average. Isn't that what ACE is mainly used for? Comparing seasons? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Does it include CPHC's AOR storms? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No. 2002 for example is listed right around 100, but our total lists 101 for the EPAC proper (which checks out), with 23 in the CPAC. We can still use that to say what seasons were classified as below, normal, and above average for EPAC proper. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, see 1994 PHS, where that source says it was below normal, but if you add the CPAC ACE in, it is not below-average. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the RFC is over. What should we do? I still think ACE should be removed since there is no source for it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid we have to remove it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 13:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Got these: [1], [2]. Not sure they will work but it is something. United States Man (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

These are nowhere near reliable sources. Sorry. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I knew that. A blog and forum are the worst things but I will keep looking for sources. United States Man (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks more promising. But I still am not sure. United States Man (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do any reputable sources link to that site, or to him? Is there any evidence he's correct? And, for that matter, does he account for updates after the TCR's come out? Also, for me, the site said "Find someone's arrest record" in an ad at the top. And by the way, why should we add totals for each storm? The purpose of ACE is mainly for the energy of an entire season. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He has a PHD, but AFAIK, he uses indeterminate advs when counting ACE. The data also used the ATCF, something that is unoffical until 2013. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by why the ACE section keeps being removed, most recently because it supposedly contains original research. It's been allowed in 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, so the rules are obviously being enforced inconsistently in one article or the other. Also, as has been noted previously, it's not really original research since the numbers are calculated from the NOAA's advisories. Skimming this long conversation, the rationale seems to boil down to one of two things:

1. We might be doing the math wrong
2. We are forced to remove this useful information even though the math is probably correct and the data it's derived from is not original research because, since this exact table does not appear on the NOAA's website, we aren't allowed to derive it ourselves. We must blindly and dogmatically follow Wikipedia's sourcing policy to the letter, without regard for its intention, because the founding policymakers were infallible. There is no room for common sense exceptions, or to evaluate if the narrow, literal application of a policy is good for Wikipedia on a case-by-case basis.

I think there's a clear and obvious difference between original research and "original math". So let's be clear here: is the objection to this table the fact that the math might be in error, or are we actually, honestly saying that a properly calculated table from well-sourced non-original research is not allowed? DOSGuy (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've supported the Accumulated Cyclone Energy section ever since I joined Wikipedia. The problem here, after talking with my fellow project members, is not whether or not the math is in error, it's the fact that they cannot find a reliable site to source the math. I don't think its needed either way since, as you said, it is non-original research. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I want a project consensus that it is WP:CALC. Once we get that, then, I have a proposal. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The only reason it keeps getting removed is because Yellow Evan doesn't want it on there. It seems to me that he thinks that he runs the show and whatever he says goes. I have come up with several sources for ACE but he keeps dismissing them because he obviously doesn't want it on there. As TropicalAnalystwx13 said, it is not original research and does not need a source. United States Man (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should get it's own section. As for the sources, you provided, they are a ) not reliable or b) uses ATCF/operational data. It is debatable on whether it is WP:CALC. Because of this, I opened a straw poll. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

There are many reasons why we don't have ACE. First, few organizations list the individual totals for each storms' ACE; the metric is meant to be the sum of the entire season (or for a month, in some instances). Second, it is not yet a well-known or commonly used metric for the individual storms, so therefore it becomes trivial if we cannot find someone who lists each total for each storm. Third, if it is indeed considered CALC, then there needs to be a source for every advisory in the season article. I argue it is not CALC, as it is hardly routine to go through the best track and only include the advisories when a system is a tropical storm or hurricane, thus requiring the manual effort in not including all tropical depressions, subtropical cyclones, lows, tropical waves (they are included in the best track), and extratropical cyclones. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The first and second parts of your response do not apply if it is indeed WP:CALC. To respond to your last sentence, Accumulated Cyclone Energy is only measured for fully tropical cyclones...you know that. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)A tropical depression is a tropical cyclone though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It applies to the argument if we should include ACE in the first place, regardless if it is CALC. As for my final point, what are we using to source ACE when the storms get their TCR's? The Best track? If so, then it is much more than simple calculation of getting the storm's best track data and using the ACE formula. We can only include for when it's a fully tropical storm or hurricane, not all of the other storms that are included in HURDAT. How can you argue it is CALC for a storm like Nadine in the Atlantic, which would not be routine in the slightest (given subtropical and extratropical portions) to even get the data in the first place? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

We should be using the MWR/BT but for some reason, that is regularly unsourced. To me, ACE is more or less all or none. I think the most important think when it comes to ACE is consistency. Should we have it for all EPAC seasons or none? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is largely the point of this discussion. As for my argument, even if we use the BT, we still have to manually, and quite un-routinely, go through and pick out what data points even apply for ACE. A storm like Nadine or Kyle 02, for example, would not be routine in the least. I suppose I can see some validity in the argument that adding the sums of whatever the ACE metric is would be routine, but if the source is the best track, then that isn't applicable by any means, since the best track includes many points that aren't usable for ACE. Furthermore, we can't solely use the BT and assume 35 kt when not extratropical or subtropical is good for ACE, with the advent of post-tropical storms (but not extratropical, as shown with Erin 07 and Laura 08). I am merely including these Atlantic examples because I am more familiar with that basin. However, I think the argument can be applied for any NHC storms. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify my last sentence, since it could be seen as confusing, imagine some outsider wishes to verify our claim. Assuming we cite the best track (which we don't always do), they'll have to go through the specific season, only include the data points for when a storm was a TS or Hurricane (thus ignoring about 20% of data points that are TD, SS, ET, or Low), then getting those totals. I'd hardly call that routine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's worth to include what the policy says WP:CALC is:

Routine calculations do not count as original research.  Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units,
or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the 
calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources.

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Following a bru-ha-ha on IRC, I do not think ACE should get its own section, though I remain sure on whether it is WP:CALC. Therefore, I have two options. We put a mention of it in the season summary or we put it in the season effect chart. If we agree to keep ACE the way it is, I suggest including IKE or HSI as well, since AFAIK they have similar useage. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

ACE is a different enough feature to have its own section separate of the others, and is more commonly used as opposed to HSI and IKE. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

But how they're obtained are similar. I agree ACE shouldn't have its own section. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

ACE is a good way to summarize the season, so it IMO goes in the season summary. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that the whole table should go there or just the overall total? United States Man (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Both. But in order for me to support that, we have to agree that ACE meets WP:CALC, something which Hurricanehink highly disagrees with, though there appears to be a marginal consensus for atm. The reason why I have been removing them is because WPTC agreed last year that it was not WP:CALC, and I felt it was fair to remove them. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess one reason that I think it is simple is because I was the top person in math every year in school, so it seems easy. I do calculate it differently though, I just simply multiply knots by knots (ex: 45*45) and put a zero in front of the answer, unless it is 100 kt or above. I would figure that others do it this way as well. Anyway, back on subject, I continue to look for some kind of source but it doesn't look likely at this point. United States Man (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on being the top person in math every year at school. I'm fine with what I said earlier if we can agree it is WP:CALC. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I continue to be frustrated that ACE appears on the Atlantic page while we debate whether it should appear on all or none of the Eastern Pacific pages. The template on the Atlantic links to a lovely Talk subpage that records the wind speed for each advisory for each storm. If wind speed > 39 mph but the number shouldn't be included in the calculation, it helpfully records "Subtrop" or "Post-trop" in the ACE column. The question in my mind is, is this sufficient to justify an ACE section on the Atlantic page? If it is, why can't we do the same for the EPac page? DOSGuy (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is no ACE on the WPAC, AUS, SPAC, NIO , or SPAC seasonal pages either. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I brought up the discussion on the Atlantic talk page, pointing to this discussion as well. As for what United States Man said, it isn't that simple for some outsider though. If someone were to try and cite that, they'd have to go to the best track, then we have to tell someone to avoid including tropical depressions, extratropical storms, subtropical storms, and lows, before they are to even to go about adding up the sums of that calculation. It isn't simply a matter of adding up the calculated totals, but they have to manually go line by line and only include the totals for over 34 knots. Just try to imagine someone else attempting to figure it out. I don't think it's simple or routine by any means. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My perspective will tend to be different because I'm a programmer. I would just write a script to do it, and it really would be trivial to ignore wind speeds < 34 knots and when the storm is subtropical or post-tropical. If this isn't a reasonable method, and ACE calcs should only be listed as a system-wide total after the season ends, then I just ask that we also remove the section from the Atlantic page for consistency. DOSGuy (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

But is that truly basic arithmetic, by making a script to ignore subtropical, post-tropical, and winds of less than 34 knots, in addition to the math required to get the formula? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

FTR, even if ACE got brought back here, we'd still have no consistency. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm the main person who is against how we're doing it, I have a proposal. Part of my beef (and, it seems for Yellow Evan, too) is that we devote an entire section to ACE. What if we did something like this in, say, the season summary:

The current Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) for the season is 85.7475 for the basin east of 140 ºW, and 0.1225 for the Central Pacific Ocean.

The wording could be fixed, since it could appear in several articles (every current article and EPAC season article). There should also be a source for the ACE formula somewhere in there, but it's a start. What does everyone think of that? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. If we are going to use the subpage to source ACE then why not include the rest of the info on that page. Unless I've missed something, I am still not sure what you have against ACE having its own section, besides WP:CALC. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that NHC and NOAA never list ACE totals for each storm. ACE is mostly used for season and monthly totals. I honestly don't think that even if we had a direct source for each storm's ACE total that we should have a section for that. The season article has a section for each storm and sometimes a season summary. Why should there be a complete section on something as arbitrary as the sums of squares of all tropical storms' intensities. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hink, are you opposed to storm ACE being in the SS if it was sourced? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

For each individual storm? Yea, I think that's pretty trivial. We don't include IKE or HSI. As I said, the NHC and NOAA never list ACE for each individual storm (NCDC does, but only for preliminary data, and that's mentioned with every other storm, not as its own section). I think it puts undue weight on a rather random metric, honestly. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this idea for once. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that idea yes. atomic7732 02:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me as well. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll:Is ACE WP:CALC

Yes

1. 75.180.62.109 (talk)
2. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
3. United States Man (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
4. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
5. Prosfilaes (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
6. Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 12:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No

1. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
2. Jason Rees (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
3. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Using Data for Storms

An edit war has recently flared up over whether the information on Tropical Storm Aletta should be based off of operational advisories or the best track during the season (at the end of the season it is based on TCRs). My question is, which selection of data should be used? --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 16:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Best track. In reliability, it goes TCR > BT > Operational > ATCF. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Aletta's ATCF file was edited the day after it reached its peak, and this is consistent with its BT, but operational advisories say different. I still think it's a good idea to use operational advisories until the Tropical Cyclone Report comes out as the data in the BT could easily be revised. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So could the TCR. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but the TCR is less prone to intensity changes as opposed to Best Track, especially for a storm that has only been gone for less than three months. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

TCR's sometimes comes out less than three months after a storm is dead. Either way, the fact that it is prone to changes is a non-issue, after all, this is a wiki and things can be changed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So then you understand that we should use the operational advisory information until the TCR comes out, correct? By the way..."All PDF reports and a seasonal track map will be available after the season ends". TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is that the Best Track data for Aletta cannot be cited yet because it is only available in .KMZ and .ZIP format. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would it not able to be cited? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)We don't use the running best track. We use operational data until the TCR comes out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) has always used the running best track (not the ATCF). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Only for track maps, since that format is easier for him than using the individual advisories. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

He used the BT here .YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That was two years ago YE, I'm pretty sure standards have changed since that time. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the Operational Best Track is subject to change until the TCR is out so it's not set in stone. That said, for storm intensity, unless an upgrade is made in the running best track after the fact, it's best to use the operational data to avoid confusion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Aletta's intensity was upgraded, which is what started this edit war. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It was updated, not upgraded. If a storm was upgraded to a hurricane, or something major like that, that would warrant changing it, but otherwise I think we should use operational until TCR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Were there any changed to Daniel? ATCF had it at 95 knots, is it 100 knts in the BT. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It was 95 knots in ATCF, but the operational advisory put it at a 100 knot major hurricane. There's another reason ATCF should not be used... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Did the BT put it at 100 knots? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should use the operational data. United States Man (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should use the RBT since the information is released 12-24 hours after a storm is affixed in a certain position, and is thus revised. --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 01:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The advisories are seen by millions and republished by newspapers across the world. The TCR is thoroughly analyzed and becomes official. The RBT, although it does come from the NHC, can be liable to change, and although the RBT is the basis for the BT, it does not become the BT until the analysis done meticulously by the professionals in the TCR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus via WPTC IRC has been that "only NHC basins will use operational advisories, followed by their Tropical Cyclone Reports, unless a major, significant category change has occurred (TD/TS; TS/H), in which the RBT will be used." We are seeking any additional input to make this "guideline" for intensity input final. --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 02:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember that advisories are released at 0300Z, 0900Z, 1500Z and 2100Z, while RBT has data points for 0000Z, 0600Z, 1200Z, and 1800Z. The intensities do not necessarily have to match up along all points due to the 3-hour offset. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

TAM, per WP:OFF, IRC can not used as a consensus, BTW. Tito, you are correct. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

YE, you even agreed to it on IRC. The people who had the initial disagreement were all on IRC when the discussion ended. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, I did, and I still agree to it as a compromise. All I said is that IRC cant be used as a consensus (unless the rules have changed since then) and that Tito is correct on how advisories are released. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, I believe that the TCR is out for Aletta. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OT: We are kinda screwed

I know this is kinda off-topic. but I am putting it here as there is likely more interest. Recently, I gave all EPAC seasons an article back to 1949. However, I am concerned about notability for the 1953 Pacific hurricane season, one of our newer season articles. None of the storm affect land or any ships, there is no MWR, no CPHC report, so we are down to two sources, and none outside the EPAC book and HURDAT. Google search gives me junk. After talking to Hurricanehink (talk · contribs), he initially said to merge 1953 with List of Pacific hurricane season, but the actual storm summaries would be lost, hence its not a merge, it just is a redirect. He also said that a merge into 1950-1954 Pacific hurricane seasons could help, but that borders WP:NOT, not to mention that IMO 1950 and 1951 are article-worth along with maybe 1952 and 1954. I personally feel its best to Ignore all rules and wait and see. Anyone have any thoughts on this? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we had talked at some point having Tropical cyclones in 2002. If we have that for every year going back to, say, 1950, we could include that there? That'd be a solution for other season articles that have minimal activity. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that could be a dab page. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline Symbols

Why do we have to keep going over this.... Even if someone is impaired, they can easily scroll down the page and see the storms themselves for their intensity (it clearly states at the top of the hurricane infoboxes their intensity). The timeline is mainly for the season duration, not their intensity. The storm bars are just color coded for a better effect. WP:Accessibility only applies for pages that give information through color ONLY (in this pages case). The 2012 Pacific hurricane season article clearly states more than enough times each storms intensity. Removing them is a good thing, so there is no clutter and no repeating information. STO12 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

How can someone scroll down if they are impaired? Am I going insane? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If they are that impaired, then why are they on a computer? STO12 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone non-impared opened the 2012 PHS page for them. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Then they would be the ones scrolling down and doing the work for them. Such as reading to them and telling them information. STO12 (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

When I meant discuss it on the talk page, I meant the WP:ACCESS talk page. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

TAWX, a better place than that IMO WP:WPACCESS's talk page. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry....I guess it is here for now. STO12 (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What if that person left the room when the impaired read it :P either way, that's irrelvant. WP:ACCESS states "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

And the timeline isn't the only source of that information on the page. They can easily find the information below on the article. Also, basing something around "what ifs", isn't a very good argument. You are simply making up something that you think might occur, which makes your response irrelevant. STO12 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I am certainly no expert, but a very low percentage of the population have impaired vision and I am not sure that they would be worring about hurricanes that form out in the middle of nowhere. But, just in case there is someone, I would be pretty sure that a non-impaired person would be doing most of the reading. United States Man (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So what? FTR, This article is highly viewed, it gets nearly 8,000 views a quarter. I imagine 10 or so of them is blind and does not have someone reading it for them. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why in the world would someone be on a compter by themselves if they are blind. It doesn't make any sense. STO12 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

They may just be blind to one color. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if they are blind to one color, they can scroll down and find the storm's intensities. STO12 (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that it is still required by WP:ACCESS. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It kind of does, if the same information is displayed in text for special readers, then it doesn't apply for these articles. STO12 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is redundant, then, why does it exist in the first place? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, I wasn't the person who added it. United States Man (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither was I. It is redundant in this case because it doesn't apply here. STO12 (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If Yellow Evan insists on adding this then the entire timeline might as well be taken off because it is so cluttered that you can't read it. United States Man (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be in the timeline pages only. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually that isn't a bad idea...the symbols can be added to the Timeline articles because there is no other information that expresses the storm intensities. We can place the symbols on the Timeline articles....but NOT the main season articles. We can place them on the Timeline articles only if the timelines on them are spaced enough that it is readable. STO12 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I also think the graph should be removed on the season page (not the timeline page), save seasons without a timeline. It will give us an excuse to keep timelines :) YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that statement (finally). United States Man (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds...okayish.....I still think the timeline should stay on the main season article, it just looks nice. What do you mean by "an excuse for keeping the timeline"? Are they in danger or something? D: STO12 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The only thing they are in danger of is being screwed up by those symbols (but I think that is resolved now). United States Man (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Lol..yeah...I think that we have....do you agree YE? That no symbols on season pages, symbols on timeline pages? Or do we need to continue discussing it? STO12 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorta, but I'd like to see further discussion of this. And yes, timeline are in danger of being deleted (or at least were). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 2000 Atlantic hurricane season. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't really any danger there, I saw one vote to delete and very many votes to keep. United States Man (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but we need to reach a consensus. For now we will go with the "no symbols on main season page, yes symbols on timeline pages" idea. We can still discuss if you want. STO12 (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with "no timelines on season page, yes timelines and symbols on timeline pages". USM, Hurricanehink's voice can go a long way in this project. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was Jason Rees who had the comment that I saw. I agree with our agreement. This should probably be moved, it's getting a little silly. United States Man (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That would have to be a whole other discussion YE. This discussion was only for the symbols...so our consensus on that is "NO symbols on the main season page, YES symbols on the Timeline page". STO12 (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with that consensus, but since there are only three of us, we will need to spread the word to others. United States Man (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'd prefer ""no timelines on season page, yes timelines and symbols on timeline pages"". I do not feel there is a full consensus yet. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I, as well, feel that there is only a partial consensus. United States Man (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I'd like to see 1 or 2 more comments from more global editors. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Me as well. United States Man (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yellow Evan is running in circles. He says the impaired are on there themselves, then he says that a non-impaired person might have stepped out of the room (a ridiculous excuse), and now he is back to the impaired people being on the computer themselves. I know a blind person and that person has someone with them at all times. United States Man (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I know right, I know someone blind too, and they have a person help them all the time, she even has one of those special dogs....Anyways, if YE will continue to run circles around us, then the argument for yes or no to symbols will have to be a no. STO12 (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. United States Man (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said when this came up in the Atlantic season page, we don't have "C1", "TD", "TS", etc. written next to every dot on the track maps, so I think the same principle applies here. If we add the information on the timeline, then the strength also needs to be posted next to the dots on the trakc maps (which would be ridiculous looking as is adding the symbols on the timeline). WP:ACCESS specificially says, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." If we adhere strictly to the rules, should we have the symbols in the timeline? Yes. But if we adhere strictly to the rules, we should have the strength listed next to every dot on the track maps. Both of these, in my opinion are perfect examples of those "common sense" exceptions to the guideline. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120621000228/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/06/18/death-toll-rises-to-3-from-hurricane-in-mexico/ to http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/06/18/death-toll-rises-to-3-from-hurricane-in-mexico/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

2012 Southern California hurricane remnants listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2012 Southern California hurricane remnants. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)