Talk:2010 Pacific hurricane season

December

---

• 01C.OMEKA - Tropical Storm

Best status from NRL: 45 kts 997 MB

98C.INVEST first appeared 2010-12-18, 1130z @ 23.8N 176.8W

See Talk:2010 Pacific typhoon season for development west of the International Date Line

Tropical Storm Omeka from CPHC 2010-12-20, 0900z @ 20.9N 178.2W.

Final Advisory from CPHC 2010-12-21, 0900z @ 26.2ºN 173.4ºW.

CPHC TWO

2010-12-18, 1130z // 1830z

2010-12-19, 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

2010-12-20, 0000z

CPHC Tropical Cyclone Advisories

Tropical Storm Omeka

---

CPHC Season outlook

released --Matthiasb (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Reports and Best Tracks

Storm Name	TCR	Best Track (KMZ)
01E.Agatha	August 13, 2010	[1]
02E.Noname	July 28, 2010	[2]
03E.Blas	July 31, 2010	[3]
04E.Celia	October 6, 2010	[4]
05E.Darby	November 18, 2010	[5]
06E.Noname	August 24, 2010	[6]
07E.Estelle	September 15, 2010	[7]
08E.Noname	January 24, 2011	[8]
09E.Frank	October 5, 2010	[9]
10E.Noname	October 28, 2010	[10]
11E.Noname	December 6, 2010	[11]
12E.Georgette	November 4, 2010	[12]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/90E

In case someone is antsy to make an article, I made a basic layout there. Please add to that until (unless) it warrants having an article made. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, no, it is not a tropical cyclone at this time. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The NHC says that it could cause life-threatening floods. Let's hope that does not come to pass, but if it does, the system could be notable enough in its own right, despite not becoming a tropical cyclone. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

NHC glitch

On the GTWO, TD One-E is marked as "UNKNOWN" and the forecast cones are surrounded by a black background and most of the dates are unclear. Should we upload that image or wait until a better image is ready? Also, anybody want to email the NHC about the errors? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 13:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the NHC is just overwhelmed with their new products, new advisories, etc. They had a major change this year with most of their products. Darren23^Edits|Mail 13:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This also explains why no email have been sent out about the formation of TD One-E. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

June section

Should the TWOs be at the bottom of 92E and 93, because they cover all areas in the Pacific? Also, should we add the TWDs? Syntheticalconnections (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ive got no problems with that - Just be sure to note the NHC's low med and high chances in the storm summ and link them. Oh and dont forget what NRL is saying is meant to be what NHC is saying as well. :)Jason Rees (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get what you mean. Althought I think I do. I'll try it, and see if that's what you meant. And what do you mean by NRL and NHC saying thing? They seem to be saying different stuff. So... I'm not sure. If what I do doesn't seem right, just let me know. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

They shouldnt be as the NRL RBT is just an easy to read copy of the ATCF file kept on the NHC servers.Jason Rees (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

NRL RBT? Is the the best track file? I don't use that. I use the picture title. It has location and wind speed in it. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

ARGH

I hate edit conflicts... Someone only updated the winds and I had the whole advisory redone in the box, and I had to do it over again... by that time... Someone else had it. Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 02:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I hate them too. As I usually do updates, it annoys me too when people dont update the whole thing. However, what can we do about them? Darren23^Edits|Mail 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Make them live? You could do that... Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 02:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

When you encounter an edit conflict, your text is usually not lost. If you scroll down, you'll see a second edit box with your changes, which you can simply copy and paste into the live version. Juliancolton (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

For me I usually see two edit boxes... that time I didn't. I normally copy before I post if I think it's busy. Despite the fact it was Cat 5 and Ava was the only other to reach Cat 5 in June, I didn't think it was gonna be that busy, but... just gotta move on i guess. Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute

I went in and tried to fix the content dispute. However, it was reverted. If there is still some problem we will talk about it here, and not continue this mini-edit war. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Celia

I think that Hurricane Celia deserves an article. User:ABC paulista

Of course, it deserves an article especially if we have this. There is one in preparation. Also, read the season section as it is long. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit is working on an article. --Yueof theNorth 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Celia has an article now.

Record

This season has no activity in it now. If it continues for 10 or so more hours, it will be the first time since 1966 [13] that no tropical storms formed in July in the Eastern Pacific. Should this be mentioned in the article? Rye998 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

NHC Tropical Weather Summary for July Link -- グリフオーザー (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite a quiet season for the Pacific. But remember that last year the Pacific was active, but not the Atlantic. This year, the Atlantic basin is very active, but not the Pacific. Is it because of La Nina? Rosalina2427 (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I get quite off-topic here, yes it is. Please take any forum questions, etc. to Hurricane Wikia or any non-wiki space. Thank you. Darren23^Edits|Mail 02:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a seperate discussion at the bottom of this page mentioning that, if we get no more storms in the last 9 days of this season, it will be the least active on record for number of named storms and hurricanes, and first with no CPac storms since 1979. Rye998 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There was TS Omeka in the Central Pacific, so there should be no "record". The record is that it is the record latest that a Central Pacific storm formed. Rosalina2427 (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Ten

i uploaded the forecast map, but could someone put in the box, i cant do the current box, only beta. Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

TD Eleven article

Should we start an article for TD 11? I am willing to help out for the article if needed. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, stop debating whether an article should be made! --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to make this into an infamous debate. I would be bold and do it myself, but I am I suck as writing full articles. Want me to start a project sandbox? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, start a sandbox we'll see after it dissipates (most likely tomorrow) and it will be a TS before it dissipates so yeah I'd start a sandbox and see if it's affects notable enough.--Curtis23's Usalions 03:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Stated oen here. Please add any additional info, if possible YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Georgette sandbox

A project sandbox has been started here. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Georgette really warrant an article as the sandbox was moved to be an article.--Curtis23's Usalions 23:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Julio got an article, why no this storm? Both were rare US impacters (or about to be). To be honest Georgette does not need an article, but it does no harm in having it. Frank should get an article as well. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering it's a landfalling storm expected to produce significant flooding in Sonora, I would say yes. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Another record

This record should probrably be saved until later, but thus far, no storms have existed in the Central Pacific Basin. If this continues, it will be the first time no storms existed in the CPac in a season since 1979. Could it be mentioned that thus far no storms have existed in there? Rye998 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We should probably just wait for that record. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We cant say that there wasnt any tropical depressions in the CPAC as technically we had a tropical depression in the CPAC last month. Though as it was at 179W it wasnt monitored by the CPHC but the JMA.Jason Rees (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That storm technically wasn't official; it isn't mentioned in the main article. I would wait at least one or two months until this should be mentioned, as the CPac can still have a few storms in October, but rarely any in November or December. Rye998 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

For the sakes of one degree its an official tropical depression, so we cant say that there wasn't any tropical depressions in the CPAC during the year. Also whilst its not in the EPAC article its defiantly in the WPAC one.Jason Rees (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The CPHC did not "call" it a depression, but then again, 1979 was the last season with no tropical cyclones in the CPac. The precursor part of a depression, or a depression crossing from the EPac to CPac counts as a tropical cyclone, so it might not be the first since 1979 after all, I guess... Rye998 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Some time ago, the NHC and CPHC disagreed on whether 1994's Emilia was a Category 5 or not. The outcome of that discussion was to defer to the CPHC's decision. Based on that precedent, the depression in question should only be included if the CPHC includes it. However, I see no particular reason why we couldn't include that depression in an "Other storms" section. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move it from the WPAC page to the EPAC page then, im not particularity fussed either way.Jason Rees (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, the standards of tropical depressions between the NHC (CPHC) and JMA are substantially different. The JMA appears very lax with their classification, and thus mention several more depressions than any other agency. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There was TS Omeka in December. Rosalina2427 (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The big record east of 140W

If two more tropical storms do not form in this basin (which is extremely doubtful at this point), then 2010 becomes the least active season in terms of named storms since 1964, or the least active eastern Pacific hurricane season during the satellite era, beating out 1999 by two storms. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we are behind 1977 by one storm. We could tie that if 11-E gets upgraded. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

DR is correct as we would need two storms to not be the least active season on record. 1 to tie 1977 and 1 to beat 1977.Jason Rees (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If the inactivity continues for 9 more days(which seems rather likely at this point), then 2010 will be the least active Pacific season on record in terms of number of named storms and hurricanes, but not in terms of the ACE from this year or number of major hurricanes; 1996, 2007, and 1977 are a few seasons behind this one in ACE, and 2003 and 1977 had no major hurricanes, let alone 2007 having only one in that year. If this season can't produce one more storm in the next 9 days, then these records will be mentioned, unless, by some freak occurance, we pull a December surprise like Winnie or Paka. Rye998 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hermine?

Hermine wasn't part of the Pacific season this year, so why is he on the summary map? Hermine did not form directly out of 11E because 11E died over Mexico and merged with a different system to become Hermine, so Hermine and 11E are not directly related, and their paths should be split. Does anyone else agree with this? Rye998 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Hermine is a female name btw) According to CB (I think), in post-storm analysis, it was found that TD 11E directly caused the formation of Hermine. Darren23^Edits|Mail 00:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, the BT KMZ file has TD 11-E's final Tracking Point at the Same time and place as Hermine's (It's a Feminine name) first tracking point. — Iune(talk) 02:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I knew that it's feminine, but in that case, why aren't Alma's and Arthur's tracks merged? Or Cosme's and Allison's of 1989? Hermine was not a direct continuation of 11-E, unlike Hurricanes Joan-Miriam of 1988 and Cesar-Douglas of 1996, because 11-E died out over Mexico before becoming Hermine. If 11-E had survived the passage over Mexico and made it to the Gulf, then it would retain its number and later be named Hermine. Even so, 11-E merits having it's own article; it's article shouldn't be merged with Hermine's. Rye998 (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's splitting hairs. And no, Hermine wasn't a result of some kind of cyclone merger, or this debate wouldn't exist. Hermine and TD 11E were the same low pressure area, but different tropical cyclones. Confusing, yes. But no different than Bret/Greg of 1993. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I know they were the same area of low pressure, but they technically weren't the same storm because the former storm dissipated. In the case of Hurricane Cesar-Douglas, and Hurricane Joan-Miriam, those storms were given different names per the policy at the time, but because the former storm of those two huricanes survived the passage over Central America, they were the same system, although given different names. If Huricane (Cristobal)-Douglas happened today, it would just be named Cristobal, because the former Atlantic storm survived passing over CA. The tracks of Hermine and 11-E are not directly the same storm because 11-E died over Mexico before reforming and causing flooding in Texas. Rye998 (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Record low seasonal activity??

By November 30, will this year's pacific hurricane season be the lowest or the least active? 96.247.120.35 (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

96, see "the big record east of 140 west" section just above. Yes, we are behind the 1977 season(the least active EPac season on record to date) by one named storm and hurricane, but we had 2 major hurricanes, let alone the same as 2008 and more than 2007, and 2010 also had a higher ACE than 1977, let alone 2007 and 1996. It isn't out of the question that the EPac could have one more storm in the next 3 days, but we won't mention the record low activity records in this basin until 23:59 November 30 (UTC) officially rolls around. Also, please leave all discussion which does not improve this article on the Hurricane Wikia. Thank you. Rye998 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh, the season's over. All of the records are mentioned now. Rye998 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

After Omeka in the Central Pacific, will this affect anything with this record? Rosalina2427 (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The east of 140 record still stands, but this record has been tied. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

A Ghost??!

As seen on December 19, 2010, the NRL seems to have monitored a low pressure area which seems to have taken the shape of a major hurricane. Could someone explain this?? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a ghost, a real system that the Central Pacific Hurricane Center is monitoring. Currently at 90% risk of development! --Patteroast (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's basically a subtropical cyclone. Like in most cases, a convective system which has formed near an upper level low. The way it's been developing, it could be fully tropical in the next day or two. Thegreatdr (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean a strong subtropical storm!! It is a very well defined eye right now,, i might become a cat5!!! --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but lets stay back on topic for this page. Thanks! — Iune(talk) 16:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We may need a section on this storm when it's recognized. Probably a full-fledged article such as for the 2006 Central Pacific cyclone. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep speculation and comments not related to Wikipedia away from this page. As for this system, assuming it gets classified, of course it will get a section in the article. I think it is far too early to speculate whether this system will need an article, since we don't know how long it will last. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Its already a tropical depression and has a section on the PTS, which is where it will stay until it crosses 180. I seriously doubt we need an article for it since its done nothing of note unless you are going to have an article for each basin crosser.Jason Rees (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable because of the double basin-crossing. It's notable as a particularly intense off-season tropical cyclone in the Central Pacific, when all other storms in both the CPac (none) and EPac dissipated before September ended. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, If 98C forms, it will be the latest forming tropical cyclone in EPAC/CPAC history. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

(un-indented) Yes, this would mark the second-latest forming TC in either basin by a few days. The current record is held by two unnamed storms in 1903 and 1904 which formed on December 23. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the record would count as 1904 was long before reilable records began in 1949 in the EPAC. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

I'm going to remove this "record" since the central Pacific has had seasons with no tropical cyclones. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the Pacific TC authority going to do a full-basin post-"season" analysis on this storm? Omeka could have been a category three typhoon in the West Pacific for all we know and that was before it was classified as a TD by the CPHC. Can we get a sat image of Omeka at peak Dvorak strength? ~AH1^(TCU) 14:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

When Omeka dies, they will do a post season report. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that Omeka was any stronger than 55 knots (65 mph) when it was in the Western Pacific. Although it displayed an eye, the nature of the system does not match up with a storm of high intensity. A good storm to compare this to would be Tropical Storm Grace (2009). Although both have displayed an eye, the lack of very deep convection and their location limits the maximum intensity of the storms. Although this is going to sound hypocritical since I just did it (only to clarify the situation), please refain from discussing things not related to the improvement of the article on this page. If you wish to discuss these things, take them to the project's IRC channel or hurricanes.wikia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, when the storm was most well-defined, its highest Dvorak scale reading was at least T4.5. When it was classified in the Central Pacific, it had already lost its eye feature completely. What's discussed here has potential implications for article development. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Eyes happen in TS's all the time! And so what if the Dvorak scale said a 4.5! Dvorak gets intensity wrong much of the time. That's not a good argument for an article. A better argument would have been that it is an off season Pacific storm, and frankly, that a'int that notable. 99.191.109.251 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing on weather it deserves an aritcle. What's discussed above is potential implications for article development, weather it is a sub-article or the season article. Notability wise, It is comparable to Hurricane Alice (December 1954) and Tropical Storm Zeta (2005), both which have an article. IMO, an article is needed ASAP. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I respectfully disagree with Yellow Evan on that point. The Central Pacific basin can have tropical cyclones virtually any month. In 1992, there were storms in January and March. The storms which affected Hawaii most occurred in September and November. The only way Omeka has notability, from my vantagepoint, is that it formed from a subtropical cyclone, which are rarely noted in the grouped together Eastern Pacific and Central Pacific database. Since the Central Pacific basin can have no tropical cyclones in given years, I don't see how a "latest" record can be set by a storm in that basin. It just doesn't make sense to me. If the Atlantic Basin ever had zero tropical cyclones in any year, in my eyes, that would nullify any "latest storm to occur" record in that basin, using the same logic. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe any talk of a record is in relation to the combined CPac and EPac area, which seems to be a common occurrence when it comes to tropical cyclone statistics. --Patteroast (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But if wikipedia states something that the RSMCs are not likely to state (because in the establishment of records other than longevity they likely wouldn't combine the Eastern and Central Pacific basins), wouldn't that constitute original research? Thegreatdr (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Off-season storms have occurred, but this is the latest forming tropical cyclone in the calender year since 1904. For records, the best track is often sourced, so it is not OR. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But it is misleading, in my point of view, to say that a tropical cyclone in an area is the latest on record when the basin it lies within has seen years with no tropical cyclones before. Do you see where I'm coming from here? Even if the tropical cyclone project merges the northeast Pacific and north Central Pacific basins together out of simplicity, that is not how the warning centers treat the two, so we're stating something they never would because it doesn't fit their definition. In that way, it is original research. Maybe we should treat the two basins separately for the season articles, which would avoid this problem entirely. Patteroast, is there a published source you are aware of which combines the stats of the two basins, outside of Wikipedia? Thegreatdr (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but all we are really doing this calculating the data given by three sources. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this answers Thegreatdr's question, but the EPac best track includes both. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware Miss Madeline. I think that's where the confusion is occurring here. It gives the impression that both the Eastern and Central Pacific basins are one large basin, when studies have mentioned they are different, even in regards to methods of tropical cyclogenesis. The fact that we have two RSMCs that split this area in two is partially what is giving me pause concerning this "record" for the North central or Northeast Pacific, which has now been annotated within the Omeka article itself. The rest is because there are years where no tropical cyclones form in the North central Pacific. If there are years where nothing forms, how can there be a latest storm on record if one forms? Technically the record is set by the years where nothing has occurred, no? And, if there are years like 1902 or 1903 which had a later storm, why even mention this record because whether you're talking about the northeast Pacific as a whole, or just the north-central Pacific, no record has been set from that perspective either. From that perspective, people are using stats to make the storm seem more unusual than it is timing wise. Oy gevalt. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What does seasons with no storms have to do with this? This record is already mentioned in List of Pacific hurricane. The EPAC is two basins combined into one big basin. Maybe we can have a CPHC record, and NHC record, and a record with the two AOR's combined. That is a compromise or did I confuse you. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasons with no storms technically have the record for latest forming storm, since none ever formed. Otherwise, you're just playing with semantics and the record has no significance. It would be like stating that Anita has the record for latest forming system in the South Atlantic, which disregards the fact that many years nothing forms down there. Records like that would be equally meaningless and just add, as one other responder mentioned in another section of this talk page, "bloat" which is insignificant/trivial to an article. Records within TC articles should be more meaningful, such as strongest, deepest, longest-lasting. Citing earliest and latest forming systems for the Northern Hemisphere is more trivial, and an artifact of the use of the Gregorian calendar. People who talk about the Western Pacific generally mention that storms form between April and January, with January being "latest forming," not earliest. Do we even try to determine this type of record for the Southern Hemisphere or Western Pacific? If so, what reference date is used, June 30? July 1? Flag Day? If not, we should consider removing these records from the northeast quadrant of Earth entirely to be consistent within the project. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, we combined the 2 basins, not the NHC or the CPHC. A better thing to do is keep both EPAC and CPAC separate with their separate records, etc. Darren23^Edits|Mail 16:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This idea I'm good with, and is the compromise Yellow Evan mentioned, as it respects the RSMC and avoids original research problems. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

An issue is a occurring, again. It makes the page look cluttered and also confuses the reader and is also not consistent with others EPAC seasons. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

False record

In the season article it says that Omeka was the first tropical cyclone in the month of December in the western hemisphere since Tropical Storm Olga of 2007 in the Atlantic. This is false as Cyclone Mick of last year moved into the Western Hemisphere and Tropical Depression 02F 2008-09 formed within the Western Hemisphere.Jason Rees (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I'm removing that "record". We need consistency. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, that wasn't even a record :P Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll - should Central Pacific seasons be included with the Eastern Pacific as "Pacific hurricane season" articles?

The primary basis for a "yes" vote is

1. Consistency
2. It is how HURDAT is done
3. Avoiding redundancy (most CPAC storms come from the EPAC)
4. The WMO does not call it a separate basin

   NOAA backs it up not being a separate basin

The primary basis for a "no" vote is

1. The Central Pacific Hurricane Center is a separate RSMC.

   Counterargument - The Australian region is made up of 5 different TCWCs but we lump them in the same basin since 3 of them are the same company, exactly like NHC/CPHC. The South Pacific also has a RSMC and a TCWC, but are lumped together as one basin.

2. The CPAC has their own naming list.

   Counterargument - so does Jakarta, Wellington, and Port Moresby

3. Records within the CPAC territory would be clearer
4. NRL splits CPAC and EPAC

   Counterargument - Australia and the South Pacific are not split

   Counterargument - The Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea are split and they are the same RMSC.

Yes

• ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Cyclonebiskit (talk) - Although I would like to see separate article,s, I can't go against what the WMO states. If they group the basins together, so do we.
• TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC) - Even though it would be nice to have them separate, it would probably be best to follow NOAA's table up above, which shows that the CPAC isn't a basin.

NOAA also notes that the NHC's AOR extends to 30W, so does that mean any storms monitored east of that shouldn't be included in teh Atlantic basin article? atomic7732 20:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• — Iune(talk) 18:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• While I mostly agree with Thegreatdr, there is a wrinkle on the whole thing. According to our season article naming conventions in the Northern Hemisphere, we use year + ocean + strongest cat + "season" as our titles. (The Southern Hemisphere is different since we have less editor interest there, and whether it should be separate or not is beyond the scope of this discussion.) As such, both the EPac and CPac would be "Pacific hurricane seasons". This approach has generally worked well, as long as we don't conflate records, which is what happened here. Omeka's record is not a record. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Say no to OR. In the meantime I think the days of CPHC are counted. Wether the tea party or any other government does not matter: they must reduce costs :/ so a splitting will be reverted anyways, sooner or later. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No

• There's a danger of introducing original research by doing it in the current manner, since the RSMCs are separate, even if their databases are lumped together HURDAT-wise. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'm gonna say no. ATCF doesn't keep them seperate, and they truly aren't the same basin. atomic7732 20:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

• Its a tough call. As much as I'd like to support it, there are questions of enough seasons worthy. Does the benefits outweigh the risks? Is this really necessary now? There's just too much for me to consider to support or oppose.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 20:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Why is this straw poll not on the project talk page? This change is for all the seasons, not just this one. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Because it only affects Pacific hurricane season articles, and the people editing those articles frequent this article much more than the project page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Relating to DR's "no", would we split up the AUS, which would create stubs? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The BoM isn't an RSMC, so not sure what that would mean. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I know BOM is not an RSMC, but aren't there five RSMC/TCWC's in the AUS. Should we divide article by RSMC? It is debatable. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• My support would be to split the RSMC-related regions apart, not the TCWC areas. In the case of the Central Pacific, if we did this, we could likely get away with articles by decade, not year, since some years have no systems. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If we used RSMC's the EPAC and ATL would be merged together. So, I think the only way out of this is to keep them by basin. For records in the CPAC we could say "Z is the latest forming tropcial storm between 140°W and 180°W". Does my wording confusing anybody? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Good counterpoint Yellow Evan. Yes, it would need to be stated that way if the current annual article creation/structure/format continues. Otherwise, it would be a moot point since the article would only cover 140-180W longitude north of the equator in the pacific. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Given that there is some justification to keeping the CPAC with EPAC, why do you want to fundamentally change how the project is set up? I'm just curious. There isn't any glaring reason to split CPAC articles, especially since the majority of such storms come from the EPAC. There would just be a major redundancy. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • This all came up due to disagreements occurring within the Omeka section of the page and its article, which now seem to be resolved. It seemed like we were making up our own records ad hoc, combining the northeast Pacific with the north-Central to try to come up with a "record late storm" for the northeastern Pacific, which seemed like original research (if not misleading) because there are years with no systems in the north central Pacific. Even if true (which it apparently is not anyway), it was unlikely to be mentioned in Omeka's future TCR, so I was trying to head off any possible original research issues at the pass. If they were separated into separate articles, these kind of arguments could be avoided. I didn't suggest a straw poll, though it wasn't a bad idea. If NHC combines the basins on stats within their FAQ, so be it, and it would favor with leaving the current article structure the way it is with the combining of the basins. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I do agree, I think we're too quick to claim a record, based on what we know about the best track. I honestly feel we shouldn't be mentioning records unless the warning agency mentioned them as well. Would that work? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
            • It would. However, there are obvious records we could mention prior to the TCR, such as strongest cyclone, cyclone with lowest pressure, wettest cyclone, and longest-lived cyclone. These extremes are likely to be mentioned in TCRs non-trivally. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
              • True, and those sorts of records would likely be mentioned by someone prior to the TCR (particularly strongest). If the TCR happens to mention the record, then we can do so as well, but I honestly feel we should be a little stricter to what we claim to be a record, when no one else reliable says the same. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
                • Why restrict ourselves to the TCR? If someone with credibility (e.g. Jeff Masters, TWC, Gary Padget) mentions it as a record, we can always say, "According to $RANDOM_LUSER, the storm was the strongest one since forever" or something similar. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
                  • Well, yea, that would work too, but that's not the case for Omeka. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
                  • If it is mentioned only in a blog, then no, because blogs are not considered reliable sources for wikipedia articles. If such a fact were in a newspaper article, I could see it mentioned though. As for The Weather Channel, they made on-air blunders all the time. I had to send someone an e-mail a year or two back because they made the outrageous claim that a hurricane hadn't hit Baja California in 10-20 years. Besides, how would you reference a comment made on The Weather Channel for one of these articles anyway? Thegreatdr (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
                    • Good call for TWC - they do have stuff online, so we should avoid using them. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: The BoM (Melbourne) is a RSMC but in the Environmental Emergency Response Programme. However, it seems that BoM Darwin is kind of RSMC as well – though it is not stated in which WMO program. Or it is simply an error on their website. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Season summary map

Won't we have a season summary map including Omeka? --Izmir2 Let's talk 20:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Why does the infobox look so cluttered? I fixed, it but User:Darren23 reverted it twice (one in December, one in June). There is simply no need for it say how many storms formed in the NHC and CPHC AOR. While it does give the reader more info, it can confuse the reader, and makes it look cluttered. Although this could always be changed, last time I checked, we do not do this for the rest of the EPAC seasons, nor do we do this in any other basin. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That sort of information can be in prose. Having it in the Infobox just clutters things up. I, for one, also don't like the idea of the CPHC season starting when Omeka started. While in theory it is correct, I haven't seen a single source that says anything about the latest start for a CPHC season other than on here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the strongest CPAC crap from the infobox. In response to User:Matthiasb's edit summary, he is correct,, it was used before, but it was removed from most if not all EPAC season articles in early 2006 (if I recall correctly). YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/Epac_hurr/Epac_hurricane.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150521024144/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov:80/hrd/hurdat/tracks-hurdat2-epac-1949-2013-jul14.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/tracks-hurdat2-epac-1949-2013-jul14.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618185638/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/tropical_weather to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/tropical_weather
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.milenio.com/node/466985
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100629105033/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 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/20140714151304/http://cnxoaxaca.com/?mod=noticias&i=6930&is=5 to http://cnxoaxaca.com/?mod=noticias&i=6930&is=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150708003828/http://emdat.be/disaster_list/index.html to http://www.emdat.be/disaster_list/index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Omeka into 2010 Pacific hurricane season

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does not pass on notability grounds. A two-day tropical storm that didn't impact land. The content here could be easily displayed within the season articles. Noah, AA^Talk 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support, especially because the content can be split across two different season articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. No impacts, not very notable. 2003LN6 00:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Hurricane Celia (2010) into 2010 Pacific hurricane season

The storm caused no damage, its records aren't really records (just trivia), and isn't notable due to being a Category 5 hurricane, hence I believe it should be merged. Tavantius (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Unlike Kristy, Celia’s article is quite lengthy, hence the section in the 2010 Pacific hurricane season would be too long. This storm’s records were notable, this article is significantly longer than Kristy. AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for similar reasons above, I think Celia's met history was too complex to be summarized and fit into the season article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Yeah, you are right with your arguments, but the size is the main problem. There is no way all of that information can fit into the season article comfortably. _ZZ^Z'S 22:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The size of the article is why it wouldn't be moved. Unlike Kristy, which would need some extending, but as it stands, this article is too long for it to be merged. Also this page (Hurricane Celia (2010)) has existed since 2010. AccordTM (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)