![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Hurricane Polo (2014) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 January 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2014 Pacific hurricane season. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Specialized archives: Tracking Data \\ ACE calcs |
Other basin talkpages (2014): Atlantic - W. Pacific - Central and East Pacific - N. Indian - S. Hemisphere |
Should hurricane Amanda have significant impacts on land following landfall (e.g. produce significant flooding, be at sufficient intensity, kill many people, etc.), an article would be best created at Hurricane Amanda rather than Hurricane Amanda (2014) because none of the other tropical cyclones with the name "Amanda" appear to have been of significance. I just wanted to say that. Dustin (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan - What about when there's that one guy who hasn't been a part of the project who has 500,000+ edits who suddenly sees the article? At one point, I saw an editor like that, and it did not end well for me. In this situation, I think that we might be able to work around that policy considering the long-term methods used in tropical cyclone articles; I was bringing up WP:PRIMARY for the purpose of reassurance. Back to the first thing I said, before we try to do anything else, I would advise that we wait about 2 hours and 45 minutes until the NHC releases its next update on Hurricane Amanda. Dustin (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Just so I can get all of this out here at once:
If there's enough information for the task and the conditions are met, I think that creating an article for Amanda would work pretty well. I've already created a redirect at Hurricane Amanda, so I know where it would be placed. I am new to this kind of thing, so sorry if I am asking too much on my first bullet point. Dustin (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No need for an article. The storm hasn't affected land, and it has only lasted three days. Despite the extreme intensity, the meteorology history has been rather boring. Furthermore, Amanda is the first storm of the season, so the season article is fairly short right now. Whatever additional info that would be in the season section. If you want to make an article, at least wait for the storm to dissipate. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Are we seriously going to do this again this year...? If there's enough info, go ahead and make an article. If not, don't. Simple as that. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 12:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
At this point I do not see anything about Amanda that cant be covered in the main article here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep on removing the non-breaking spaces, but this is getting really irritating. Line breaks will occur in places where it messes with the appearance of the text, and I am not happy to see that my last comment was ignored with no explanation given. Non-breaking spaces are represented by " " and have a reason. See WP:Non-breaking space. You don't want line breaks to occur within dates or measurements. You wouldn't, for example, want a line break to occur between "May" and "26." So instead of entering it as "May 26," you would enter it as "May 26." The same goes for measurements; instead of entering "100 mph," you would enter it as "100 mph." Please, at least give me a reason for which you are removing the non-breaking spaces. Dustin (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
nowrap}}
make things easier to edit?
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff)
06:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)I will add that if there was going to be an intermediate advisory, it could be downgraded. I just think it is better for consistency purposes to use a progressive form of system updating; in that way, the same type of updating may be used every time. To the IP, sorry if I frustrated you or something. I just don't feel like listening when you don't give an edit summary. I haven't been in the most excellent mood today, so sorry if I ticked you off or something. Ask for clarification, if needed. Dustin (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody say a bit more about the rationale for not putting (e.g.)
File:06E 2014 5day.gif on Commons? I don't see that "Time sensitive image, which is likely to be updated over the next few days." is an objection - it's never bothered us in the past, and Commons even has a template {{current}}
to cover this eventuality. The obvious drawback of putting these on English Wikipedia is that they are not available to other language wikis.--
Keith Edkins (
Talk )
08:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
{{current}}
isn't supposed to mean "this is bang up to date, trust your life to it", it means "this file is subject to change, don't use it as a permanent fixed snapshot". I mentioned it only as evidence that there is no prohibition on loading time sensitive images to Commons.--
Keith Edkins (
Talk )
16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall Fausto ever making it even close to Hawaii, but someone has added Hawaii to the impacted locations from Fausto in the Season effects section multiple times now. Could whoever is doing this please give an explanation? Dustin (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Some of the paragraphs in the season summary section don't read very well or appear useful. For example, it implies July was slower than usual "However, activity diminished after Cristina [which was in mid-June], as only one storm attained hurricane status during the ensuing six weeks." However, this has actually been chugging along at a well above-average pace thus far. It still is - if the current disturbance becomes Lowell before August 20, we will it will be earlier than 1992's Lester.
Perhaps it would be better to wait until the season is over? This will allow all climatological contexts and records to become clear. Until then, we can say that the pace has been above average so far and put the bits about Cristina and Amanda into the individual storm sections. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Today, the NHC declared Lowell as the seventh hurricane of the season. But if we see the article, there are eight hurricanes in the season. So, I'm a little bit confused with that.... -- Byralaal - ( talk!) 17:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are we using them to update now? It's preliminary and arguably unofficial and not widely known. Y E Pacific Hurricane 13:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
While this is looking to be nothing more than a fish storm it already has records broken, namely being one of the most intense Pacific hurricanes ever. The article would look similar to what we have for Hurricane Celia (2010). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I meant to say don't make judgments which don't go with the sources. Not all post-tropical cyclones are remnant lows, and as Marie still had winds of tropical storm-force, I find it hard for you to continue calling it a "remnant low" without an official source (NHC) saying so. Can you provide a specific source saying that being post-tropical is the same as being a remnant low? Was Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy a "remnant low" with winds of hurricane-force, just because it was post-tropical? Cristobal? No. I know those are Atlantic storms, but they were tropical cyclones, which is all that matters here. I think that is enough reasoning to necessitate sources to support this claim. Dustin (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are we not using their information for advisories and just remove the CSI stuff? We did for Sandy... Y E Pacific Hurricane 22:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Most northern or one of the most northern cyclones in the central Pacific basin? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
In the article, it says that "The season also featured more activity than the typhoon season of the same year. This had occurred for the first time in history." But as far as I can see, the two seasons are tied for named storms, and the EPac is actually behind in terms of tropical depressions. Also, the typhoon season has not ended yet. What is the criteria for featuring "more activity"? Is it the number of hurricane-strength storms? -- Weatherlover819 ( talk) 03:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
With the formation of another tropical storm in the western Pacific, the eastern Pacific clearly doesn't beat the typhoon season, so I removed the sentences in question.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Recently we had some questions about Genevieve's official intensity while being in CPHC's AoR, if we should follow the intensities given by CPHC's advisories or HURDAT database while the TCR. I stongly oppose following HURDAT in Central Pacific because they follow NHC's estimatives instead of following CPHC's estimatives, which is the CPAC's RSMC, thereby making its advisories and estimatives the official ones for the basin. There are some discrepancies between HURDAT and CPHC (Emilia in 1994 is a clear example), and in this case we should favor the official RSMC for the basin. ABC paulista ( talk) 19:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
And what we should be asking CPHC, exactly, to solve this question? ABC paulista ( talk) 18:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Cyclonebiskit: @ Jason Rees: @ Yellow Evan: @ Supportstorm: @ Hurricanehink: CPHC updated both Iselle's and Julio's TCRs. Please, could you guys update both sections, track maps and Iselle's article? It's not possible for me now, and I don't have the tools to create the maps. ABC paulista ( talk) 16:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 2014 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Hurricane Polo (2014) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 January 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2014 Pacific hurricane season. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Specialized archives: Tracking Data \\ ACE calcs |
Other basin talkpages (2014): Atlantic - W. Pacific - Central and East Pacific - N. Indian - S. Hemisphere |
Should hurricane Amanda have significant impacts on land following landfall (e.g. produce significant flooding, be at sufficient intensity, kill many people, etc.), an article would be best created at Hurricane Amanda rather than Hurricane Amanda (2014) because none of the other tropical cyclones with the name "Amanda" appear to have been of significance. I just wanted to say that. Dustin (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan - What about when there's that one guy who hasn't been a part of the project who has 500,000+ edits who suddenly sees the article? At one point, I saw an editor like that, and it did not end well for me. In this situation, I think that we might be able to work around that policy considering the long-term methods used in tropical cyclone articles; I was bringing up WP:PRIMARY for the purpose of reassurance. Back to the first thing I said, before we try to do anything else, I would advise that we wait about 2 hours and 45 minutes until the NHC releases its next update on Hurricane Amanda. Dustin (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Just so I can get all of this out here at once:
If there's enough information for the task and the conditions are met, I think that creating an article for Amanda would work pretty well. I've already created a redirect at Hurricane Amanda, so I know where it would be placed. I am new to this kind of thing, so sorry if I am asking too much on my first bullet point. Dustin (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No need for an article. The storm hasn't affected land, and it has only lasted three days. Despite the extreme intensity, the meteorology history has been rather boring. Furthermore, Amanda is the first storm of the season, so the season article is fairly short right now. Whatever additional info that would be in the season section. If you want to make an article, at least wait for the storm to dissipate. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Are we seriously going to do this again this year...? If there's enough info, go ahead and make an article. If not, don't. Simple as that. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 12:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
At this point I do not see anything about Amanda that cant be covered in the main article here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep on removing the non-breaking spaces, but this is getting really irritating. Line breaks will occur in places where it messes with the appearance of the text, and I am not happy to see that my last comment was ignored with no explanation given. Non-breaking spaces are represented by " " and have a reason. See WP:Non-breaking space. You don't want line breaks to occur within dates or measurements. You wouldn't, for example, want a line break to occur between "May" and "26." So instead of entering it as "May 26," you would enter it as "May 26." The same goes for measurements; instead of entering "100 mph," you would enter it as "100 mph." Please, at least give me a reason for which you are removing the non-breaking spaces. Dustin (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
nowrap}}
make things easier to edit?
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff)
06:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)I will add that if there was going to be an intermediate advisory, it could be downgraded. I just think it is better for consistency purposes to use a progressive form of system updating; in that way, the same type of updating may be used every time. To the IP, sorry if I frustrated you or something. I just don't feel like listening when you don't give an edit summary. I haven't been in the most excellent mood today, so sorry if I ticked you off or something. Ask for clarification, if needed. Dustin (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody say a bit more about the rationale for not putting (e.g.)
File:06E 2014 5day.gif on Commons? I don't see that "Time sensitive image, which is likely to be updated over the next few days." is an objection - it's never bothered us in the past, and Commons even has a template {{current}}
to cover this eventuality. The obvious drawback of putting these on English Wikipedia is that they are not available to other language wikis.--
Keith Edkins (
Talk )
08:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
{{current}}
isn't supposed to mean "this is bang up to date, trust your life to it", it means "this file is subject to change, don't use it as a permanent fixed snapshot". I mentioned it only as evidence that there is no prohibition on loading time sensitive images to Commons.--
Keith Edkins (
Talk )
16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall Fausto ever making it even close to Hawaii, but someone has added Hawaii to the impacted locations from Fausto in the Season effects section multiple times now. Could whoever is doing this please give an explanation? Dustin (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Some of the paragraphs in the season summary section don't read very well or appear useful. For example, it implies July was slower than usual "However, activity diminished after Cristina [which was in mid-June], as only one storm attained hurricane status during the ensuing six weeks." However, this has actually been chugging along at a well above-average pace thus far. It still is - if the current disturbance becomes Lowell before August 20, we will it will be earlier than 1992's Lester.
Perhaps it would be better to wait until the season is over? This will allow all climatological contexts and records to become clear. Until then, we can say that the pace has been above average so far and put the bits about Cristina and Amanda into the individual storm sections. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Today, the NHC declared Lowell as the seventh hurricane of the season. But if we see the article, there are eight hurricanes in the season. So, I'm a little bit confused with that.... -- Byralaal - ( talk!) 17:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are we using them to update now? It's preliminary and arguably unofficial and not widely known. Y E Pacific Hurricane 13:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
While this is looking to be nothing more than a fish storm it already has records broken, namely being one of the most intense Pacific hurricanes ever. The article would look similar to what we have for Hurricane Celia (2010). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I meant to say don't make judgments which don't go with the sources. Not all post-tropical cyclones are remnant lows, and as Marie still had winds of tropical storm-force, I find it hard for you to continue calling it a "remnant low" without an official source (NHC) saying so. Can you provide a specific source saying that being post-tropical is the same as being a remnant low? Was Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy a "remnant low" with winds of hurricane-force, just because it was post-tropical? Cristobal? No. I know those are Atlantic storms, but they were tropical cyclones, which is all that matters here. I think that is enough reasoning to necessitate sources to support this claim. Dustin (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are we not using their information for advisories and just remove the CSI stuff? We did for Sandy... Y E Pacific Hurricane 22:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Most northern or one of the most northern cyclones in the central Pacific basin? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
In the article, it says that "The season also featured more activity than the typhoon season of the same year. This had occurred for the first time in history." But as far as I can see, the two seasons are tied for named storms, and the EPac is actually behind in terms of tropical depressions. Also, the typhoon season has not ended yet. What is the criteria for featuring "more activity"? Is it the number of hurricane-strength storms? -- Weatherlover819 ( talk) 03:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
With the formation of another tropical storm in the western Pacific, the eastern Pacific clearly doesn't beat the typhoon season, so I removed the sentences in question.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Recently we had some questions about Genevieve's official intensity while being in CPHC's AoR, if we should follow the intensities given by CPHC's advisories or HURDAT database while the TCR. I stongly oppose following HURDAT in Central Pacific because they follow NHC's estimatives instead of following CPHC's estimatives, which is the CPAC's RSMC, thereby making its advisories and estimatives the official ones for the basin. There are some discrepancies between HURDAT and CPHC (Emilia in 1994 is a clear example), and in this case we should favor the official RSMC for the basin. ABC paulista ( talk) 19:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
And what we should be asking CPHC, exactly, to solve this question? ABC paulista ( talk) 18:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Cyclonebiskit: @ Jason Rees: @ Yellow Evan: @ Supportstorm: @ Hurricanehink: CPHC updated both Iselle's and Julio's TCRs. Please, could you guys update both sections, track maps and Iselle's article? It's not possible for me now, and I don't have the tools to create the maps. ABC paulista ( talk) 16:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 2014 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)