Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

List of most costliest tropical cyclones without an article

I know we did this before, but I think one should be written here again for each basin. We should make a list of the top 10 most costliest tropical cyclones without an article for each basin. Or maybe the atlantic should be 10, and the rest 5. Then maybe that table/list could be moved to the article requests page. Is this reasonable? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 00:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I know Tropical Storm Doria from 1971 is the costliest U.S. without an article, followed by Beryl (1994) and I think Isbell (1964). However, a more interesting list would be the costliest tropical cyclone articles that are not at least GA class. That would be Wilma ($18 billion), Rita ($10 billion), Fran ($3.2 billion), Frederic ($2.3 billion), Agnes ($2.1 billion), Alicia ($2 billion), Lili ($860 million), Diane ($831 million), Bonnie ($720 million), and Erin ($700 million). Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You forgot Alma (1966). That was $210 million and 90 dead. Maybe someone should make an article for it. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No I didn't. Besides, that list isn't important. We should concentrate on the costliest tropical cyclone articles that are not at least GA class. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh whoops. Some reason there was no link to the article from the season page. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 17:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Weird. For some reason, a user removed it a few weeks ago. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A discussion for the grading procedure

Once and for all, people seem to have some trouble with what determines what class for storm articles. We should discuss to have a firm set of rules, not just opinionated. Here's my take on it.

  • Stub class- No structure, only brief storm history or impact.
  • Start class- Some structure, brief impact of less than 1 paragraph
  • B class- Decent structure, at least one paragraph for each impact area, inline sourcing, includes preparation
  • GA class- Include metric units, preparation and aftermath if it exists, the primary impact area has at least 2 paragraphs, passed GA Nomination
  • A class- Everything is fully mentioned, impact section has multiple sub-sections by area that are complete, cite web formatting, has at least one picture (excluding infobox and storm path pics), should be nearly ready for FAC
  • FA class- Passed FAC

Yes, this only works for storms with an impact section, but we can discuss the non-impacting ones another time. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's great! We should write the grading rules for seasons and impacting storms on the main WikiProject page. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Is anyone else opposed to those simple guidelines for storms that had a significant impact section? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd add: "Some external links provided" as a requirement for start class (to NHC archives or similar).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. We should really enforce references. Though some is a bit vague, it's good enough. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, according to hink, none of these, {{fact}}, should be in a B-class article (see Talk: Hurricane Keith). So we should mention that for B-class guidelines, I guess. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 16:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It is. Under the B class criteria, it says inline sourcing. By definition if you have complete inline sourcing, there'll be no {{fact}}s. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So... are we gonna make this official and post it on the main page? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess. No one opposed it. Where should it go? --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
On the assessment page, in a section called "Assessment guidelines"? That would seem sensible.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking. I added it in. Next, we should discuss some firm rules for seasons and non-impacting articles. We discussed seasons a bit earlier, but not into too much depth. Here's my thinking.
  • Stub class- Not every storm is mentioned.
  • Start class- Every storm is mentioned with at least one sentence
  • B class- Every storm has a full section. A full section has a storm history with starting and ending dates and the genesis for the storm, along with an impact section. For storms with sub-articles, there should be 2 to 3 paragraphs in the storm section.
  • GA class- The entire article has inline sourcing, passed GA nomination
  • A class- The article includes seasonal forecasts and a season activity section?
  • FA class- ???
A class and FA class I wasn't sure about. Seeing as 2005 is the only FA, it might not be the best example, due to it having an usual layout for storms. For non-impacting, I probably shouldn't say my thoughts, as I don't believe non-impacting storms should be higher than GA class. I know this contradicts with two TC FA's, but I stand by what I say. The GA system is for articles that shouldn't be FA's in the future. When I say non-impacting, I mean storms that don't have a significant impact. This is what I think.
  • Stub class- Poor structure, little storm history. Merging should be considered.
  • Start class- Decent structure. Good storm history, but little outside of the storm history
  • B class- Good storm history, and at least one good section outside of the storm history. Other sections include either records or naming.
  • GA class- Inline sourcing, passed good article nomination
Anyone else want to take a try? --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The obvious way to do the minor storms is to avoid the issue and use the impacting grading scheme; Arlene (2005) probably has enough information to reach higher-than-GA on those criteria, why should we make an exception on the minors. "Should be merged" cannot really be expressed in terms of just the articles quality, it also depends on the quality of the merge target (the season article) so should be case by case IMO. No one is seriously going to FAC TS Lee (though it might pass), as it is not clear what FA is. If and when there is a wider consensus on what FA actually is for shorter articles then we can decide (theres no reason why Lee cannot be in the highest article quality class, though it may not be FA'able).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that works. The reason I put "should be merged" is because a poorly written, short, stub article on a non-impacting should probably not have an article. Case by case works. Hmm, good point about being as good as possible. I just feel that there's two types of articles; those that can become FA's and those that can't. For those that can't, GA is the highest quality class. For other articles that have a lot more information, that isn't the case. Before we get into this discussion/argument, is the season guidelines fine? --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean a poorly written stub should not be an article - theres no reason why the storm itself cannot have an article if its substantially better IMO. Lets not debate the quality class stuff now, GA is the highest there is consensus that the fishies can be, lets leave it at that. On seasonal articles I think the Stub up to B is fine. The problem is we need to get more up to that standard to see what GA standards are really. It seems like track-maps might well need to come in at GA or A level where possible. We have to many different styles to seasonal articles to give real criteria for the higher classes at this time.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
A poorly written stub for a fish storm should be merged unless it was decently written or a little longer. Seasonal articles are difficult, you're right. However, we should decide on some criteria for season articles, so we know what to do. At the very least, I propose that A class for season articles include pre-season predictions, season summary, complete inline sourcing, storm pics and paths. I have no idea what should occur other than that, though more is needed. --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, personally, I do not consider an aftermath section as absolutely necessary for some articles (c.f. Nora), and I wouldn't downgrade an article for not having that section if there was no considerable aftermath. However, in a case where there obviously was (such as Hurricane Ivan), it may warrant downgrading. As for the seasonal article, everything looks good, except the addition of pre-season predictions, which are not available for older seasons, and which really are the cherry on the cake. Titoxd(?!?)
True, if there is no preparations or aftermath, you can't hold it against it. I'm just thinking for some new Atlantic ones, like Ivan. The aftermath is pretty important some times, but 8 out of the 12 retired hurricanes since 2003 don't have aftermath sections. Katrina, Rita, and Wilma are pretty good, and Ivan only has a paragraph. I just think that's one thing that should be pushed for a little but more. Yea, that sucks about pre-season predictions. That is mainly for new articles. How else should we differentiate a GA season article with an FA? --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambigs

I know that we give the main page to retired storms or single use names. This means that Hurricane Celia is the retired Atlantic storm of 1970 and Hurricane Celia (disambiguation) is the disambig. However most names are not that simple, for example Katrina. There were several Atlantic/E Pac storms (in addition to 2005's) and one southern hemisphere cyclone called Katrina. This means that the disambig is placed at the location neutral Tropical Storm Katrina (disambiguation). However in this case is the (disambiguation) necessary? I think Tropical Storm Katrina should be the disambig location and not a redirect to the disambig. Any comments?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, the main article should be for the retired storm. Otherwise, it might get confusing, like for storms like Allison and Thelma. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Should have explained it slightly clearer. Basically I'm saying the (disambiguation) should only be used when necessary, in the case of Celia only Atlantic/EPac storms were called Celia so Hurricane Celia (disambiguation) is appropriate but for Katrina, Hurricane Katrina is the main article and Tropical Storm Katrina should be the disambig as opposed to Tropical Storm Katrina (disambiguation). In the case of Allison, Tropical Storm Allison should be the main article and Tropical Storm Allison (disambiguation) the disambig.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but I think when the name is retired, it should have every main article. What if people remember a storm, but don't remember it was a hurricane, so they type in Tropical Storm Floyd, for example. That might happen for someone in New England, and there'd be no reason to link to the disambiguation page. It really doesn't matter either way. Plus, the disambiguation pages don't even need that much attention. I doubt many people even go into them. They're more like storage sheds that few need to look through. Why clean them when no one will notice? --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, they would reach the disambig and realise the error - it does its purpose. It is sensible that they are set up correctly for the editors, if the disambigs are all correct, a new article on a storm won't go on the main page if it is inappropriate (the disambig will be there). Getting the disambigs correct is part of making naming policy consistent for the main articles, which is beneficial (if very tedious).--Nilfanion (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
But they could avoid the error by simply having Tropical Storm Floyd redirect to Hurricane Floyd. I don't know, does anyone else have an opinion? --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A question on categories here. Now we have a decent listing of Southern Hemisphere TCs, we probably need to sort this out. Seeing as the discussion on 2005-06 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season was not against a split (probably is was in favor if anything), perhaps splitting up the categories into the 3 regions - having Category:2005-06 Southwest Indian Ocean cyclone season, Category:2005-06 Australian cyclone season and Category:2005-06 South Pacific cyclone season as sub-cats of Category: 2005-06 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season would be sensible? Also Category: Pre-1980 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons should be split up greatly as a result. This would facilitate a split at some future point if and when we want to; I just don't want do a major recategorization without some sort of agreement to it (as it would take a lot of effort to undo).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would oppose more organization to categories, so that sounds great. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it always enables better coverage if and when we get more information after all, when Pre-1980 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons becomes unmanagably large...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

article watch page

Can we create a page similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire/muncarticlewatch? If you look at the page, you'll see what it's for (too hard for me to explain in my current mood). If we create one, the info for a hurricane article may solve assessment class disputes. What do you say? But it's gonna take multiple people to keep the page current. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That would really cool. Good idea Icelandic Hurricane! The only problem I can see is that it would be a little long (NH has 258 articles, we have 697). We could split it up by area; having Atlantic, EPAC, WPAC, NIO, Southern Hemispher, and other. If that were the case, it wouldn't be too long. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
And in the categories EPAC, Atlantic, WPAC,NIO, SHEM, and other, we can have subcategories separating the storms and the seasons. Also, will need a category for non-storm or season articles, like Tropical cyclone and the SSHS. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Just use comments at the Assessment table, or wait a bit until the "comments" portion of the project stabilizes and becomes semi-permanent, and add them there. Titoxd(?!?) 06:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh cool, I forgot we had that page. That works well, too. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Redesign suggestion for Template:HurricaneActive

I thought to myself that, especially on the season pages, the fact that to find information to a storm (the current box) that someone has to scroll down to get the information in the section can be a bit difficult to some that just pop in here, looking for the latest information. Also I felt the current shape does mess the text up somewhat.

I decided to make a test redesign, in a horizontal bar (similar to Template:HurricaneWarning) which should always be placed at the top of a season page or storm article page (right with the Current tab), with links to the details below. The template is at Template:HurricaneActiveExperimental, and there are four examples on the talk page. CrazyC83 00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... I like it; we should use it. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
That's certainly an interesting concept but that layout is flawed. It lists less relevant information to the storm, is (to me) less readable and too colorful compared to the existing one and less flexible (theres a reason that it was expanded to include 1 min, 10 min and gusts). Nevermind some more minor problems, what happens when there are 3 active storms in a season? I don't see a problem with the current template for the seasonal page, maybe it should be reduced in width to be comparable to the small box though. However for the active storms, there is a need for a revision; having both HurricaneActive and Infobox hurricane in an article really messes things up. For Active storms it might be best to just comment out Infobox hurricane and put the storm pic in the storm history and put the HurricaneActive at the top of the article.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If there are multiple active storms, both charts are put together at the top of the page (if neither has a separate article). I never got into those other measurements yet as it is experimental. CrazyC83 21:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Or modify HurricaneActive so it looks more like Infobox hurricane? Titoxd(?!?) 21:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy FARC

Just so everyone knows, someone put Cyclone Tracy up for Featured Article Review, and so far 2 people voted for its removal. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

About time really. Cyclone Tracy isn't FA-Class, I'm not sure if it would pass a GAN in its current state. If it does get removed does B-Class sound about right?--Nilfanion (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea that works. --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cyclone Tracy--Nilfanion (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Track maps!

Ivan - new scheme
Map key
Saffir–Simpson scale
  Tropical depression (≤38 mph, ≤62 km/h)
  Tropical storm (39–73 mph, 63–118 km/h)
  Category 1 (74–95 mph, 119–153 km/h)
  Category 2 (96–110 mph, 154–177 km/h)
  Category 3 (111–129 mph, 178–208 km/h)
  Category 4 (130–156 mph, 209–251 km/h)
  Category 5 (≥157 mph, ≥252 km/h)
  Unknown
Storm type
triangle Extratropical cyclone, remnant low, tropical disturbance, or monsoon depression

I've managed to figure out how to use Jdorje's program, so I can start actually doing track maps now. Also (I hope Jdorje doesn't mind), I've altered the code slightly. My changes:

  1. Updating to the new color scheme.
  2. Changing the triangles and squares from equal-area with the circles to being the inscribed shapes.

I've uploaded Hurricane Ivan's track with this scheme before I go mad^H^H^H replace the new files. What do people think of the changes?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Are you gonna re-upload ones that already exist before you do brand new ones that have never had a track map? Because I have several track map requests (see User talk:Jdorje#Track map requests). Good luck! íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
While you're at it, Ophelia's TCR was updated with a new track that takes it over Nova Scotia just after becoming extratropical. Can you do her track? -- RattleMan 14:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And Dennis, too! I'm not sure what they changed, but they changed something. I guess we'll need to update the season summary pic. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll be redoing every track in Commons:Category:Tropical cyclone tracks. Before I start work on it however, is the test image OK? I'm wondering if the square/circle are a bit too small now actually.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
They're fine. And whoa, I didn't know they would still be making changes to the TCR's did they do any others? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated all the named storms of the 2004 and 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasons to use the "new" color scheme. Any criticisms, bring them up now before I do the rest of the Atlantic track maps. PS Ophelia is updated accordingly.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll hold off here for a couple days (we have 2 seasons to demonstrate) to make sure we get the best that is possible now, not later. One comment having looked at them so far, I think we should seperate the "low" from "subtropical" classes. IMO, the subtropical data points should be highlighted more (ie make them bigger triangles) so they are roughly comparable to the tropical circles in size. I can recompile the program to do that easily, but best to do it now before I upload too much.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
They could also be a different shape, such as a star. I do think that they should be separated, though. Titoxd(?!?) 00:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
How about a diamond? Thats simple, distinctive and fairly simple to code. Of course I think we need to have an explanation somewhere about what the 4 shapes actually mean, we know but to someone else they would have to guess. Perhaps update the commons template to explain what the data points mean?--Nilfanion (talk)
No wait: we have 3 shapes thats all we need isn't it? If we merge the low class with extratropical not subtropical that issue isn't as bad. However I think the square looks more impressive than a triangle, so make the triangle the extratropical/low and make the square the subtropical?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know why I hadn't thought of this before, but why don't we host it on the m:Toolserver? There's a few developers who might be willing to host them (Interiot and Essjay off the top of my mind), or Nilfanion could apply to get a Toolserver account, so it would allow anyone to create track maps at any time. Titoxd(?!?) 00:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a great idea having Nilfanion apply for a Toolserver account! íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 00:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll get the existing images sorted before thinking about much else. Jdorje did a good job coding, I can easily read the source and use the script to get the output out, but that doesn't mean I know what I'm doing, lol.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please add new tracks to the storms.pl file. Send me patches for the changes you've made. — jdorje (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, by running storms.pl I believe it is possible to automatically re-upload EVERY existing track map. This is obviously much easier than doing so by hand. What is needed is an application for use of this as a wiki bot. — jdorje (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The perl script certainly allows that, although I think it might be best to upload manually the suggested output is wrong on occassions (TS/Hurricane Issues).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Over 500 done so far. That's the majority of named storms in the Atlantic...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we even bother uploading best track maps when the underlying data is of such superb quality as it is for Image:Kanoa 1957 track.png? Hmm, a storm crossed the East Pac staying at Cat 1 for over 10 days without ever being higher or lower strength, OK if you say so... I'd sooner believe that 2005's Lee was a hurricane. I think thats the worst best track data I've seen for any storm (though I suspect I'll find worse).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian TCRs (or similar)

Well, it seems I've found quite a bit of information about the BoM's cyclone records here, for those who are interested. Remember that many of these are covered by Crown Copyright, so you cannot copy them outright, but that you can always reference them like any other book. Titoxd(?!?) 06:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you say the search term you used, that direct link doesn't seem to work right for me. Nice find by the looks of it; just hope there is best track data.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I just followed Cyclone Tracy's TCR, and then clicked on the BoM link (record E490) in the table near the bottom. Titoxd(?!?) 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for all season storms

I came up with a bit of guidelines for getting articles for all storm in 1 season:

1) Season must have 8 articles as the low amount.

2) All of those articles must be GA-class or higher. (Such as 2003 which has 4 sof its 8 at the level.)

3) The season must have at least 10 landfalling storms.

4) The season must have at least 4 Major hurricanes.

So far: 2003 (meets everything but 4), 2004 (Meets all), 1998 (meets all), 1995 (meets everything but 1).

Leave your opinion.HurricaneCraze32 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose all number-based rules. --Golbez 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There'd be too many old seasons that could qualify, but there would be no point. Why should a season like 1969, which passes all but 3, have articles for all storms? We should, instead, turn this into a discussion of which seasons could even theoretically have articles for each storm without too many storm history-only articles. I've said it before, I'll say it again, the key to articles is having enough information. If there's not enough information, don't make the article. If there is, then make it. If the season is new, and there is a consensus that having all storms have articles would be better for the season article and Wikipedia in general, then all articles would be fine. 2004 could be an example of this. So far, every storm but Karl, Lisa, Nicole, and Otto don't have articles. There's probably enough information outside of the season article to justify their articles, and each are fairly interesting storms. Lisa could have a records section (one of the longest times to reach hurricane status), Nicole could have Subtropical Storm info (first named subtropical storm that didn't become tropical), and Otto could have out-of-season stuff. Also, Karl could simply have a long storm history. The same goes from 2003 back to 1999. 1998 might be a little hard, due to the fact it had 6 fish storms, but it's possible. 1997 is probably too far and couldn't work. SS1, Ana, Bill, Claudette, Fabian, and Grace barely had any impact, and their storm histories would all be pretty short. 1996 through 1993 could possibly work, but there's too little info on most storms. That's just my opinion. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No way to this. The first criterion is that the seasonal article must be mature. The only ones which can really claim that are 2004AHS and 2005AHS at this time. Ignoring activity, the more recent the season the better the information. On that basis I would rather see articles for all storms for the 2005 Pacific hurricane season than the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season, after all there is more information available on Tropical Storm Lidia (2005) than on Tropical Storm Eve (1969). This is waaay too rule-crufty, everything should be done on a case-by-case basis ultimately.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Instruction creep. Handle it on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps 1997 EPac might work, but 1969 won't. Titoxd(?!?) 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if that's directed towards me. I just wanted to state my opinion. 1997 PHS could work. On one hand, it could allow for a major reorganization like 2005 AHS. On the other hand, 9 storms had little to no effect on land. Do you think there is enough information for storms like Blanca, Carlotta, Dolores, Hilda, Kevin, or Marty? Guillermo, Ignacio, and Rick should be relatively easy. I don't know. If we're going to this case-by-case, should we have individual discussions on the season articles? --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea. That sounds cool. But I was hoping we could start doing articles on all EPac storms for 2006, like we do in the Atlantic. It would be hard, but I'm sure we could do it. And typhoons in 2006 wouldn't have much trouble, Jelawat, Ewiniar, and Bilis have impact info, so I'm sure we could make articles, as long as it's written right. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 21:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the instruction creep comment was pointed towards the numerical guidelines, as they do not give enough flexibility to special situations. Pauline is the costliest EPac hurricane, and there is abundant information about it on the Internet, so it shouldn't be hard to do. Same goes for Rick. Fishspinners can follow the Irene (2005) model, so it can be done. I do agree with Icelandic Huricane that we should try to do it for the 2006 seasons first, though. Titoxd(?!?) 22:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Irene is a good model, but mainly for new storms. 1997 EPAC storms won't have discussions, nor did they have any records. IMO if we're going to do an all articles thing, we should discuss it on the season talk page, including 2006 seasons. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Now we just need a good article writer to write about low impact storms. So, what about the WPac? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, we should discuss on the season pages for which ones would A) be informationally possible, and B) have enough interesting storms so the individual articles wouldn't be near-copies of the season article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

1997 AHS

I did a complete remake of the page and added a lot to it.HurricaneCraze32||Talk to HC32 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, nice job. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

More track maps

All the track maps have been updated to the "new" color scheme now with the exception of storms in 2006. I'll get those sorted once they are properly located on Commons. As for new track map requests, use the {{storm path needed}} template and I'll get round to it. And another question, I showed what could be done with the Global image above (I'm working on the suggested alterations). I think we could create a similar image for Atlantic hurricane (and other similar articles). We could also use the same technique to generate seasonal track maps, should I do those too?--Nilfanion (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Track program
NHC
Having something like that for the Atlantic hurricane page would be great. Reub2000 had that idea and added season track maps from 1990 to 1994 for the EPAC. I think they look great, and having that sort of track map for all season pages would be awesome. The Atlantic and EPAC would be easy, but everywhere else would be a problem. Would WPAC have JTWC or JMA data? The NIO, for the most part, has multi-seasonal pages. Would there be a 5 year map, or a year map next to each section? Would the Southern Hemisphere be divided by area, due to the possible future split in the pages? --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Its no big deal to just make track maps for whatever is there. We can make maps for the existing articles and then make more if and when the articles are split. One question to consider though, would a generated track map for 2005AHS be better than the NHC track map? I'm not sure either way on that. The JTWC or not JTWC issue is a perpetual one... I say use JTWC data until we can start using RSMC data (JMA, Australian, Fiji...).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
OK then. As long as you don't mind, the entire track map works. I personally think a generated map for 2005 would be a lot better, but that's just me. First, the NHC map curves, and leaves out part of Delta, Ophelia, and Maria. Second, the NHC only uses one color for extratropical. A generated map shows the intensity changes for extratropical storms. They also only use red for hurricanes, while the generated map shows every category. The NHC does have the start places, names, and dates, though. Still, you should upload it and then we can decide. --Hurricanehink (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In reply to Hinks comment about the curvature, thats what all map projections do. I think the background in the track map is a mercator projection as that makes programming easier. However it can be quite distorting, the NHCs choice of projection is probably the ideal one for showing "typical" storms (not Vince). The image I've made through the track map generator is quite simple. Things that can be changed are: The size of the image, the shapes and the thickness of the lines. The order the storms are drawn in could also be altered. One extra thing which could be done to improve the generated map would be to add boxes similar to the ones in the corner of the NHC ones and label the storms, like the NHC one.
As I see it the biggest pros to the generated map are consistency with storm tracks and more detailed information. They aren't perfect by any means though, the biggest con is the fact they are much larger files, the NHC file is 100KB smaller than the generated one; but is much higher res. --Nilfanion (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
True, it's good for most storms, but this season isn't like most seasons. The biggest problem with the generated image is the lack of storm labels. If that could be added, it would be practically flawless. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've created a subpage for people to request track maps which require a bit more effort than individual storms/seasons, see that page for details.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Browse

Well, the one-and-only Tropical Cyclones Portal is now featured as the portal of the month in Portal:Browse, and it will stay there for about a month. :) Titoxd(?!?) 22:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 01:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Portal:Tropical cyclones/WikiProjects

Well, someone put this on that page, and I've moved it here, as I don't know what else to do with it: Titoxd(?!?) 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

begin copied material

Hello all,

I am presently working on a curriculum for middle school science students who have been affected by tropical storms in the US, so they have been affected by huricanes.

I am working on constructivist principles, community of learning, where the learning is meant as therapy for the stresses the kids suffer.

Here is an MSN flash image of how hurricanes start, meant as a kick-off for discussion: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Interactives/Weather/Hurricane/Birth_of_a_hurricanex2.swf

I am just starting the hurricane education part of my paper (the early parts are based on middle school epistomology); I will post interesting things as I come up with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John van v (talk • contribs) 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC).

end copied material

List of XXX hurricanes, what to do?

We have a lot of these articles. Should we continue around the entire world? This is what we have so far;

I think that's all of them. However, given that we've already started doing some unusual ones, we should discuss which others to add or change around. Of the existing ones, I think that the Caribbean should be split up by area greatly; Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic (or just Hispaniola with Haiti), Puerto Rico, Leeward Islands, Windward Islands, and Central America (which itself could be split up by country). For those that affected more than one area (like Georges off the top of my head), they could just be listed in each article with their respective effects. The Canadian hurricanes, per the discussion on its talk page, would be split up into Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario, with the main article still in tact as a quasi-disambiguation page/overall info. Should New York be included in New England hurricanes? Few, if any hurricanes have effected only New York.

What should we do about Florida? If we want to make it like the Featured Lists, it would simply be too long. Two options have been discussed; split it up by area (Florida keys, south Florida, Gold Coast, Florida panhandle) or time periods. Each has its problems. Most storms that effected one of the areas of Florida effected another area. While it could just be repeated, some storms wouldn't have enough information to justify having it at both places. In addition, what would the defining lines be? On the other hand, if we split it up by time periods, what would be in the main article? Personally, I prefer the time periods, by having a List of Florida hurricanes before 1980, for example, and have the ~60 storms from 1980 to present in the main article. In addition, climatology (number of storms, earliest storm, latest storm), commonness of storms (Florida having record TC activity), and other sections could be added. However, what would be the use for the Catastrophic hurricane articles? I know Eric put a lot of work into them, but they wouldn't be particularly useful in the new format. If the hurricane was devestating to Florida, the information should be in the hurricane article, not in a disambiguation-type list page. The same goes for the Texas hurricanes. A List of Texas hurricanes article should be created, with a possible older storms page. I think the Bangladesh cyclone pages should be merged. The Philippine page has problems similar to Florida. Maybe due to the very high number of storms, there can be a lot of sub-articles in the timeline, with one main page covering climatology and notable storms. The List of West African hurricanes is an interesting little article, and as mentioned by Icelandic Hurricane, it could be expanded greatly to become a List of African hurricanes. Such a list could include Arabian Sea impacts, as well as Southern Indian impacts. IMO, Madagascar shouldn't be included, as there would be enough to justify having a List of Madagascar cyclones.

As for finishing going around the world, North America and Asia would be the primary areas needed. Starting with the United States, all that's needed is Pennsylvania, Mid-Atlantic (Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia), North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and perhaps List of United States hurricanes which could serve as a disambiguator as well as listing notable inland storms. Mexico has the problem of too many storms. Options include an Atlantic page and a Pacific page, splitting it by time periods, or splitting up by area (List of Yucatan Peninsula hurricanes, List of Mainland Mexico hurricanes, List of Baja California hurricanes). Bahamas and Bermuda could also each get one, though finding good information for there could be a potential problem. One page could be for all of South America. While a page might seem useless, 18 tropical cyclone effected the continent since 1900, including the South Atlantic. Another page could be for all of Europe, which could cover every tropical and once-tropical storm to effect the continent. Thailand, China, Taiwan, N/S Korea, and Japan should all get list articles, with appropriate adjustments. The Indian Ocean is where it gets tricky. India and Myanmar could work, though I don't know about the northwestern Indian. Australia and Indonesia also deserve their own, but split ups might be needed.

Well, they're just my opinions. You can ignore them if you want, but what are your opinions? What should we do with the List of XXX hurricane pages? --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should calm down a little Hink, lol. Probably the best way to approach this is to start with the regional categories. If those are properly populated the list of XXX article is just a prose version of Category:TCs in XXX. If the category structure is all correct, making the articles will be much easier. Also ones like the Caribbean list, that has no purpose because it covers way too much. However, the subcats would give guidance onto what articles are reasonable.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL, don't worry, that was just because I had my first day off in a week, so some ideas were brewing :) Good idea with the categories, I forgot about them. Should the categories be changed to reflect the List of XXX article? For example, Delta and Beryl are both in the West African list, but in separate categories. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the category structure that needs to be redone. To use Africa as an example, I think there should be a Category:Tropical cyclones in Africa, which has 3 subcategories for each of the three relevant basins. Each of those regions should then be subcategorized further by country or territory. There is no need for every cat to have an associated list article, List of Canary Island hurricanes would be a singularly pointless article, in that case the West Africa one would probably suffice as the comphrensive listing. Basically Category:Tropical cyclones by region needs revision, just like Category:Tropical cyclones by season (which I'm slowly working on).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean storms/hurricanes that impacted the Cape Verde Islands would be on a West African list? I seem to remember Donna produced some significant effects in that island chain. There are likely other tropical cyclones that have as well. Thegreatdr 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, every storm that affected the islands should be on that list. Unfortunately, TCR's rarely give Cape Verde impact, and the islands have very little information on tropical cyclones in the area. Other tropical cyclones, including possibly Donna, probably affected the area, but if we don't know for a fact that they were impacted they should be removed from the list. --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
IMO Category:Tropical cyclones by region and its subcategories already provide sensible "lists" that are as good or better than the simple "Storm X hit location Y on date Z" lists provided by some of those articles. True list articles should be aimed at eventually becoming featured lists, not just at creating such "stub" categorical lists. List of California hurricanes was the first such list. And I certainly agree that not every location needs such a list article. — jdorje (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Severe Tropical Storms

We have the coding for severe tropical storms available at {{Storm colour}} but we hardly use it. Looking at this Australian BoM produced table it seems like RAIV and the JTWC are the exceptions in not subdividing the TS range, not the rule. I wonder if we should modify the way we do things in account of that. For instance Tropical Storm Lee (2005) would use the TS color in the Infobox, but Tropical Storm Arlene (2005) would use the STS color (still naming it as Tropical Storm of course). Maybe, another revision to the track maps would be worthwhile too. This would provide greater global consistency without data loss. Another benefit is TS would then correspond to gale force winds and STS to storm force winds, which would be useful if the tracks program gets extended to non-tropical systems. What do people think?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is confusing that there is not on overarching set of criteria for all basins. While we are slowly merging towards this idea, as was shown by the change in tropical storm definition in the Southern Hemisphere a few years back, it may take a while. Until that occurs, my opinion is that we should leave out specialized categories, such as severe tropical storm, super typhoon, and major hurricane from track maps. Thegreatdr 12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a question; why won't STS work on the timelines? I've tried it for Bilis, but it's not working. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nilfanion. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

About the Structure/Basins section of the project page

Clicking through the basins I found the behaviour rather inconsistent:

Avoiding a discussion of wether a specific article should exist for all these basins, shouln't at least all the links on the project page direct you to the respective category? -- Koffieyahoo 01:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, never noticed that, but that's a good idea. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation policy

Here's some concrete examples of problems with the current dab arrangements, these should all be considered as examples.

  • Alpha - Should Tropical Storm Alpha be a redirect to the 2005 storm or the location of the dab?
  • Ana, Anna - Should these two similar names share a common dab page, confusion is very likely between these two names.
  • Anita, Audrey- Should the TS XXX page be a redirect to the retired Hurricane XXX page or the location of the dab?
  • Agnes, Katrina - Same as the previous case, but these two names have also been retired by the Australians. Does that make a difference?

My opinion is TS Alpha, Anita, Audrey, Agnes and Katrina should all be the locations of the dabs and not redirects to the Atlantic storm. Anna and Ana should share a common dab - at Ana as that one already exists. What do others think?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Ana and Anna should be lumped together. We keep Lisa and Liza and Marie and Maria separate. I think we should do what is currently being done. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Confusion is likely between Maria and Marie, but someone looking for 2005's Maria is relatively unlikely to type Marie. However someone looking for 2001's Allison is quite likely to type Tropical Storm Alison. That is the sort of situation where a spelling redirect would be justified, which makes me think there should be a common dab in that case. Alfa/Alpha is a case in point of that. We really should have consistency.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Storm names sections of season articles

These may need some rethinking. See discussion at Talk:2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season#2006_storm_names. — jdorje (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_7&oldid=1081081802"