Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology/List of wettest tropical cyclones by country

I've been trying to keep this page as updated as possible with all the new additions concerning Mexico's tropical cyclones, which are fairly complete through 1997 on the related HPC TC rainfall website. Images from wikipedia pages that have been created since this article's creation have been added to help "pretty up" the page. In we're ever to get this article to GA, a coordinated effort it going to be needed to bulk up the sections outside the United States and Mexico. A knowledge of spanish will come in handy for the Caribbean countries, Central America, and potentially the Philippines. Hopefully, I'll get access to Cuban rainfall information sometime in the near future. I do wish to thank all the people who caught the typos and misplaced city locations in the original draft. Thegreatdr 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've submitted it for GA. Wish me luck.Thegreatdr 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for someone to check if this article is worthy of GA. It's been on review for about four weeks, and I've only received one comment during that time, soon after its submission. Thegreatdr 17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also submitted tropical cyclone observation and tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting for GA. It would be nice if someone from this group looked them over. The one comment made by this group in tropical cyclone rainfall climatology was helpful. Thegreatdr 13:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It was resubmitted for GA a few weeks ago per a suggestion made by the original reviewer. Feel free to critique it. Thegreatdr 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, about 80% of the rainfall images have now been converted to color-filled images at the main HPC website. Thegreatdr 19:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

All color filled graphics have now been added for mainland North America. I still have 4 or 5 images for Puerto Rico to convert, which will have to wait for Monday or Tuesday. Thegreatdr 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

China has recently published a 50 year tropical cyclone climatology for their country. I'm trying to acquire a copy for work. It will come in handy for additions to China tropical cyclone rainfall climatology as well as List of wettest tropical cyclones by country. Thegreatdr 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, though one quick question; would it only be mainland China? Would it include Tibet, Taiwan, or Hong Kong, by chance? I'm just curious. Keep up the excellent work. I also notice that rainfall images began for Hawaii - very nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Basin track maps

Hmm, I might as well have a go at this sometime. That doesn't mean they aren't worth a shot. Here's the basic conceptual ideas I've had, feel free to add if you can think of any.

By-month maps
By-peak strength maps (the Cat 5 will be directly useful for the pertinent article of course).

Also, I think it could be worth seperating CPac from EPac and splitting the SHem for these purposes. Whilst a by-month cumulative track is less helpful than the analogous NOAA maps in Atlantic hurricane (probabilities are the more appropriate info to show), for the other basins this could be quite informative. I'd be interested to see what the EPac does month by month for example. Any other suggestions for this brainstorm?--Nilf anion (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Great ideas, on all accounts. I'm very interested, as well, to see the storms by month. Now would you do strictly storms from October 1 to October 31, or any storms that formed in October, for example? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Both can be done (though due to obvious redundancies I will only upload the one I think is best).--Nilf anion (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That works. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not seasonal track maps? At first I thought you were talking about those. Good kitty 06:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the delay on those is figuring out the best way to do a key, and then adding that to the generator. --Ajm⁸¹ 00:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Decision?

I added a seasonal track to 1999 Pacific typhoon season a while back. That is about as good as it is possibly to make with low effort. The question is, is that good enough? I'm leery about the additional effort required to make it significantly better. I'm prepared to roll that out in the near future (over my Easter break) if there is agreement. The questions I have are:

Should we use maps like in 1999PTS for all seasonal articles without a map already.
Should we use maps like in 1999PTS for the NOAA basins with a NOAA map?
- If so, should we do it for all of the seasonal articles, or just the older ones where the NOAA maps are not of high quality?

Obviously, noone is going to object to the first one (something is better than nothing), but how about the rest of them?--Nilf anion (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a good idea to replace NOAA maps, for the simple reason that they indicate which track belongs to each storm, and it is a lot of effort to duplicate that on the in-house track maps. Of course, this shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule, but still, it seems like a lot of unneeded effort. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well on some of them the key is too small to read, 1950 AHS for example. Maybe we should replace those. --Ajm⁸¹ 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Yeah, thats what I'm thinking of. The NOAA maps get better and better as they get more recent. Obviously this is going to be tricky to judge without seeing our own ones. Keep thinking about it guys: What I will do is upload the lot and articles without track then get one. As the effort to add a key is non-trivial exercise, it doesn't have to be by the map creator - as long as whatever method we use is internally consistent. As a more serious point however, consider the 2006 Pacific hurricane season. The NHC map doesn't have Ioke; we can make such a track.--Nilf anion (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Stats updated

The WikiProject graphs that I uploaded on December have been updated with the latest data from the last quarter. Here's the stats:

Quality	№ (2006-12-10)	№ (2007-03-10)	Δ
FA	33	48	+15
A	6	6	0
GA	67	94	+ 27
B	116	130	+ 14
Start	415	412	-3
Stub	159	158	-1
Unassessed	0	2	+2
Total	796	850	+54

Some notes:

We're churning out an FA about once a week.
We're not using Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment as much as we need to.
We're flooding GA; about one hurricane article every three days is passed.
Most of our new articles begin at B-Class or better.
Some articles (mostly, old hurricane seasons) have not been improved, and might not ever be improved, due to lack of interest.
Finally, "fresh blood" is needed here; we're slowly beginning to have editor attrition, and with the recent accomplishments, we're in a perfect position to gain steam.
More organization is perhaps needed to tackle the "big ones" (such as Hurricane Wilma and Rita)

Comments? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been a good deal of recent work on the Pacific typhoon season articles. The problem is, there are so many storms per season, it takes a while to get the stubs up to start class. I still dabble in the older hurricane season articles, if I find relevant information while researching something else (like the tropical cyclone rainfall climatology article). I think once the main articles finally all get to FA, you'll find there may be nothing else to do but work on the old season articles. Thegreatdr 08:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEEKLY, episode 13:

> Witty Lama: The best one is 2003 Atlantic hurricane season, primarily edited by one user, Hurricanehink, who is 
just a machine! Which has 18 articles in it, pretty much all of which he brought to GA or FA status.  
> Fuzheado: When you mean he is a machine, you don't mean he is a bot, but more like an article machine!
> Witty Lama: So yeah, our hat goes off to Hurricanehink and to the Tropical Cyclone Project, who are just 
phenomenal at creating good articles, featured articles, but now, featured topics!

:D Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I love it! :D Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

New for 2007?

Any new features we should add to articles or sections for 2007, knowing the Atlantic and Pacific seasons are just around the corner (or just starting in the WPac)? I can't think of too many since we've come so far already... CrazyC83 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I would like to see is splitting of the next year's SHEM articles, and, if possible, splitting back to 2000. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, starting at least with 2007-08. CrazyC83 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

so do i & i will help do some off the work required - also The banner on all Seasonal Pages i would like ot see replaced with just two banners one for Northen Hemipshere and one for Southern and then after that i would like to see the Regions Esspecially if we are splitting some of the articles in the SHEM Jason Rees 22:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Names for 2007-08 SHEM articles?

This came up when brainstorming approaches to naming the split 2007-08 Southern Hemisphere season articles. What should they be called? Currently, the split 1999-00 articles are:

My thoughts:

I would personally like to see "ocean" get dropped from SWIO, but given that the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal are considered different basins by the JTWC, that could create confusion (since Chacor mentioned to me on IRC that South-West Indian could refer to India). Therefore, I really have no problem keeping it the way it is.
"Region" needs to be re-added to the Australian cyclone season title - there are non-Australian TCWCs located in the areas covered by the Australian ones (Port Moresby and soon Jakarta). I have no opinion about anything else in the title.
"Tropical" may need to be put back into the titles of all three of these, but I'm not sure.

Any other thoughts on this? I'd like some quick feedback so I can have these articles ready by mid-month. --Core desat 06:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Several options are open, and maybe we ought to do some sort of a poll:

SWIO: South-West? South-west? Southwest? Indian? Indian Ocean?
AUS: Australia? Australian region? Australian Region?
SPac: Pacific Ocean? Pacific?

This in turn brings in questions about our current season article naming:

NIO: North Indian? North Indian Ocean?

Furthermore, should we use 'tropical cyclone' or just 'cyclone'? Or 'cyclonic storm' for NIO? What about Ocean? - SpLo T // 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to drop, but the ambiguity of keeping it is just asking for trouble. The word "tropical" is redundant: the term season only makes sense when talking about TCs, the conjunction of cyclone and season means the tropical is implicit. Furthermore, the BoM refer to the TCs in their region as the "Australian cyclone season": so the common name matches the without-cyclone variant. As a result, I suggest putting the actual articles at the location without "tropical" in the name and redirects from the variant. For the spelling of SW, use the WMO version (South-West) as none of the nations that get primary affects from cyclones in that basin are English-speaking we do not need to worry about using the local name. Therefore I think the ideal forms are:

SWIO: X South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season
Aus: X Australian region cyclone season
SP: X South Pacific cyclone season

We should also have redirects from the sensible variants: X Australian cyclone season is probably the only necessary one as it is actually used as a term by the BoM, but others should exist.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The word tropical is not redundant; we don't want to introduce POV in the article naming, do we? There are tornado and winter storm/nor'easter seasons for various locations...last I checked they were both classes of cyclones too. Also, just because JTWC prefers something does not make it so. Remember, they are neither an RSMC nor a TCWC even if they act in a similar manner for U.S. interests. Thegreatdr 12:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention the JTWC (and Coredesat was referring to the North Indian Ocean and not the southern hemisphere). As an aside is there any concept of "season" with non-tropical cyclones in the south? (I ask as an open question here). The Australians refer to the "Australian cyclone season" when clearly meaning the "tropical cyclone season". That indicates a redundancy here imo. The question is: If we were to include "tropical" in the article names would we have redirects or disambiguations at the locations without them. If there is a real non-tropical cyclone season in these areas a dab would be needed. If there isn't then a redirect is all that is ever needed; so use the shorter name in preference.--Nilf anion (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Nilfanion on all the naming, save the question about 'tropical', which I think needs more discussion. However, the above can bring in other season article naming issues, especially the inclusion of 'Ocean'. At present, all basins do not include 'Ocean', but for the sake of disambiguation, I suggest that the SWIO and NIO at least include 'Ocean', since in these two cases the ocean itself has its name taken from the subcontinent. - SpLo T // 12:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So for now, it would be South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season, Australian region cyclone season, and South Pacific cyclone season? Nilfanion makes a good point that we have no idea whether non-tropical cyclones are considered to have "seasons" by any agencies, so we don't necessarily need to use "tropical" (it's not redundant, though). --Core desat 00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pre-tropical systems

How are pre-tropical systems (i.e. an extratropical low or a wave that later becomes a tropical cyclone) treated if they cause serious damage or fatalities in the pre-tropical stage? There isn't much precedent for such, but it is definitely possible... CrazyC83 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent - Hurricane Karen (2001) as ET on Bermuda, and Tropical Storm Leslie (2000) as trough in Florida. What exactly are you referring to? Hurricanehink (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"There isn't much" is not the same as "There is none", I forgot about Karen and I knew about Leslie but wasn't sure if it had become tropical while over Florida (the track map shows a depression dot over Florida). CrazyC83 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think one thing to discuss is what should get the article in the event there is some iffy-ness. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Donna (1960) and Isabel (1985) also fit into this category. There are likely others. Thegreatdr 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, help

Please, guys, Typhoon Durian still needs a lot of work. There are many stubby sections. Please, if you can, help improve and expand the article. Some links are found on the talk page. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 15:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Making use of Wikia?

This stems from discussion on the project IRC channel. Currently there is an inactive Hurricanes project on Wikia. This is a redundancy to what we ourselves provide here on Wikipedia. However, a Wikia project could have several advantages. To quote one possibility as to a new objective:

hurricanes.wikia - "a user guide to TC information"

In this context we could provide articles on the various websites providing tropical cyclone information (including WP ;)). We could also target these at a non-meteorologist user. For example the "article" on the NRL could explain what all those buttons give, and what they represent. As example of other things the wikia could do:

A how-to use guide for CLASS; which has obvious advantages for us.
A moderated form of the discussion that plagued 2006AHS last year. We could talk about AoIs, we could have betting pools.
It could also be used as a testbed for articles here on WP. This would allow us to work on highly technical stuff that may or may not meet WP guidelines. To ease transwikiing to wikipedia, if you intend to use the Wikia in that light - please state on Wikia that you release your contribs there to the PD.

Thoughts people?--Nilf anion (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea, and it takes care of various problems and allows us to do things we can't do here (such as post about certain weather communities), not to mention provides a solution to the discussion problem. It might be a good idea to crosspost this to Talk:2007 Atlantic hurricane season since a lot of the people reading that may not see this, but not yet (let's see how many people contribute to this one first). --Core desat 21:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. If used in tandem with each other, it could really work, provided the title was changed to something a bit more appropriate (it is cyclopedia right now). Hurricanehink (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nilfanion actually pointed out to me that the Hurricane Wikia has a "Forum" namespace. That makes dealing with the discussion much easier, since it won't be in mainspace. However, its project space is called "Hurricane Wiki", so we might have to change that. --Core desat 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I have already gotten preliminary permission from Angela to have people made into sysops so what's there can be cleaned up or removed. --Core desat 17:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I really like this idea. Really, really like it. →Cyclone1→ 22:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I just ask if it's ok for me to make (admitedly stubs) articles for things in that wikia (Countries and stuff). If not, just delete it =). Cryomaniac 00:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would have to be hurricane related. For example, if there was an article on the United States, I think it'd be neat to cover the country in the point of view of a hurricane fanatic. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a stub for [1], It mentions Hurricane Vince, and thats about it. Is that ok? Cryomaniac 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Something like that could work, maybe. I'm not sure, though, as the Wikia is still inactive. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, If we're doing this, I guess I'll go ahead and make a 2007 AHS page on Wikia. How should I make it?. What should we include other than what we could put on this page? Maybe, including INVESTS on the main Wikia page like we add Tropical Depressions here? Maybe possible tropical cyclones that formed, but didn't have enough info to be included on the Wikipedia page (within reason)? The talk page is obvious, just including stuff we had last June basically (AoI's, INVEST discussion, Betting Pools). I don't know, I'm just throwing out ideas. Tell me what you think we should do. →Cyclone1→ 13:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see there is a forum already. But should we still make an article including INVESTS and stuff? →Cyclone1→ 14:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what? Nevermind. Ignore this please. →Cyclone1→ 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. Sorry I didn't notice this sooner, the past couple of months have been hecktic for me in real life, but I'm the administrator (and founder) of the hurricane wiki and it sounds liek your ideas would really provide good information and be an alternative to the "redundiveness" of the first idea. Other comments? --Galaxy001 03:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Forecast accuracy and verification

I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now. Should our seasonal articles include information on forecast accuracy and verification (both pre-seasonal, as well as operational storm forecasts)? It would certainly be encyclopedic w.r.t. seasons, and people might expect to find that information in a seasonal article. Thoughts? – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 01:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as we include ACE where reasonable (in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific), I guess it couldn't hurt if the information is available. We might as well use the JTWC data in other basins wherever RSMC data is unavailable, and even if it does become available it would probably be better to use it for as long as our track maps use JTWC data. --Core desat 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm it seems reasonable in the seasonal articles to me. In the context of individual storms its too narrow and technical, but "in 2006 the NHC official forecast was X% better on average than in 2005" is a reasonably interesting fact.--Nilf anion (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. Thegreatdr 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Stalled FAC for Eye (cyclone)

It seems the FAC on Eye (cyclone) has stalled...there has been no substantial input in almost three weeks, and I am still waiting on a copyedit by someone unfamiliar with the article. Could I get a pair of fresh eyes to give it a once-over, please? Thanks. -Running On Brains 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

DO bother to contribute to this project, if you would like to

This discussion started from what seems to be human error by the initiator of this discussion. The context the original message refers to no longer applies. Further comments should not read into the context, but into the idea. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 04:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a modified version of this on one of the user page's today, and think it is relevent for this talk page. Let the hate mail begin. Thegreatdr 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't let people on this project discourage you from contibuting or adding articles you think are needed. Every little bit helps. I know there's a bit of NPOV favoring landfalling tropical cyclones over all others, but it honestly shouldn't matter. This project is not called WP: Landfalling tropical cyclones. I don't see articles perceived as badly written being worse than the numerous stubs which still occupy the hurricane/typhoon season articles, which were created months and years ago. If people start getting personal with you, instead of being productive to the articles you create, have them read WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Even better, if they think your articles need improvement, tell them to be bold and correct it themselves. Wikipedia is not a police state. Then again, it's not a democracy either. It's a civil version of a free for all. =) Thegreatdr 17:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In general I agree, there's nothing inherently wrong with a half-decent new article on a non-landfalling storm. However it would be far more useful for all concerned if the editorial effort put into that task was spent on more significant articles, like the stubby seasons. Something like this takes more work than writing articles on a dozen non-landfalling storms and is orders of magnitude more important to Wikipedia's coverage. It would be better if people would put editorial effort into the poor articles on significant topics instead of making new ones on relatively minor ones. However, that is no reason to stop people creating new stuff.--Nilf anion (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, there's generally more information available on landfalling cyclones. If someone wishes to focus the effort it takes to produce a similarly useful article for a non-landfalling system, they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. Thegreatdr 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion started from what seems to be human error by the initiator of this discussion. The context the original message refers to no longer applies. Further comments should not read into the context, but into the idea. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 04:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it actually changes anything. I'll repeat my message, as I've seen it happen more frequently than I'd like to: Telling others how to stop wasting their time is a good way to waste yours. I'll make it my third law of Wikipedia if I have to... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. - SpLo T // 07:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Of talk pages and banners

I am wondering what is the best way to do talk pages and banners. Recently, some pages have put in the template "This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects". As the respective articles are most closely related to this project, I personally think the hurricane template should be left out of such groupings and be placed at the top of the list. Any thoughts? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's more of a Wikipedia-wide discussion (see Wikipedia:WikiProject reform), which came as a result of overtagging by WikiProjects. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing things that don't need it

Why is Hurricane Edith (1971) not at Hurricane Edith? "The general rule is that if the name is retired, it should have the main article, otherwise it should be distinguished by year." -- I believe this general rule should be "if the name is ambiguous, it should be distinguished by year, otherwise is should have the main article" (like the rest of Wiki namespace). It was moved back in September with the comment "moved Hurricane Edith to Hurricane Edith (1971): Standardizing", but parentheticals aren't for title standardization, they're for disambiguation, IMO. -- JHunterJ 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not at Hurricane Edith because Edith 1971 was not the only Hurricane Edith - there were storms named Edith in 1955, 1959, 1963, and 1967; the years do indeed serve to disambiguate the storms. Edith 1963 and Edith 1971 both had comparable impacts on the respective areas in which they made landfall, so if Edith 1963 had an article, you could make a similar argument for it (although fewer people died, there was more damage). I do see the need for a disambiguation page, however, and I will probably make one later. --Core desat 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a rule that SOME article should always have the main namespace (in this case Hurricane Edith). In this case it sounds like the disambiguation page should be there. But how can we be missing a disambiguation page? I thought all dabs for Atlantic storms were added in years ago? Very strange. — jdorje (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is that it has been addressed now. Thanks to JHunterJ for bringing this to the project's attention. Thegreatdr 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, it only came to my attention because the article was featured. Thanks, all! -- JHunterJ 15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, only a fraction of the needed disambiguation pages are in place. See the list of named tropical cyclones, any with multiple storms should get a disambig page (the location of that disambiguation depends of course).--Nilf anion (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I created a dab for all cyclones named Edith. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I thought we had a rule. Retired storms or storm names used only once get the main namespace page; all others get year-disambiguated pages. For those storm names that do not have any retired storms, disambiguation pages are created. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We never exactly agreed to that rule, though I think it's not a bad idea. However, very few storms are used only once worldwide, particularly with English-language names. For that, if only one Atlantic storm was named X, but X was also used as a tropical storm and a cyclone in the SWIO, should/can the Atlantic storm get the main page, or should Hurricane X redirect to Tropical Storm X as a dab? For the Atlantic, the only ones excluding retired storms and names on future lists that were used only once worldwide are Hurricane Candice in 1976 (which would probably not get an article anyway), Tropical Storm Candy in 1968 (maybe it would get an article), Tropical Storm Dottie in 1976 (maybe it would get an article), Hurricane Emmy in 1976 (has an article), the 2005 Greek-named storms excluding Alpha and Delta, Tropical Storm Felice in 1970 (no article yet), Hurricane Laurie in 1969 (no article yet), and Hurricanes King and Love in 1950 (King has article and is at main article, no article for Love). Should all of the aforementioned be at the mainspace or not? I could go either way, though I prefer the year identifier due to the possibility they could be used in the future. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

TC Rainfall debates I cannot get involved in

This is the gist of what I wrote on the Tropical Storm Hermine (1998) page. It is bound to come up again. I am more than happy to work on needed rainfall images that have not been created yet, but I cannot be called on to weigh in to a decision that involves a piece of my own work. My opinion would be slanted towards what I created, naturally. It has a section on bias you should all be aware of. Thegreatdr 17:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been in a sticky situation with being both a contributor to this project and a NOAA employee, which puts me in a rare position to make online edits to websites within NOAA and within Wikipedia, using one to justify the other. Is it original research if it is from a NOAA website dedicated to the task of constructing TC-related rainfall? Even though the results of the project have been presented at conferences across the country for five years now, and will someday be a series of papers/book in its own right, and it was mentioned as one of the top best practices in the Hurricane Katrina assessment, it does not mean it is perfect or the product of a clean consensus among tropical cyclone researchers. Hink is right to a point...as is Storm05. Trying to determine tropical cyclone rainfall maxima is difficult and sometimes subjective, since there is usually a complicating issue such as a nearby upper cyclone or frontal zones. Historically, TPC sometimes includes these effects, and sometimes does not, depending on the author of the TCR. Some people don't think you should include rainfall from spiral bands within these graphics including only core rainfall, others that you should include frontal effects a thousand miles from the cyclone when the tropical connection appears to be from a distant tropical cyclone (see Lili of 1996 and the rainfall in New England). If the rain areas between the two are merged, I include it all. Authors should be keenly aware of biases in sources, NOAA or not. I can tell you mine. You all can figure out the biases between authors of the TCRs on your own. Wikipedia does not make it easy, as it makes an effort to avoid weasel words, and TC rainfall is a weasly business. Perhaps that's why it has taken 50 years to update the storm totals from the previous attempt by my center's predecessor. Thegreatdr 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we should go by the source... be it Thegreatdr or not. :) But on a more serious note, it shouldn't have to be a sticky situation... because if we need something to be cited here, it probably means that someone else would find it useful too, and NOAA would be advised to write it on their site. If NOAA needs to cite us, then we alert Slashdot. :P But going back to the topic, as long as we (Wikipedians) are not making numbers out of thin air, we're OK. If there is a genuine disagreement between sources (e.g. TPC saying 10 inches, HPC saying 12), then the best thing we should do is to document both figures, per NPOV and all that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:AtlanticHurricaneSeasons

Is there a reason this was recently added to all Atlantic hurricane seasons? Does it really serve much purpose? First, it doesn't show every season, and even if it did show every season, what would be the point? The articles already link to the List of Atlantic hurricane seasons in the infobox, which is much more organized than the template. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It also promotes systemic bias unless more unnecessary templates are created. I wouldn't be opposed to a TFD on this one. --Core desat 03:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories and the aforementioned list should be sufficient for this one. Also, don't we already link to the past two and future two seasons in our infobox? - SpLo T // 04:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, simple as that. Redundant, as pointed out. – Chacor 04:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I TFDed it. --Core desat 15:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Atlantic hurricane seasons shouldn't be shoehorned into doing this navigational task; that list could be featured and if it was would be unsuitable for navigation in this manner. Nor is categorization an adequate replacement. I don't like this template; I think its poorly designed and badly implemented. However, there is a use for a template like this. Personally I would rather have a template like this one instead of the "fiveseasons" in the infobox, after all that 2005AHS was between 2004AHS and 2006AHS is not really a significant property of the season... A properly designed navigational template would be beneficial, I suggest we work out a way to replace it with a something that works. Nav templates for elections, sports seasons and TV episodes should give ideas on how to tackle this.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What about having a template for each decade (in recent times)? To solve the navigation problem, we could also list the last year of the previous decade as well as the first year in the next. For example, the 1990s template could be have the title of 1990-1999 Atlantic hurricane seasons, and would list 1989 as the previous one, 1990 through 1999 separately, and 2000 as the next one. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as no one objected, I added the template to the 1990s, and will do a few others. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:AtlanticHurricaneSeasons

Template:AtlanticHurricaneSeasons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Landfalls and geocoding

I've been thinking of a possible addition to {{Infobox Hurricane}}. Landfalls are significant events in storm histories and have a well-defined location. Given that, effective geocoding of them and looking into adding a "landfalls" section to the infobox might be a worthwhile venture. Thoughts?--Nilf anion (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a potential systematic bias issue here, as landfall data is only really available from NOAA. However as the data is not inherently restricted to the Atlantic, so I don't think its a reason to exclude useful information. It might be possible to use best track to establish landfall locations in a manner which is not original research, the JTWC does provide a degree of information - these are ways this shortcoming could ultimately be tackled.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be interesting, although one quick problem - should every landfall be listed? Hurricane Frances, for example, had 6 landfalls, 4 of which in the Bahamas (and I don't think all 4 are truly significant events in the storm history). It also becomes redundant with the areas affected, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

MfD on discussion archives

Hi, just drawing attention to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tropical cyclone discussion archives. Up for deletion are all the archives of discussion about tropical cyclones on the seasonal pages, as opposed to the archives of Wikipedia-related discussion. See the nomination for the rationale for deletion. The thoughts of project members would be appreciated there.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

~~This... just doesn't seem right... Cyclone1(02:06-20-05-2007)~~

Looks like they didn't pass for deletion. This makes my day. Cyclone1(23:19-20-05-2007)

WMO website updates

The WMO has redesigned their website. At least temporarily, this means that it is impossible to find anything. For example, the Tropical Cyclone Programme home page is entirely populated with dead links. Likewise, almost all of our links to the WMO are 404s... (xposted to WP:METEO)--Nilf anion (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone figured this one out, or tried contacting the WMO webmaster? I can do a bot run to sort it but I need to know where they've gone to.--Nilf anion (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed 3 members of the project who no longer have wikipedia pages

I'm guessing this is ok...but wanted to post here in case there was a problem with what I have done. I moved their names into the former members section. Thegreatdr 21:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem... I just made one correction (a member is active, but spends more time helping us out in #wiki-hurricanes than on the wiki), so she isn't really inactive. Otherwise, it's OK. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Forecast maps

Hello,

Quite a while ago, I started making forecast track maps, as forecasts came out, on Atlantic cyclones. A sampling of them is available here. I started doing this solely for my own amusement, but think it would be pretty nice to include them on Wikipedia. I have checked the product license for the product I use (DeLorme Street Atlas USA 2006) and it states the following:

Web Site Map Display Rights. You may display on your personal, business, or institutional Web site static map images derived from the System, provided that you include the Legend indicated below and that you provide a link to the DeLorme Web site at www.delorme.com from any page that shows a DeLorme map image. If you subcontract a web developer to display map images, said Web developer must purchase a license.

Legend. Any System output that is provided to a third party must include the following credit and copyright notice: “© 2005 DeLorme (www.delorme.com) Street Atlas USA®”. You may not remove, alter, or conceal any copyright or trademark notices appearing on any System output, except that when creating a mural map, you need only retain a single legend with scale, for use in the field.

I think these terms would be pretty easy to meet. The only other restriction is no commercial use, which can be taken care of based on the licensing tag used on the image pages.

Of course, if you folks were to embrace this idea, I would gladly create them for Pacific cyclones as well, to make it uniform, in addition to creating maps for past cyclones.

I would try to use the software currently used for final tracks, but have had difficulty with installation, so haven't even been able to play with it to see if it would meet my needs for this.

Cheers,

Search 4 Lancer 02:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

S4L, we already upload the NHC forecast maps (public domain) for active storms, so unfortunately I cannot see a real use. As for past cyclones, I'm not quite sure what you mean. – Chacor 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, but what I do is combine them, to show the forecasting accuracy (or lack thereof) throughout the lifetime of the storm. Inaccuracies of which can actually have large ramifications, such as the increase in oil prices while Ernesto was forecast to enter the Gulf (which it never did). As for past cyclones, I mean exactly that - those of yesteryear. Search 4 Lancer 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that is interesting. The forecasts themselves are from the archive at TPC/NHC, so it's not like it is original research. If he releases the maps for use within wikipedia, we might be able to use them within storm articles. I can imagine interest in this type of a map. Lancer, can you show us an example of this type of map? Mentally, I know what you're talking about...I think it would be helpful to others in the project to see an example. Your link was blank in my browser. Thegreatdr 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the recent crackdown on non-free images, I suspect no commercial use might be a slight problem. – Chacor 14:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As shown. It's a CSD criteria. – Chacor 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thegreatdr, I've uploaded an example here. In the meantime, I will try once more to get the other program to install correctly. Search 4 Lancer 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's about what I had imagined. We could get around the background map problem if the program used to plot tracks for tropical cyclones within wikipedia could be adapted to plot past forecast tracks. Thegreatdr 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If we have a database of the forecasting data it shouldn't be hard to adapt the current program to plot the forecasts. Using the same map background is pretty essential for this I'd think (though the current map background may not be the best one to begin with, I just used it because it was available from wikipedia). The only problem is there may be too much data here for easy visualization. — jdorje (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I finally got the track program to work. However, I'm failing to figure out how it could be adapted for this use. Then again, I'm also failing to modify existing storms in the program from 2005 (I would think modifying the storm text files would be all there is to it, however, I'm doing some crazy things with them with still no effect). Using this program would certainly produce a cleaner image than what I've been coming up with with SA2006. Search 4 Lancer 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The C code would have to be changed to (1) read in the forecast data (in whatever form it's in) and (2) draw both track and forecast information. — jdorje (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, using multiple input files (each a different forecast for the same storm) should accomplish the task. However, when I try this using random storm tracks I pulled out of the natlantic file, it instead gave me a map with every single storm track on it. Command used was ./track --input1 /home/redphoenix/trapro/tracks/db/db1.txt --input2 /home/redphoenix/trapro/tracks/db/db2.txt Search 4 Lancer 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If the data is in one of the already-supported formats, all you have to do is make a single file for the storm with each forecast as a separate storm entry. Then using that file as input will map all the storms in the file (to map just one storm you need to use --name or a different filter to get the one you want). However there are problems with this approach: the most obvious one is that you might want to change the color scheme or datapoint sizes to make the whole thing more legible. Next, this approach isn't really scalable since you're not likely to have time to make a track file for all 1,000 or so hurricanes that you might want to map forecasts of - the way to solve this is to change the parsing code to accept whatever format the data is already in. — jdorje (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Some are in this format, and some are in this format. Are either of those supported? If not, once I figure out what all that gibberish of a format is in the current files that come with the program, I'd have no problem converting them myself (or trying to remember how to work C as it's been a few years now). Is there a doc anywhere explaining the formats? Search 4 Lancer 02:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

<indent>The HURDAT format is undoubtedly the best for that, format description. The above is certainly possible. However, use of the track program will generate a single predicted track, whilst forecasts produce a cone. That makes me a little leery to try (especially for Atl/EPac where it is redundant.--Nilf anion (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

CPac naming dilemma

Dilemma with the CPac names: starting 2007, the CPHC is using a revised set of names. Ioke, for example, has been removed/retired. This causes havoc with our articles which mention "Ioke" as the last CPac name used. For example, the main list (lists of tropical cyclone names) still lists Ioke and the old lists, and says "The last name used from this list was Ioke, in the 2006 season." However, that is technically no longer correct as Ioke is not on the list (any more).

Thoughts?

The full new list is here: [2]. – Chacor 13:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hows This Chacor? ::The last name used from this list was Ioke, in the 2006 season Which Was Retired due to its effects in the 2006 Season and replaced with Iopa. The next tropical storm that forms in the Central Pacific will be named Kika?? Jason Rees 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

At Second glance they have removed some of the other names aswell Jason Rees 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: should Ioke be considered retired, and thus be included in the List of retired Pacific hurricane names? What about Paka, which was also removed? Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

i think Ioke and PAKA should be consdidered retired but can someone Email the CPHC to check please?Jason Rees 20:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I emailed them a few nights ago, and got a very useful response.

Dear Mr. Hink,

Before the start of the 2007 tropical cyclone season, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center worked with members of the University of
Hawaii Hawaiian Studies Department to ensure all of the Hawaiian names on our lists were proper words and didn't have any negative
connotations.

As a result of this review and collaboration, CPHC changed 15 names from the 4 lists published for the 2006 season. If you go to
http://www.ofcm.gov/nhop/07/nhop07.htm Chapter 3, page 3-11, the name in italics are the ones we changed.

1. Ioke was retired because it was such a significant system, but also because it was an incorrect Hawaiian word. So you can
considered it retired, but it would have been removed if it hadn't been retired because it had no Hawaiian meaning.
2. Paka was retired because of the destruction it caused in Guam in 1997.
3. We requested several names from the eastern Pacific including Daniel, Emilia, Estelle, Fabio, Gilma, Guillermo, Jimena, John,
Jova, and Kenneth to be retired, but the World Meteorological Organization Region IV Tropical Cyclone Committee (WMO RA IV TCC)
decided not to retire any of these, so they were not changed.
4. For Hurricanes Fico and Fefa, in 1978 and 1991 respectively, I am not sure whether they were retired or removed. Please contact
Lixion.A.Avila@noaa.gov at the National Hurricane Center who works with the WMO RA IV TCC on the retirement or removal of names from
the lists for the eastern Pacific.

Best Regards and Aloha,
Jim Weyman
Director Central Pacific Hurricane Center

So, based on that, I am adding Ioke and Paka to the retired Pacific hurricane names (yes, Paka should be included because it is a retired Pacific hurricane name, not just retired Pacific hurricane). Also, per the suggestion, I emailed Avila to find out, once and for all, about Fico and Fefa. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New version of TC FAQ updated today

The NHC TC FAQ was updated today online. It may be a good idea to check over work on previous articles to see if it matches the FAQ. The FAQ is not fool proof, as E12 did not originally match the list within The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones From 1851 to 2006 document (it does now). If you notice any errors within the TC FAQ, either leave a message in this section of the talk page and I'll relay it, or look up Erica Rule's e-mail within the NOAA Staff Directory. Thegreatdr 13:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Increased visibility within the TC community

Lately there has been a bit of talk amongst the TC community concerning Gonu, in the Arabian Sea. The global TC tracks image (from Wikipedia) was sent around the list, and the article on the country of Oman was also referenced. There is a wonderful Aqua image of this cyclone from yesterday, in case you'd like to use it for either its article, or its basin article. =) Thegreatdr 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about this Aqua image? I agree, it's wonderful. -- RattleMan 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They say no publicity is bad publicity, so I guess that's a good thing... right? ;) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oceanography Project Proposal

I propose a new project, related to tropical cyclones, WikiProject Oceanography; is there any interest in working on this project? It's much needed but would also be an undertaking and require at least a handful of committed editors to make it last and work. Evolauxia 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The project is proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oceanography. Evolauxia 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not. It is also related to topics such as thermohaline circulation and climate cycles such as ENSO and the MJO. Thegreatdr 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A new template?

I'm not sure if WPTC has something like this, but after the first few storms of the year in the EPac and Atlantic I was thinking of a way to make updating the article with the new advisory easier. If you take a look at Template:Height, you can enter a measurement, imperial or metric and it will convert it to another unit. There is also one for Template:Weight. Now, I think it would be helpful if there was a template for converting between knots, mph and k/hr. I don't know if it would work very well, but maybe someone with more Wikitext experience could try it. ---CWY2190^T^C 05:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree somewhat, you might like to look at the half-done current storm information sandbox I've come up with. Or maybe the better solution is to simply use conversion templates. - SpLo T // 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Inactive users

There are many users on the project who had made no edits since 2006 or even January-March 2007. This had been discussed before. However, Its unclear based on the discussion on my talk page whetever or not it justifies moving them to the former members section of the project page (or if the lack of recent edits determine if the user has left wikipedia). Thoughts?. Storm05 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to thank you for self-reverting, once again, and bringing it here. Personally, I don't believe that a lack of Wikipedia edits is a good indicator. As I have expressed, at least one user who you moved to "former" is a regular fixture in the project's IRC room and contributes in her own way by doing so. I'm a little hesitant, but I can understand why you think a lack of Wikipedia activity might indicate they are no longer interested in this (which isn't always the case). Alternatively, looking at the archives, I would not be opposed to creating an "inactive" section, rather than moving them to "former members". – Chacor 15:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

An inactive section would be nice especally if a user stops contibuting regulary on the project but is active on the IRC or the HurricaneWiki. Storm05 15:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea too. Thegreatdr 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the names could just be rearranged by order of editing activity. It's another option. Thegreatdr 09:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Indian Ocean tropical cyclones - 1-minute sustained winds

I received an e-mail from Gary Padgett today concerning Gonu's intensity in Indian warnings. Since it is relevant to any Indian-sourced warning, I thought it was worth making the project page. Apparently, India uses 1-minute sustained winds similar to the U.S., which is different than JMA. This became apparent during Gonu regarding their use of Dvorak wind estmates, which are 1-minute winds. FYI. Thegreatdr 18:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so they never use 10-min sustained winds? I'll adjust the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was in correspondence with Gary throughout Gonu. I forwarded the email on to a met (granted, he doesn't specialise in TCs, but takes an interest) in the UK, who's waiting on a reply from the IMD. However, he believes that the IMD, when reporting winds based on Dvorak, still uses a 10-minute scale Dvorak. Further, the Tropical Cyclone Op Plan for the area makes no mention whatsoever of 1-minute winds (and it does mention ten-minute winds). To say they "never use 10-min winds" is wrong, because all manual observations are taken at 10 minutes in this basin. In addition, they indicated in one of their advisories that maximum winds were 90 kts when they said Dvorak to be T4.5 (77kts), so obviously there's something up there. This should be properly cleared up with full clarification from the IMD before we change anything. – Chacor 02:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the time duration of manual observations may not be as relevent to the debate as one might think. When the United States switched to METAR in 1996, our sustained wind average went from 1 to 2 minutes. Our buoys remain a 10 minute average. Just something to think about. Did he not send you a copy of the IMD e-mail? I can post it here if you would like. Thegreatdr 17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

He did. That's the email I forwarded on to the met in the UK. I'd imagine the TC Op Plan would mention it if any values were 1-minute. I emailed him (Gary) again yesterday to ask if he knows the contact info of any TC specialists at the IMD, they seem to be the only ones who can clear this up. Until then we should follow the TCOP and assume 10-minute winds. – Chacor 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I just thought of something - the ICAO TC (aviation) advisories are meant to be issued in 10-minute format (except Honolulu and Miami). IMD issued an aviation advisory at 130kts, and I see nothing to suggest that IMD chose to deviate from the requirements of the ICAO in aviation advisories. – Chacor 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I sent the IMD an email and managed to get a rather quick response (about 33 hours). We'll have to re-work our infoboxes, the IMD's ICAO advisory winds are in given three-minute mean. – Chacor 15:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So what is required. Does the NIO require 1-minute and 3-minute as opposed to 1-minute and 10-minute?--Nilf anion (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tornadoes within storms, article treatment

While this may only be a long-term initiative for past storms, for future storms should a separate section be created for the tornadoes spawn by the tropical storm or hurricane if there are a considerable number or notable tornadoes? While that falls in the jurisdiction of WP Severe Weather, there would be an overlap there. (The exception is if there is a significant number of tornadoes - i.e. a full outbreak - or too much information on the main page that it needs to be spun off into its own separate sub-article) CrazyC83 02:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the preference of the editor. I suppose if there's enough information on the actual outbreak, having a separate section within the impact section might work, though I personally prefer to keep the tornadic activity with the rest of the impact. For example, I think the tornado outbreak works well in the article on Tropical Storm Bill (2003), with the tornadoes split by state. This would allow for uniformity between storms that caused only a few tornadoes or those that caused a considerable number. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The big issue there is that it involves a project overlap. Storms that cause a barrage of tornadoes (especially if any are significant or deadly) would have an article-worthy section on its own (per WP:SVR, taking away the fact it was related to a much larger event). Katrina already has been split off, Rita is in the works now, some others that might eventually be worth splitting off are Frances and Ivan, before that information is too scarce. CrazyC83 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One million homeless due to cyclone

I wanted to request that this project try producing a piece on Cyclone Yemyin, which (according to one of the lead stories in today's Guardian has left one million people homeless in Pakistan. Surely this deserves an article? Currently the article name is a redirect to 2007 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, which lists the storm name as "usused". Thanks, Walkerma 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that the storm had no official name, as the warning center for the basin, the IMD, did not name it, and thus Yemyin will still be used for a future storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In which case, Tropical Cyclone 03B (2007) or Cyclone 03B (2007) should be the article name. (Numbered storms should always have the year in the article name) CrazyC83 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. IMD didn't name the latest tropical storm to strike their country either. Its pressure was at least 982 hPa. Oy. Thegreatdr 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

New template

I created a new template, {{Template:Deadliest typhoons}}, which has the five deadliest typhoons that I know of. Currently it is in one article (Nina, as well as a sandbox article which I am trying to fix a problem in, but I don't see any particular reason why the other ones can't be created eventually. Also, I personally would like to have it the top ten (just like {{Template:Deadliest hurricanes}},, but I am not sure which other ones there are. (There may be deadly ones I missed). Finally, I don't know if there has to be a seasonal article for each year that far back. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. One quick question is are there any sources for the list? If not, it's not too big of a deal (did the same for EPAC). Have you tried the newspaper archive for the Swatow typhoon? I also would like to see a top ten deadliest tropical cyclones, though two questions arise; first, are there adequate sources to provide a worldwide top ten list, and second (and perhaps more importantly) would it be too skewed to one basin (NIO) to be worth having a worldwide list? Would it be like the list of most intense tropical cyclones, which is strongly skewed to the WPAC? Perhaps we should take a page from the most intense tropical cyclones, and have a template for deadliest tropical cyclones by basin. This is roughly what it would like.

The deadliest tropical cyclones by area of development or impact
Arabian Sea	Australia	Bay of Bengal	Central Pacific	East Pacific	North Atlantic	South Pacific	Southwest Indian Ocean	West Pacific
Cyclone 03A 1,126 (1998)	Cyclone Mahina 400 (1899)	Bhola cyclone 300,000 (1970)	Typhoon Oliwa 7 (1997)	Mexico 1,000 (1959)	Caribbean 22,000 (1780)	?	?	Haiphong 300,000 (1881)

Again, the problem is sources. I have no idea what is, or how to find, the deadliest cyclones in the South Pacific or SWIO. Come to think of it, it might end up being easier listing the overall deadliest. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You want sources? You got sources:

1881 Haiphong Typhoon Case Studies says 300,000 deaths
Typhoon Nina (1975) See that article and Banqiao Dam
1921 Swatow Typhoon Noaa News source says 60000 for Swatow Typhoon; Selga Chronology gives 100,000
1912 China Typhoon NOAA News source says 50000 for 1912 Typhoon
1937 Hong Kong Typhoon Page 52 of this document says 11000 deaths

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't terribly worried about sources for the Pacific typhoons, but since you posted, that's cool. I was more worried about sources for deadliest tropical cyclone for each region. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, on a somewhat related topic, the listing of hurricane templates is somewhat located here, though its name should certainly be changed. Would anyone be opposed if I moved that to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Templates?

I suppose it wouldn't hurt, though there is some discussion relevant to only that template on the page. It would be more of a page split than a move. --Core desat 02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GIBBS archive expansion

GOES imagery is now available back into the 1970s...I stumbled over this factoid on July 4. The individual tropical cyclone movies are now back to 1981. Since it appears only one or two of you just noticed this, I thought I'd let the project know as a whole. Thegreatdr 00:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, it's awesome! Cyclone1(01:50-9-07-2007)

Ibiseye.com

A few of us have recently reverted a mass addition of links to Ibiseye.com. The person left this note, I wanted others to comment on this. --Golbez 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Official stuff still > NY Times, imo. The commercial bit is what really gets me. We could just as easily link to govt sites that provide similar info. – Chacor 15:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, let's keep it official. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine ... if I there were *just* official links. But there is plenty of analysis and unique displays of the all H1-plus storms after 1851 that is not available anywhere, so far as I know. I'll let it alone. Cheers. Motamman 19:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this - we wait until a storm pops up (since it's difficult to gauge its realtime usefulness until then) and if it seems that your site offers a lot of useful information - especially if it's prominently linked to from the New York Times - then we will reconsider. I rather like the POI dots.

And I just looked at some old storms, guys, I think we might have something on the same level as Unisys here, this actually really looks like a good site; it was just a turnoff that it appeared on so many pages at once. Though, Motamman, I notice that it's missing a few storms; there's no Alpha, Delta, or Gamma from 2005. And I'm guessing it focuses only on the Atlantic basin and not on the Pacific or any other basins.

I suggest we pop this on to Tropical cyclone just below Unisys? Unisys is a commercial site too but offers a tremendous wealth of information, and you may notice the only ad on Ibiseye is for their sponsor, and it's a pretty small ad. (Motamman, it's not that I didn't look at your site last night, but it was so slow that I wasn't able to get a good feel for it) --Golbez 23:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look deeper. Let me clarify a few things. 1. We are a New York Times newspaper, based in Sarasota, Fl., not the Old Gray Lady. 2. We cover just the Atlantic basin. The site is Florida-centric but almost all of the features (alert subscription and damage reporting) function anywhere in the Southeast. 3. Our list of historic storms is limited to storms that reach H1 status or better. The current season displays everything from TDs up and we're investigating how we can also track invests.

Let's see what happens when a storms bubbles up, though it looks like that might be awhile given what's going in the gulf and between us and the West African coast.

Question: If you want to wait until a storm peculates, do u want me to add it to the Tropical Cyclone page at that time or do the collective yous what to check it it out and then add it?Motamman 13:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI we just added all HURDAT storms at ibiseye.com, not just hurricanes. We were filtering for just hurricanes but there was no reason to limit the overlays. In addition, we've substantially upgraded of storm synopsis, which now creates charts for wind speed, pressure and windfields for all storms back to 1851 (storms before 1988 have estimated windfields.) The synopsis still includes a count of cities hit by hurricane force winds and Florida properties exposed to hurricane-force winds. Finally, we added a map overlay that shows the hurricane strike rate of southeastern counties. (Turned on in the storms menu/dashboard.) Cheers, Mo Motamman 03:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We now have a live storm. Any chance we can get ibiseye added to this season's links?Motamman 10:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For those who are interested, we juat added invest tracking coupled with any model data for invests that is available. It's pretty bare-bones now, but it works. The data is displayed as part of our Points of Interest display, which is the default if there is no active storm. Cheers. Motamman 22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Note left on my user talk/Extended Best Track by Mark DeMaria

That was not intended to be spam at all.

We've spent two years developing a web site that shows historic storms (back to 1851) in a completely unique way - including the observed or estimated windfield by quadrant. In addition, we we've generated statistics on the relative severity of storms based on the number or towns exposed to hurricane force winds along with pop and households (using the 2000 census); in addition, for storms that hit Florida, we calculated the number, type and location and value of properties theoretically exposed to hurricane force winds winds (using the 2006 statewide property rolls as a benchmark.) All this data is updated on the fly when there is an active storms forecast to hit the US.

And there is much more to the web site, including a live news feed, near real-time weather data and NWS alerts and a damage reporting system that is utterly unique.

Of course, we are a commercial site, but we're part of the NY Times newspaper chain and we developed this application on the news side. Our intention all along was to create a hurricane resource that is live, dynamic and well informed.

There are are other links on hurricane pages that are repeated and clearly don't offer the depth and context of IBISEYE.

Please reconsider removing our link.

Cheers, Mo user: motamman

I guess my question is more technical than anything else: where did you get the historical hurricane data? Rather, how did you tabulate it? From HURDAT, or a different source?

If links are added, then you will see a significant spike of traffic to your site. While visiting it from a T1 connection, it seemed rather slow. Are you sure your site can handle it? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the slowness is computer-based, as I was having display-lag more than network-lag dragging the map around and such. But you do have a point. --Golbez 04:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The slowness is not a server issue. When we were in beta last year there where times when we were handling tens of thousands of visitors an hour without a hiccup. And we're about to cluster a second web server for the application. The slowness tends to improve after subsequent visits because the google tiles are cached locally. And since this is a javascript-heavy site, alot depends on the browser. IE. 6 is slow; IE 7 is better; FF 2 is relatively fast; Safari 3 is pretty good but we have embedded flash apps that are very fussy in Safari. Actually, flash is fussy period; we're working on that issue.

We are aware that this application pushes the limits of some browsers, but we've spend a lot of time experimenting with different methods of displaying information with an eye to increasing performance. For example, we could have opted to have the client's browser render the storm windfields. Instead, we opted to use the google servers to render the windfields as a custom tileset, simply because it's faster. (We did lose some functionality.)

Regarding our sourcing of storm data, this is from our storms dashboard: Current Tropical storm season related data provided by Weather Underground.

Historic hurricane data provided by Mark DeMaria and John Knaff, NOAA/NESDIS (Source note: between 1988 and 2006, windfield sizes were based on observations; between 1851 and 1987, windfield sizes were estimated based on the strength of the storm, latitude and several other variables.)

I hope that helps. Cheers, Mo Motamman 13:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It does. So the others in the project know, he was supplied with what is known as the extended best track, which includes storm size and wind radii from 1988-2006. I wish NHC or HRD would place this in their archive section...was looking for it myself last week. Thegreatdr 04:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... if it is not available anywhere else [easily], then I don't mind linking to them. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the weblink for segments of the extended best track, created and updated by Mark DeMaria. I'm planning on using the ROCI (radius of outermost closed isobar) to create an in-house script to help in determining analogs for TC rainfall events within the climatology. Thegreatdr 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Importance in hurricane template

This topic needs to be discussed sometime, so why not now? I believe we should have stronger standards for importance levels. Earlier today, I believed that a cyclone that killed about 1,000 was high importance, but another user lowered it to mid. The problem is, we never really decided if importance should have the same levels for each basin. Does the fact that it's in the North Indian Ocean, where such deadly cyclones are common, make it not as important, or should it be just as important as a cyclone that causes 1,000 deaths in the WPAC or Atlantic? Are Atlantic hurricanes, which have more interest on Wiki and, to an extent, more interest in the meteorological community, more important than other basins by default? We never resolved top importance, either. Perhaps we should be thinking ourselves more as a generic hurricane encylopedia, and in doing so assess importance as how important it is to the encyclopedia. For example, I believe all retired tropical cyclones are very important to be in a hurricane encyclopedia, and thus I believe all retired storms should be at least high importance. Currently, it seems like most storms are squeezed into low or mid, with only a few of high and only a select few being top. Is everyone OK with how it is now, or does anyone think it could be changed? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the system (or lack of it) is quite deplorable, but such standards would require a fair amount of preliminary debate. I would much prefer a better and fairer distribution, especially with regard to the rarity of high importance articles. I would like to put forth two initial criterion for importance: effects and "notability". The former includes, but it not restricted to, damage and deaths. The latter would be of the meteorological significance that Hink speaks of - especially in the case of storms with unusual formation, extreme rainfall, extreme wind speeds or retirement. These ideas are rudimentary at present; any more thoughts? - SpLo T // 11:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we've had this debate before, but it just degenerated into agreeing to disagree. I think both effects and notability are important to the articles. Killing 1000 would certainly seem like a high importance tropical system to me. Thegreatdr 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons are difficult to make between historic and recent storms due to the advancements in technology and warning systems. Also where the storm hit should have a role to play - a storm that kills 1,000 in the US or in Japan or another developed country should be at least High (if not Top like Katrina due to the extreme amount of information) while a storm that kills 1,000 in Haiti or Bangladesh should be Mid as it is not exactly a rare event (tragically) and a lot easier to do. CrazyC83 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the subjectivity that needs to be removed from the process. Just come up with some set of guidelines. How much good did our advanced technology and warning systems really serve us during Katrina? As long as more people are willing to put their lives at risk to live within 50 miles of the coastline, the death toll should increase with the years, not decrease. There was a study several years back that virtually foretold that. For example, Lows are tropical cyclones with less than 100 casualites and are common otherwise, Mids are tropical cyclones which kill 100-1000 people or are of at least hurricane/typhoon strength, and highs are tropical cyclones that kill over 1000 people or are major hurricanes. If 1000 is too low, up the ante to 2000. Make Tops the top 5 or 10 historic tropical cyclones in each basin, whether it is from a destruction standpoint, an extreme intensity standpoint, or in the case of Catarina and the April 1991 tropical storm, just by forming there. It would be too complex for the project to make a list of different numbers for different countries. It should be simple so we easily apply the standards across basins. Thegreatdr 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Some good work in the season articles as of late

I gave a recent contributor a working man's barnstar for their work lately in updating the season articles (including the Eastern Pacific) which tends to be a noble, yet time consuming project. Personally, I'm increasingly using the Wikipedia articles over the NHC articles when determining which storms to include inside the TC rainfall climatology for Mexico because of their greater organization, more user friendly interface, and more updated information. =) I encourage others to thank contributors for the otherwise thankless task of updating the season articles, in their own ways. Who knows...maybe it will encourage others to contribute to the annual articles. Thegreatdr 00:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get back to doing 1994 Pacific typhoon season soon after exams next month, and hopefully that'll be done by September-October... – Chacor 01:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones in popular culture deletion debate

Tropical cyclones in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. I think it's a useful and interesting collection that underscores the importance of our view of tropical storms. Agree or no, please participate in the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello strangers

Just a note to say I'm alive - check my user page for more info and read this essay please. In other news: ${\begin{aligned}\forall x\in \{tropicalcycloneseasons\},\exists y\in \{WikimediaCommons\}:y=track(x)\end{aligned}}$ [3].--Nilf anion (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back; glad to see you're alive. Great job with the seasonal track maps :) Hurricanehink (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bringing the Atlantic basin articles up the Western Pacific basin standards

There has been considerable work done on the other basins during the past year or two, so it's not just the work of one or two people either, but at least a handful of us. Believe it or not, some of our Pacific seasons in the 1980s are in better shape that the Atlantic seasons. We don't seem to have come up with a solution that uses infoboxes in all basins in all years...they have been saved for the most recent Atlantic seasons but are used more thoroughly in the western Pacific. Thegreatdr 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hatnotes and overuse?

Currently, nigh on every TC article has a Hatnote. For example, Hurricane Katrina has:

This article is about the Atlantic hurricane of 2005. For other storms of the same name, see Tropical Storm Katrina.

There is nothing wrong with this, as it is possible to end up at that article whilst trying to find out about Hurricane Katrina (1981). However, the MoS suggests that when article name is not ambiguous it should not be disambiguated. Hurricane Katrina (1981) currently starts with:

This article is about the 1981 hurricane. For the destructive hurricane in 2005, see Hurricane Katrina. For other storms of the same name, see Tropical Storm Katrina (disambiguation).

We can certainly drop the reference to Katrina '05 in that particular hatnote; and is there a justification for any hatnote at all in that article? After all it is clearly about a storm in 1981.

If we do decide to economise on the hatnotes we can TfD all those superfluous hurricane specific hatnote templates as well (no reason we can't just use the standard {{otheruses}}. Thoughts?--Nilf anion (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very possible to get to that article from the 1981 Atlantic hurricane season article. I agree that we should drop the mention of 2005 from the hatnote but a link to the disambiguation would still be helpful. – Chacor 00:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what it is really is the debate about what dabs are for. They are designed for people using the search box; if the links between articles are well-designed they should never go to the wrong article as a result of following links. For instance with Katrina 1981, they will be expecting and find the article on Katrina 1981 if they follow the link from the season. So in a strict reading the hatnote is not necessary - someone going to Katrina 1981 is after the article on that storm; they won't go "What am I doing here? I wanted the article on Katrina 1999?".

The biggest difference between our hatnotes and Wiki wide ones are that Katrina 1981 and Katrina 2005 are somewhat more related than Tree and Tree say. I can imagine a storm article linking to another storm in a previous year without saying what year that was. In that case the prose of the article needs revision... The hatnotes provide a degree of navigation between articles; but they should have no value to disambiguation except on the main articles. If people are using our notes for for disambiguation except on main articles, our prose is lacking. The question is does the additional navigational value justify keeping them?--Nilf anion (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if my point got across fully. I couldn't actually see it in your reply. No, they won't go "why am I at the wrong article", but someone who gets to Katrina 1981 might be interested in reading about the storm of the same name from 1999. It's not so much a hatnote about disambiguation, but a hatnote saying there are other articles on storms named "Katrina", and you can click here to see a list of them. I imagine they should be merged into either the "Retirement" (or "Impact", if name wasn't retired) section, where it says the name was used previously in A, B, C and used after that in X, Y, Z (and link as needed), or moved to the/a see also section. – Chacor 11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I was just checking we are looking at them the same way. This is the situation you are describing really, someone looking at Katrina 2005 might be interested in Katrina 1981 - which "technically" is the role of in-line links or the see also; ideally the hatnote is not a substitute for those. I suppose that requires judgement on our part too, if someone goes to Hurricane Alice - which of other storms called Alice are of interest? Alice1 definitely is, but I doubt the SHem cyclones are. The other issue is for many of the SHem storms, they have more about them on dab pages than in seasonal articles (sigh).

Our dab pages are much more detailed than the norm, maybe its time to make the effort to move that info to seasonal pages, where it belongs. Like I said in my essay the other day we have an obsession with naming trivia - we need to step back and ask objectively how relevant is Cyclone Katrina (1998) to Hurricane Katrina (2005); not just see the name and say of course they are related. I do not think that all of the 18 other storms called Alice are of interest to a reader of Alice 54-55.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as our dabs are more detailed than the norm, and there is some interest in them, perhaps move articles like Tropical Storm Alice to something like List of tropical cyclones named Alice. It's just a thought, and wouldn't have to be implemented fora while, but it could handle the naming trivia, and also provide a link for the see also section (which as of current usually links to list of notable TC's, even if it wasn't notable). It would also get rid of the dab at the top of most pages, which I agree is pretty useless; it's purpose is largely in case someone is interested in other storms of the same name. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

List of notable tropical cyclones AFD

Just to let you know that your high-importance article List of notable tropical cyclones is up for deletion. People will have a hard time finding the most notable cyclones if it goes... I guess we'll just have to click through all the lists of records. Kappa 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hog Island (New York)

I saw this article tagged under the category Historic weather events in the United States. After reading the article, if it is going to have a weather tag at all I'm wondering if a tropical cycone tag isn't more appropriate. It is also lacking of any projects, so if you feel that it's notable enough it probably would be better suited for tropical cyclones than the regular weather events. Gopher backer 17:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Active storms - current storm information - RSMC only?

See User talk:Chacor#Taiwan CWB and WMO and User talk:Ludahai#Taiwan CWB.

I am still of the opinion that for all storms, regardless of location, we should only include the relevant TCWC or RSMC (and JTWC) information. For example, for Dean we only have the NHC, we don't say what the Netherlands Antilles, or Barbados, or Dominica, or Meteo France, etc. have analysed on the storm.

The issue here seems to be that since the CWB is not a WMO member, they don't accept JMA information. But we are international. To have conflicting information from JMA (RSMC) and CWB (non-WMO, but official locally) [since they both use 10-minute winds] would be a disaster.

I strongly feel that we should only include TCWC/RSMC information (and JTWC info where it is appropriate). – Chacor 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. Not quite in my opinion. Information from bodies other than TCWCs, RSMCs and JTWC may be appropriate. For instance, with Chantal it would have been sensible to have used the CHC in the extratropical phase; HPC for US landfalls etc. The key question to ask is "does using this source add anything?" If the RSMC is not providing information we think should be included but another source is, use that alternative source. If the RSMC then starts to issue information it would supersede the other source.--Nilf anion (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

RSMCs may have out-of-date casualty totals, or may lack information related to regional effects of a storm. So, no, I don't see why we should do that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Chacor, thank you for taking my concerns seriously. I am only suggesting that Taiwan's data be taken seriously for storms that are in Taiwan's waters and/or approaching and directly threatening the country. As for now, I am including coordinate and directional data only, as they are at this point being update more frequently than Japan's numbers. However, once it is in Taiwan's waters and over Taiwan's land mass, it would seem logical that Taiwan's numbers would be more reliable. Taiwan is not some third world country. It is a modern country with advanced systems and can measure storms accurately. Taiwan is NOT a WMO member, not of its own choice. Wikipedia IS international, which means that Taiwan's numbers SHOULD be taken seriously when they are relevant to the storm, as they clearly are at this point. WIth the eye of the storm set to pass over my home city, I would certainly take the observations of our weather service more seriously than Japan's or anyone elses at this point. ludahai 魯大海 00:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For any given point six to seven warning centres could have 'official' warning responsibility - Sepat currently has Japan, China, Hong Kong, Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, and the JTWC. Why should Taiwan be considered the sole official warning centre? Just because it's not a WMO member? Then that's POV and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Since the government in Beijing considers Taiwan a renegade province the CMA technically has the main warning responsibility for the storm. But you don't see me going on about they should be considered official for Taiwan. Since the JMA and CWB are issuing information on the same things - positions, winds, etc, RSMC information should supersede local information as Nilf said. Even Tito's point does not directly answer this. If there are things that the local warning centre is warning on that the RSMC isn't, then yes, by all means include it. But if it's the same things being warned on, as is the case here, RSMC information should be what we consider. – Chacor 02:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Right now, the typhoon is targeting Taiwan and is approaching Taiwan waters - NOT Hong KOng, and not China (at the moment.) As for bringing in China's illegal claim, that is simply silly. I have already said that I accept JMA's data most of the time, however, once the storm is over Taiwan, CWB data SHOULD be included as well as warnings that are likely to be issued within a few hours. Those warnings WILL be included when they become available. ludahai 魯大海 02:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for including local warnings, we include them for Guam and the CNMI, so why not Taiwan. But there is only ONE regional official source for the important information (position, storm strength etc) - Japan. – Chacor 02:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is just a special case of a common problem, that of conflicting sources. In Atlantic articles, it comes up quite often that the TCR or other NHC data for a storm gets outdated and superceded by a local source. Local (government) or international aid organization sources are often more up-to-date for damage and deaths assessment, for example. You really have to judge on a case-to-case basis, but I will agree that for meteorological information the TCWC should almost always be considered the official source. — jdorje (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia sourced

Accuweather has sourced the article for Hurricane Gilbert on its impacts and Dean's track similarity... CrazyC83 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On Main Page

Now Hurricane Dean (2007) and Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C. are both on the Main Page. One of them is today's featured article, and the other one is in the news. Keep an eye for vandalism on both articles. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A little help here?

Hi. I recently created a current hurricane infobox for the simple english wikipedia; see: here and here. However, when I upgraded Dean to hurricane status, the box on the right top corner just says "TC", when really it should say a number. I don't have much expertise in creating new infobox templates (!), and I created it because the simple english wikipedia really needed some kind of template to show current hurricanes with. Can someone who is either willing to create an account on simple english or already has one help with the template? It may confuse some users if it is left as something in the way of suggesting: "current category: hurricane", "category: TC". I just copied and pasted the template from the English wikipedia, and created another template within the infobox which showed as a red link. Either of those templates may still contain other templates which are not present in the Simple English wikipedia, and I'm not sure which ones. Could someone please come help? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 13:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Typhoons and {{storm colour}}

Can we make some effort to make a pleasing colour for typhoon? This was always meant as a temporary colour to distinguish it from the SSHS colours. However, compared to them it looks "dirty". This is because it is effectively a combination of the SSHS colours and that action tends to make things become more brown. This colour is not used in track maps which means the issues are: what it appears like against a white background and not looking hideous adjacent to a block of one of the SSHS category colours.

At the least I would like to see that saturation increased somewhat. By itself, this will end up with it approaching one of the SSHS colours - so it probably needs a greater adjustment in the HSV color space. Ideally it should be somewhere in the red-yellow part of the spectrum - I think the great colour debate resolved we don't want a colour from elsewhere...--Nilf anion (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I made some test bars as possible replacement candidates:

Typhoon (JMA)

The problem is that there are too many colors that were shot down during The Great Colorbar Debate, and there are too many shades of orange and red that conflict with the SSHS colors, though I have no problem with just using say, the Category 3 color and going with it. --Core desat 05:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember, the original colour was meant to be a balance between the blue shades of TD/TS/STS and the yellows of the SSHS, hence the ugly dark olive colour. – Chacor 05:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

True, although it might be worth assigning a color that is somewhat in line with the yellows, given that we're talking about a hurricane strength equivalent here. --Core desat 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The yellow part of the color space was truly crammed... that I do remember. So maybe we'll have to use a more reddish color for a typhoon, and then readjust the STY color as well. Any suggestions? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't actually use the super typhoon colour... – Chacor 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If we don't use that color, why not use it as the JMA typhoon color instead? --Core desat 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Some more suggestions, based on that idea:

Typhoon (JMA)	fdaf9a
Typhoon (JMA)	fc735f
Typhoon (JMA)	fc7973

I like the first one better. It is a hue somewhere in between Cat4 and Cat5, with a decreased saturation value to indicate the possibility of a lower wind intensity. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

9A (the first color) looks good. --Core desat 04:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll also vote for the first one. The other two are too dark IMO. ---CWY2190^T^C 04:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's take it for a test drive, then. Switched. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hurricanne Warning Templete TFD

This Template has been Nominated for Deletion. Please leave comments/your vote here #1 Thanks Jason Rees 17:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The TfD closed as no consensus. This template really should not exist at that location, as articles on other events could also benefit from this one. Interested WPTC editors had best discuss it here on WP:NDT (the relevant project page).--Nilf anion (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Tracks project

Since many people other than me are using the track-making program (User:Jdorje/Tracks) these days, I propose moving its page into the wikiproject space. — jdorje (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

TRMM images

TRMM is a joint-NASA/JAXA effort. While NASA images are PD, JAXA's pages have an "all rights reserved" disclaimer, including on pages with TRMM images. This needs to be sorted out. – Chacor 12:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say there is nothing to worry about, just ensure the specific images we use originate from NASA not JAXA. The way the typical TRMM image on the Earth Observatory is credited suggests that NASA considers itself the copyright holder as it only credits NASA staff. This contrasts to the SeaWiFS which says the images are "courtesy of the SeaWiFS project".

TRMM is not any different from Aqua for that matter; that is not a pure NASA venture, and deleting all MODIS pics as copyvios would be extreme copyright paranoia. TRMM imagery is a visualisation of raw data that is not an inherently an image. In my opinion, the relevant copyright is in interpreting that data and producing a graphic from it - if this is the case we have no concerns. Bear in mind that the NASA visualisations are distinct from the JAXA ones. The best thing to do would be ask on Commons, and see if my opinion correlates with that of the more copyright aware people there. If they agree we can stop worrying there and then. If not, then contact the relevant NASA staff.--Nilf anion (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy for a storm page where no TCR has been written yet

I was under the impression that if information was out there from a government source (whether it be NWS, NHC, HPC, JTWC, JMA, SMA, CHC) that it could be used within an individual storm page. The reason I bring this up is because HPC had a political hot potato with Erin reintensifying Oklahoma, and in real-time those who wrote the advisories kept the winds under gale/tropical storm strength merely because HPC does not currently have the authority to upgrade inland tropical depressions to tropical storms in real time, not because there were issues with data quality. The information is out there, on at least two government pages, that Erin had sustained winds of tropical storm force over Oklahoma, and will likely be included in the monthly global TC summary which is also likely to come out before the TCR, which will magnify the problem. Does the mere absence of a TCR, or for that matter relevant information that should be in a TCR but is not, cause us to ignore other viable sources if they can be easily referenced? If we use information from these sources in the body of the articles, shouldn't the infobox be updated for this information? Otherwise the infobox would be inconsistent with the article. Thegreatdr 16:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The information should definitely be included. However, no. The infobox's maximum wind speeds should retain the maximum operational wind speeds in advisories until declared otherwise by the NHC in its monthly TWS or in the storm's TCR. The article can say that the highest winds were not used in any advisory, or similar, and that would solve the inconsistency issue. Alternatively, add a note (using ref tags) next to the infobox value that there were higher winds recorded but not given in official advisories, but the infobox should continue to contain the official peak value. – Chacor 16:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why such an inconsistency between information in the article and its infobox is necessary. Isn't wikipedia an encyclopedia? Shouldn't it be devoid of such politics? Thegreatdr 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no politics here and the only politics I can see is you trying to accuse me of something. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but we should be reporting what is official, and in this case what is official is that Erin had 35 kt winds at its peak. Like I said, it can be mentioned in the prose that Erin had higher recorded winds, or there could be a note appended in the infobox. But the TPC nor the HPC said "Maximum sustained winds are near 50 mph" - the infobox thus should not say maximum sustained winds were 50 mph. – Chacor 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This debate is not (as much) about what is official as what is truthful. Shouldn't we be stating the truth within these articles, if supported by viable/credible references? Since I placed a page on the HPC website stating otherwise on Friday, that means (for better or worse) that HPC now recognizes Erin's maximum sustained winds reached 50 mph and that its central pressure fell to at least 1000 hPa. Like NHC, the summary would trump the advisories. Since the OK forecast offices stated something similar, I didn't see a problem with it. SPC is supportive as well. Why not be consistent within an article? Can't wikipedia rise above such bureaucratic nonsense? Wouldn't such a disparity prevent an article from achieving GA? Either the project includes the same information in both the article or the infobox, or it uses it in neither place. Otherwise, people will edit the infobox to be consistent with the article. From my viewpoint, it's common sense. Thegreatdr 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look up a bit, you'll see a different discussion where there's agreement that for storm information, the TCWC/RSMC should be the primary source. We can mention the WFOs recorded higher winds, I have nothing against that. The infobox should strictly adhere to official information, however. Again, I have said that if the NHC raises it to 50 mph in its monthly tropical weather summary, sure thing, use that in the infobox. As for wouldn't such a disparity prevent a good article, I see no reason why a sentence in the prose saying "winds of X were recorded but were not officially reported", or a note in the infobox noting the higher recorded winds, would mean that a GA would fail. (Also, imo, it seems rather disappointing that while, granted you work for the HPC and have the ability to do so, you refer to your work for the HPC in gaining an advantage in a wiki discussion. But this is a tangent from the discussion.) – Chacor 16:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you all as a group agreed to the infobox idea of only being from NHC (since it's the RSMC), that would resolve the situation. This infobox agreement needs to be stated on the main TC project web page (I didn't see it there nor in the discussion above). The monthly summary issued by NHC either this Saturday or next Monday may resolve the matter. I wonder if the person/people who review the article for GA (if not within the TC project) are likely to know about this agreement when they notice this kind of disparity. Adding it somewhere within the TC project main page would help out. Thegreatdr 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You misread what I said. I said there's agreement that for storm information, the TCWC/RSMC should be the primary source - there clearly is. I did not say that there was agreement that this would be used in the infobox, however there is an inference on my part, since the infobox has the key storm information. This issue can certainly wait the one week until the TWS is out on Saturday. And any further responses on my end can wait a few hours - I'm heading to bed. – Chacor 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If erin's winds strengthened over Oklahoma, isn't that actually proof that it was not tropical at the time? And doesn't the infobox exclude non-tropical strengths, or mention them only as an add-on? — jdorje (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No. There are several storms in HURDAT that formed/intensified over Florida, Louisiana, and North Carolina and have been considered TCs. Nor was it the first time a former TC had a good radar presentation over Oklahoma - Felice (1970) is the best match, though it did not have a closed eyewall. Gaston (2004), Allison (2001) considered an ST, Danny (1997) were the most recent three examples of TC redevelopment over land. Erin's redevelopment is more remiscent of Allison's than the others listed in the prior sentence. I think Erin's tight wind core and lack of frontal boundaries aloft separates it from Allison regarding ST status. Influenced by a nearby shortwave does not negate tropical character either. Numerous tropical systems interact with shortwaves and upper lows, and that does not rule them out as tropical cyclones. It was warm core at that time, even in the cyclone phase space diagrams, so there is a strong case for considering this system a tropical storm over Oklahoma. It would be another matter entirely if it was merging with a frontal zone and interacting with a more significant upper trough in the Westerlies. This was not the case with Erin. It was agreed/mentioned during Andrea that extratropical cyclone information would not make the hurricane infobox. That is not what I was debating with Chacor and is not likely with Erin, though it was a good point Jdorje. =) Thegreatdr 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what is exactly the problem with including official, yet non-RSMC info? This is not the CWB/JMA issue we had the other day, since HPC took over responsibility from the TPC, so can anyone point to me what the problem is? I'm confused. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

HPC, due to political reasons, did not upgrade Erin to a TS while in OK in real-time. Chacor brought it up as a reason not to include info into the storm table initially, then generally mentioned about not including it in the article, though he allowed it to remain in this case. I can understand if this was a past event where a report had already been written and the tropical storm force winds were reported by one observation site which was considered "bad", but in this case a few different OK mesonet sites reported TS-force winds. We usually deal with this differently within a few months after an event. Thegreatdr 01:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've been absent the past few days, and I can't find a link where Chacor said that it was due to political reasons. I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere... but anyways. Did a WFO indicate that it was a tropical storm? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't state it was due to political reasons...I did. It is not current HPC policy to upgrade an inland TD to a TS, so HPC did not upgrade despite the doubling in sustained winds. Thegreatdr 10:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

HPC never said "Maximum sustained winds are near 50 mph" in any advisory. Why should the infobox claim maximum sustained winds were 50 mph? The issue here is including storm info not reported in official advisories in the infobox. It's similar to the JMA/CWB issue - two centres with different data. Also - I did not "[mention] about not including it in the article". I said this information "should definitely be included", just not in the infobox - look up. – Chacor 01:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Then what did you mean by your earlier statement further up about "for storm information, the TCWC/RSMC should be the primary source", but not particularly concerning infoboxes? To me, that would imply a preference towards not including the information at all, since NHC/HPC did not advise on such winds in real-time, and there is no TCR or TWS yet. Apparently I'm still misreading what you've said, or I remain confused by the fine line that has now been created between articles and their infobox. If I'm confused, a reviewer from outside this project would be similarly confused. This should be clarified if it's going to be standing practice. Thegreatdr 10:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, since apparently everyone is confused now, let's start back at the beginning. We need a way to cite that number, and the status, to satisfy WP:V requirements. We all agree on that, right? So, what is acceptable? Obviously TCRs and advisories by the NHC and HPC are fine. But do we have anything else calling Erin an inland tropical storm? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this thread is irrelevant to the matter at hand; the prior discussion is focussed on active systems, where two bodies are issuing information with slight differences. This is about 2 sources: one operational, one after-the-event. The NHC has not given any information on the storm overland to this date, therefore at this time the HPC is the primary source for any pertinent info.

The source giving the 50 mph is DR's rainfall page on Erin: http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/erin2007.html. This says "DR believes the peak winds were 50mph". If we didn't know who was the creator of those pages we would assume that it says "the HPC believes the peak winds were 50 mph". These may or may not be equivalent statements, depending how much latitude DR has with these pages (which is an internal matter for the HPC).

Pending some clarification of related issues, I would say the article should carry info to the effect that the HPC considers Erin to have been a TS over OK, maybe going further and say it was a TS over OK; the operationally tracking organisation, the HPC, says that and the NHC hasn't said anything yet. On the other hand, I'd say do not use the 50 mph figure, given its unclear provenance.--Nilf anion (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)