This is an archive of past discussions. 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
There's pretty much a consensus not to have them for each individual storm, but they are still there. Should we get rid of the individual tables, and instead add a season total ACE for the season infobox? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Since ACE information is popping up in quite a few storm articles nowadays, it's probably time to decide whether or not we want it. I'm in favor of it, as it's only a couple sentences, and more information never hurts. Thoughts? – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I am also in favour of using it in Storm Articles but if we do we MUST use it like this:
Jason Rees ( talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I oppose using it. We've discussed before that the stat means very little for each storm. Scientists and officials rarely mention the ACE of certain storms, and more often only use it for the entire season. In previous discussions, it was described as original synthesis. I noticed this problem on Hurricane Hernan's current FAC, where the author cited the TCR for Hernan's ACE value. I completely disagree with doing that, particularly since the next sentence cited the NCDC page with a different value (which was its operational ACE). In short, I believe we should remove every mention of ACE for individual storms, and leave it only for the season totals, when available. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
ACE is not OR, though, it is a simple calculation. It does not require a class in Statistics to figure it out. Potapych ( talk) 15:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Good point, there probably should be an exception for storms with record high ACE's. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
HURDAT link for seasonal data - this link has the seasonal ACE values, which will be the source for the seasonal totals. Also, if the NHC happens to mention monthly ACE totals (as it did in the Karina article), then that's fair game. For that article, only the first two sentences of that paragraph would have to be removed, if we agreed to it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we get more feedback on this? I see a user just added ACE to a NIO season article, which certainly doesn't even use ACE. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Currently there is a bit of an IRC discussion (gasp) between some of the project members. There is a rough agreement that ACE should not be used outside of the NHC basins, primarily due to inconsistencies with the warning centers. That's it, though. Also discussed was whether or not to remove from the individual pages, but there wasn't an agreement. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else want to respond? The usage of ACE currently is close to being decided. Would anyone be opposed to removing all mentions (except perhaps extreme ones) of ACE for individual storms in the sub-articles, and if so, why? Likewise, would anyone be opposed to removing the individual values from the season articles, and if so, why? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The palpable discrepancies between the official designations for United States hurricanes and HURDAT are adversely affecting articles' accuracy. For example, I furnished an article on the 1949 Florida hurricane. Officially, the list of United States hurricanes lists a Category 3 impact in the state of Florida, but the HURDAT file cites a maximum sustained wind of 150 mph (130 knots) at landfall. I produced a verifiable article with numerous sources, several of which supported the Category 3 classification. Subsequently, an anonymous contributor altered the 1949 Atlantic hurricane season article and reverted the Category 3 values for the maximum sustained winds. The person utilized HURDAT's winds and listed Category 4 winds for the Florida hurricane, as well as a Texas tropical cyclone that exhibited similar list/HURDAT discrepancies. The Texas hurricane is assessed as a Category 4 landfall (115 knots) in HURDAT, but the official list does not indicate winds higher than Category 2 strength in Texas. This conundrum leads to the question of accuracy: which source is more "authentic"? Wikipedia should yield reliable, viable, and truthful information.
The HURDAT database precedes the official list, which implies that the list is updated. Originally, HURDAT was conceived in the 1960s, while the first list of United States impacts was published in the 1970s. HURDAT contains numerous errors, since it has not been reanalyzed beyond 1920. A new paper from the reanalysis project discusses these issues. The official list states that the United States impacts are grouped by "the highest Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale impact in the United States based upon estimated maximum sustained surface winds produced at the coast." Therefore, a person gains the impression that the impacts are based on the modern Saffir-Simpson Scale standards, which utilize one-minute sustained winds (as opposed to central pressures) as the sole qualification of hurricane strength. However, the reanalysis paper notes the following facts:
"Another methodological concern is that the winds in HURDAT just before a hurricane landfall in the United States often do not match the assigned Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale. C. J. Neumann and J. Hope developed the first digital HURDAT records with 6-hourly position and maximum wind estimates in the late 1960s (Jarvinen et al. 1984), before the Saffir–Simpson scale was devised (Saffir 1973; Simpson 1974). The U.S. Saffir–Simpson scale categorizations for the twentieth century were first assigned by Hebert and Taylor (1975), based primarily upon central pressure observations or estimates at landfall. It was not until the late 1980s that the use of the Saffir Simpson scale categorization was based upon the winds exclusively, which is the current standard at NHC (OFCM 2005). Thus, reanalysis efforts in Landsea et al. (2004a,b) and in the work presented here have utilized the estimated maximum sustained winds for assignment of Saffir–Simpson category to be consistent with today’s analysis techniques."
This portion explicitly implies that the official list of United States hurricanes (which has been unaltered since its conception in the 1970s) is actually based on minimum central pressures. Note that the vast majority of the hurricanes (and their respective Saffir-Simpson designations) in the official list are largely confined to the original Saffir-Simpson Scale standards for central pressures per category. Note that the last section on Landsea et al (2004a,b) refers to the reanalysis project:
"and Coauthors, 2004a: The Atlantic hurricane database reanalysis project: Documentation for the 1851–1910 alterations and additions to the HURDAT database.
Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, and Future, R. J. Murnane and K.-B. Liu, Eds., Columbia University Press, 177–221.
——, and Coauthors, 2004b: A reanalysis of Hurricane Andrew’s intensity. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 1699–1712."
In other words, the official list of United States hurricanes actually lists Saffir-Simpson impacts by central pressure. The only sections that list United States impacts by winds are 1851-1920, which have been reanalyzed. All hurricanes' United States designations from 1920 to 1979 rely on central pressures in the list. That portion has not been updated to reflect modern Saffir-Simpson Scale standards. On the other hand, HURDAT cites maximum sustained winds.
What is the moral of this long diatribe? The long battle between "the list" and HURDAT in Atlantic tropical cyclone articles has been finally resolved. I was wrong: HURDAT (as opposed to the list) is the authentic source for maximum sustained winds at landfall for all tropical cyclones from 1921 to 1979 (pending reanalysis). Therefore, the 1949 Florida and Texas hurricanes should be listed as Category 4 hurricanes at landfall. CVW ( Talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
After hink's recent response in the section above, and my search of my own talk archives and the first 12 of the project archives (time consuming,) it appears this problem hasn't been discussed yet. It has made sense the main units used in season and storm articles for the Western Hemisphere should have mph prominent over SI units, since the warning centers are based within the US, where imperial units are still commonly used. However, this is not true in the Eastern Hemisphere. I've been placing knots as the major unit for tropical cyclones in the Pacific typhoon season articles (since it is the most common nautical term), with convert templates shifting the values to km/h. Is this reasonable? I could see a real POV issue if we used mph in the Eastern Hemisphere, since the world outside the US has essentially embraced SI over imperial units. Thegreatdr ( talk) 16:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Also there is a problem with the mph in many articles, mainly when the Template:Convert is used. The wind speeds publsihed by the NHC are commonly rounded by 5 knots. Therefor converted into mph the result should be rounded by five. When one is using now mph as a base for converting into km/h the output can be wrong. Following are some values and there verification of that wrong way of convertig wind speeds (I just hope I haven't make mistakes).
So we must ever convert from the source data into the unit we need, i.e. knots directly into km/h and not via mph into km/h. Cocerning the use of mph in genereal I think to remember a discussion on one of the MOS pages some time ago. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thats the way i prefer to do them and i have been doing it that way untill Hink moaned at me for using knots earlier this week Jason Rees ( talk) 19:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Any more comments? This is somewhat important. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The point of this discussion wasn't whether to use template:convert or not. It's whether to use knots or not, and the knot, while used by scientists, isn't usually used by the public (AFIK). I propose the main unit we use is mph and imperial for NHC and CPHC, with metric in parenthesis, and metric for all of the other basins, with imperial in parenthesis. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
( \n) So, to summarize:
Need | The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality |
Top | Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia |
High | Subject contributes a depth of knowledge |
Mid | Subject fills in more minor details |
Low | Subject is mainly of specialist interest. |
In light of the recent discussion on Talk:Hurricane Ioke and elsewhere, it would help getting some clarification on this. Some users believe the importance should be based on the basin only, but a voice of opposition suggested it be project wide. I am stuck in between, but after looking at WP:1.0 (and the table on the right provided by 1.0), I am leaning toward project wide. User:Potapych brought up a good point that the importance influences the articles chosen for the printed version of Wikipedia. For storms, that would mean an extremely obvious tilt toward low importance, perhaps as answered by the question "How much would the project suffer without that article?" For seasons, I think make only a certain number of recent seasons as automatically mid-importance, maybe making the cutoff like 1980. Comments are appreciated so we can put the issue to rest. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
There has been some minor discussions about this between Thegreatdr, Juliancolton, Hurricanehink and myself about this but not absolute solution has been found. This problem with the numbering of the TD's in 1969 (and possibly other seasons) is due to a document posted here by Thegreatdr which contains all the tracking data on past tropical depressions. However, after looking at 1969 in hopes of creating a timeline article for it, I discovered that the numbering of the TD's was very confusing.
AL0169 SIX 052900 1969 12.0 82.0 25 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
This is the first line for 1969, it shows the basin (AL), storm number (01), year ('69), the storm name (Six) the date and time (May 29, at 00 UTC in 1969), the lat. and lon. (12.0N 82.0W), maximum sustained 1-min winds in knots (25kts), and some other stuff which I don't understand yet. But how can TD Six be the first storm of the year? and for that matter, how can TD Five be the second (see below)? Hopefully we can figure this one out, all comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated.
AL0269 FIVE 052900 1969 26.1 77.8 25 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I have windows so when I tried to download the track map generator, I used Cygwin (something like that). When I typed in the instructions from User:jdorje/tracks, it couldn't find it, does anyone know what to do?-- Irmela08 02:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
NHC told be personally not to trust the original HURDAT-formatted dataset they e-mailed me, since it was a digitized version of a dataset created by one person who retired 20 years before, and could have errors. However, the HURDAT versions I posted on the talk pages are the same tracks as those used in the annual tropical systems articles. Tropical depression definitions have changed over time, and the non-developing system database has not been reanalyzed, which is why I received such instruction. The version I have on the HPC website (in the extended best track dataset format) is a modified version of what was given to me by NHC which takes into account the Daily Weather Map series and has an increased amount of data and usefulness. If you want to reference that version, go right ahead. Just keep in mind I haven't fully reanalyzed the dataset, so it could change over time. Thegreatdr ( talk) 14:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I was really surprised to find that Katrina wasn't the costliest hurricane ever, but rather some hurricane that hit Miami in 1926. 157 billion dollars! That seemed amazing to me, especially considering that the total GDP for the entire country was only $750 billion in 1926. Then I looked at the table closer and saw that it was adjusted for something called "wealth normalization". Since there was no explanation of what the heck that was anywhere in the table, I did a little digging and discovered that the $157 billion was not the actual (inflation-adjusted) damage done by the 1926 Miami hurricane, but what the damage would hypothetically be if an identical storm hit today. Does it strike anyone else as strange that we have a table called "Costliest U.S. Atlantic Hurricanes" that has no relation to the actual costs of any actual U.S. Atlantic hurricanes? Can we change this? Costs adjusted for wealth normalization is an interesting side note, but it shouldn't be the PRIMARY "costliest hurricane" statistic, should it? How about some real data here? 68.101.165.156 ( talk) 07:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated 2004 Atlantic hurricane season for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliancolton ( talk • contribs)
Along the lines of the previous discussion (scroll up), I have set up the final review pages for any articles added to the page before November. Please go comment at the page, so we can take a pruning knife and shorten it... Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 08:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I found a set of NCDC publications that covers Caribbean-wide daily highs/lows/precipitation that starts around 1925 and ends in 1966. Today I started making changes to the Excel files at work, the main Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Maxima page, and the List of wettest tropical cyclones by country page to add the new statistics. Recent work on the wikipedia page has focused upon Antigua and the Bahamas. FYI, because this information could be useful within the season or individual storm articles. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Whilst having a look through some of the PTS articles i noticed the following mistakes weve been making.
Jason Rees ( talk) 23:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Unlike US centers, JMA is not very serious about TDs, be they major (35-knot-to-be, 30-knotter) or especially minor (no wind speed). They come and go much more casually than a US TD or an Australian "Tropical Low". After all, TD warnings of the latter two types are issued by merely JMA, not under the auspices of RSMC Tokyo, which has the responsibility to warn on 35+ knot storms and what will become 35 knots in 24 hours. In other words, there is no international/regional "officialness" in those "xxJPxx" bulletins--it is just another country's take on the weather. HkCaGu ( talk) 23:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
My question: are JMA depressions actually considered tropical cyclones? What if they are that basin's equivalence of a low pressure area? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, I was wondering... since our numbers are beginning to dwindle AND its beginning to get boring here. Could we take over a few extra areas - extend the projects reaches... so we could take over control of Extratropical Lows and related things. We also need to make those numbers go up again. While we are still a big WP project we need to make ourselves bigger. Is there any chance of us getting a few more adverts for the Wikiproject?
Thanks
User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions - Its good to be back! 22:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I need help on this one. I think I have got it up to start class but am not sure what it needs to get to C class. Thanks User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 15:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Could an admin please move this page: User:Itfc+canes=me/pablo (including talkpage) to Tropical Storm Higos (2008) for me please. User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The article Hurricane Severity Index is about an interesting notion but is not very different from Accumulated cyclone energy. I'm not familiar with this index, nor the authors, but it is mentionned in the article that it is a proprietary item, not a general knowledge one. I don't know if it should be deleted but I've added the Avert template to warn the reader. Any comment ? Pierre cb ( talk) 23:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Template:Largest Atlantic Hurricanes 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) 22:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to call for help AGAIN but I have a problem on my 2009 Atlantic hurricane season sandbox... some of the text has dissappeared but I cannot find the coding that has made it dissapper... the text is still there in the edit box...
HELP!!!
User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, the creation of Timeline of the 1997 Pacific hurricane season kinda means the 1997 Pacific hurricane season should go under retention, as that article presents a notable gap. In other words, the topic has 3 months from the date of the article's creation (i.e. until March 25) to get the article to FL and into the topic, otherwise someone can nominate the topic for removal - rst20xx ( talk) 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Um.. I thought that I was doing this seasons season articles??? I have seen all of them pop up....
Any reason??
User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Over the years, I've seen people race to create new storm articles, as if somehow this means the article is theirs or this somehow adds to their prestige within the project. This is not the case. Feel free to improve any article you are interested in on here. If you want to improve an article to GA or FA, you don't need to ask any of our permissions. If you feel you want to inform the person who initially created or did much of the work in the article that you'd like to improve it, that's your call. It's not required or expected. Thegreatdr ( talk) 16:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hink is gone, so it will be up to us to help the articles through GAN/GAR/GAC, if any issues spring up during its review. Thegreatdr ( talk) 10:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that recently the JTWC has been highly conservative with their intensities, with a current example being ITC Fanele. The official 1-minute winds (according to the international best track writer) is the 10-minute winds multiplied by 1.14. With this, Fanele should be 114kts (1-min) but the intensity from the JTWC is 90kts. I think that we should start using the conversion as the official 1-minute winds instead of the JTWC advisories for the SHem. Thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Cyclone biskit 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
For the 1985 Pacific typhoon season article, we need to generate tracks for the April and early July systems. Their tracks are at this web site on pages 46 and 51, and both are considered TDs within that document. Once they're added, the article can be submitted for GAC/GAN/GAR. Thanks for whatever help you all can provide. Thegreatdr ( talk) 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
After some discussion on the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season page, I split off information from the lead and created a timeline for the article, which has become standard to the Pacific typhoon season articles. It was then noticed that some of the recent Atlantic articles had a separate timeline article associated with them. Why is this? Is this going to be done for all tropical cyclone seasons in all basins? If the answer is no, we need to reconsider these articles, because it would violate neutral point of view, and make one wonder "What makes the Atlantic so special?" Its activity is not especially important in the global scheme of things. Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Dolly TCR is out. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a though, instead of individual editors working on articles in their userspace, it seems that it would be more productive to collaborate on them in project-space sandboxes to allow for a more broad participation. Not sure if it'll work due to the lack of editors, but is it worth a shot? – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
How would that differ from just editing the article within a normal wikipedia article space? I've never quite gotten the idea of sandboxes...they occasionally flare conflict within the project when multiple people create a sandbox for a system, or someone creates the main article while someone is sandboxing. There is an appropriate tag to place on top of an article you're significantly editing out in the main wikipedia space. Although the idea is good, it's already used within normal wikipedia articles. Maybe that's why I like it. =) Thegreatdr ( talk) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Since Ramisses is busy for a little while In real life can someone do the trackmaps for the SPAC 08-09 Tracking data is here
Three of the tropical depressions from the 1986 Pacific typhoon season, whose track maps are within this document, need maps. Thanks for whatever help you all are able to provide. Thegreatdr ( talk) 16:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
00010 07/20/1986 TROPICAL STORM 00020 07/20*1882482 30 1000*1962488 30 998*2032494 35 996*2082498 35 996* 00030 07/21*2152504 35 996*2182511 35 996*2202516 30 998*2252523 0 998* 00040 07/22*2272530 0 998*2272533 0 998*2272536 0 998*2262540 0 1002* 00050 07/23*2282546 0 1004*2302550 0 1002*2302550 0 1002*2352555 0 1002* 00060 07/24*2402560 0 1004*2402570 0 1004*2402580 0 1004* 0 0 0 0* 00070 TS 01010 08/09/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 01020 08/09* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*1742467 25 998*1772474 25 998* 01030 08/10*1792481 25 998*1832487 25 997*1882490 25 996*1932496 25 996* 01040 08/11*1922505 25 995*1912527 30 994*1962524 30 994*2042530 30 996* 01050 08/12*2202535 25 997* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 01060 TD 02000 09/02/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 02010 09/02*3002200 30 992*3092207 30 992*3212214 30 992*3372217 30 993* 02020 09/03*3512210 30 996*3612201 30 997*3802190 30 998*4042177 25 998* 02030 TD 03010 11/25/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 03020 11/25*0812497 30 1002*0832500 30 1002*0862502 30 1002*0902502 30 1002* 03030 11/26*0932500 30 1002* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 03040 TD
Despite the look, it is in the proper format if you copy from the source code of this page. I'm not completely helpless. =) Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Due to the lack of activity on the A-class review page for the project, I'm proposing that we use our IRC channel to a greater extent and have the ACR there. By having it there, discussions can both start and close faster being that many of us (frequent editors) are online. Everyones thoughts on this are much appreciated :) Cyclone biskit 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This was on the met project page. FYI. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the old hurricane seasons articles I think we use confusing titles and are including somewhat "original research":
So I think that the articles concerned should be renamed, and another heading should be found for the introes. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if you can get hurricane images from the mid-late '60s online, if so where? -- Yue of the North 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Since this project is one the most prolific featured article producers, members may wish to know of the proposed addition of a criterion to the featured article criteria. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Proposal for 1(f). Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to call for help AGAIN but I have a problem on my 2009 Atlantic hurricane season sandbox... some of the text has dissappeared but I cannot find the coding that has made it dissapper... the text is still there in the edit box...
HELP!!!
User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, the creation of Timeline of the 1997 Pacific hurricane season kinda means the 1997 Pacific hurricane season should go under retention, as that article presents a notable gap. In other words, the topic has 3 months from the date of the article's creation (i.e. until March 25) to get the article to FL and into the topic, otherwise someone can nominate the topic for removal - rst20xx ( talk) 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Um.. I thought that I was doing this seasons season articles??? I have seen all of them pop up....
Any reason??
User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Over the years, I've seen people race to create new storm articles, as if somehow this means the article is theirs or this somehow adds to their prestige within the project. This is not the case. Feel free to improve any article you are interested in on here. If you want to improve an article to GA or FA, you don't need to ask any of our permissions. If you feel you want to inform the person who initially created or did much of the work in the article that you'd like to improve it, that's your call. It's not required or expected. Thegreatdr ( talk) 16:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hink is gone, so it will be up to us to help the articles through GAN/GAR/GAC, if any issues spring up during its review. Thegreatdr ( talk) 10:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that recently the JTWC has been highly conservative with their intensities, with a current example being ITC Fanele. The official 1-minute winds (according to the international best track writer) is the 10-minute winds multiplied by 1.14. With this, Fanele should be 114kts (1-min) but the intensity from the JTWC is 90kts. I think that we should start using the conversion as the official 1-minute winds instead of the JTWC advisories for the SHem. Thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Cyclone biskit 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
For the 1985 Pacific typhoon season article, we need to generate tracks for the April and early July systems. Their tracks are at this web site on pages 46 and 51, and both are considered TDs within that document. Once they're added, the article can be submitted for GAC/GAN/GAR. Thanks for whatever help you all can provide. Thegreatdr ( talk) 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
After some discussion on the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season page, I split off information from the lead and created a timeline for the article, which has become standard to the Pacific typhoon season articles. It was then noticed that some of the recent Atlantic articles had a separate timeline article associated with them. Why is this? Is this going to be done for all tropical cyclone seasons in all basins? If the answer is no, we need to reconsider these articles, because it would violate neutral point of view, and make one wonder "What makes the Atlantic so special?" Its activity is not especially important in the global scheme of things. Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Dolly TCR is out. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a though, instead of individual editors working on articles in their userspace, it seems that it would be more productive to collaborate on them in project-space sandboxes to allow for a more broad participation. Not sure if it'll work due to the lack of editors, but is it worth a shot? – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
How would that differ from just editing the article within a normal wikipedia article space? I've never quite gotten the idea of sandboxes...they occasionally flare conflict within the project when multiple people create a sandbox for a system, or someone creates the main article while someone is sandboxing. There is an appropriate tag to place on top of an article you're significantly editing out in the main wikipedia space. Although the idea is good, it's already used within normal wikipedia articles. Maybe that's why I like it. =) Thegreatdr ( talk) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Since Ramisses is busy for a little while In real life can someone do the trackmaps for the SPAC 08-09 Tracking data is here
Three of the tropical depressions from the 1986 Pacific typhoon season, whose track maps are within this document, need maps. Thanks for whatever help you all are able to provide. Thegreatdr ( talk) 16:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
00010 07/20/1986 TROPICAL STORM 00020 07/20*1882482 30 1000*1962488 30 998*2032494 35 996*2082498 35 996* 00030 07/21*2152504 35 996*2182511 35 996*2202516 30 998*2252523 0 998* 00040 07/22*2272530 0 998*2272533 0 998*2272536 0 998*2262540 0 1002* 00050 07/23*2282546 0 1004*2302550 0 1002*2302550 0 1002*2352555 0 1002* 00060 07/24*2402560 0 1004*2402570 0 1004*2402580 0 1004* 0 0 0 0* 00070 TS 01010 08/09/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 01020 08/09* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*1742467 25 998*1772474 25 998* 01030 08/10*1792481 25 998*1832487 25 997*1882490 25 996*1932496 25 996* 01040 08/11*1922505 25 995*1912527 30 994*1962524 30 994*2042530 30 996* 01050 08/12*2202535 25 997* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 01060 TD 02000 09/02/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 02010 09/02*3002200 30 992*3092207 30 992*3212214 30 992*3372217 30 993* 02020 09/03*3512210 30 996*3612201 30 997*3802190 30 998*4042177 25 998* 02030 TD 03010 11/25/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 03020 11/25*0812497 30 1002*0832500 30 1002*0862502 30 1002*0902502 30 1002* 03030 11/26*0932500 30 1002* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 03040 TD
Despite the look, it is in the proper format if you copy from the source code of this page. I'm not completely helpless. =) Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Due to the lack of activity on the A-class review page for the project, I'm proposing that we use our IRC channel to a greater extent and have the ACR there. By having it there, discussions can both start and close faster being that many of us (frequent editors) are online. Everyones thoughts on this are much appreciated :) Cyclone biskit 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This was on the met project page. FYI. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the old hurricane seasons articles I think we use confusing titles and are including somewhat "original research":
So I think that the articles concerned should be renamed, and another heading should be found for the introes. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if you can get hurricane images from the mid-late '60s online, if so where? -- Yue of the North 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Since this project is one the most prolific featured article producers, members may wish to know of the proposed addition of a criterion to the featured article criteria. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Proposal for 1(f). Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
<--And, as I showed with this example, I merged all of the useful content into the season section without losing any information. The naming trivia isn't needed (appears in dabs), nor is the ACE (which, sadly, is still in the season articles). The same can be done with the other articles which had no land impact. As I also noted with Erick, it comes down to an interpretation of WP:NOT, most significantly with these two points.
But that's just me. ♬♩ Hurricanehink( talk) 06:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia should cover every historical storm for which there is something to say based on reliable sources. Storms of recent years that were experienced by wikipedians themselves are more dubious. For historical storms, whether they have their own articles, or are grouped, or are listed, depends on the amount of differing content, which depends on the content in the sources. Once historical storms are sorted, recent storms can be sorted based on comparison with historical storms, out of our desire to be consistent. Exactly how information is arranged is best left to interested editors. AfD participants will not upset the system if the is agreement on a reasonable method. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Julian. Potapych, we score better than many of other wikiprojects, for example the Arena football project. Hink, I can easily find other soures, the Weather Channel, Fox news, and CNN.com. I feel that when you merge pages, you are hurting Wikipedia. A wikiproject should grow, not shrink. Leave Message , Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
Judging from JC's actions, this recent merging spree is overdoing it. IIRC, merging was one of the problems with the project, yet there was a sudden influx in it. I don't think we should really be thinking about what articles to get rid of. It's fine to have stub articles or ones that don't have much information. There are much shorter articles throughout wikipedia, so there's no reason to make this project have standards like that. Everyones thoughts on this are very important for this to be resolved. Cyclone biskit 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the new one, I still don't think that all of the named ones should get articles. TS Chris in 2000, for example, could probably never have enough info for an article. Nothing should be inherently notable; we should have some criteria for determining tropical cyclone notability. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
On IRC, we're talking about named storms and their notability, and I thought of something that could use a comment. What about named storms that were de-classified in post-analysis ( Isobel 07, Kendra 66, or Hillary 67)? Alternatively, what about unnamed storms that were only classified in post-analysis ( 2006, 1991, 1987? With these exceptions, can naming really be considered an adequate test for notability? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes
No
As the second and third polls finished without a clear consensus we are going to have another poll to hopefully settle this argument once and for all
All named storms are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, but not necessarily all to have their own article" ?
User:Juliancolton/WPTC poll. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
There's pretty much a consensus not to have them for each individual storm, but they are still there. Should we get rid of the individual tables, and instead add a season total ACE for the season infobox? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Since ACE information is popping up in quite a few storm articles nowadays, it's probably time to decide whether or not we want it. I'm in favor of it, as it's only a couple sentences, and more information never hurts. Thoughts? – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I am also in favour of using it in Storm Articles but if we do we MUST use it like this:
Jason Rees ( talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I oppose using it. We've discussed before that the stat means very little for each storm. Scientists and officials rarely mention the ACE of certain storms, and more often only use it for the entire season. In previous discussions, it was described as original synthesis. I noticed this problem on Hurricane Hernan's current FAC, where the author cited the TCR for Hernan's ACE value. I completely disagree with doing that, particularly since the next sentence cited the NCDC page with a different value (which was its operational ACE). In short, I believe we should remove every mention of ACE for individual storms, and leave it only for the season totals, when available. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
ACE is not OR, though, it is a simple calculation. It does not require a class in Statistics to figure it out. Potapych ( talk) 15:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Good point, there probably should be an exception for storms with record high ACE's. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
HURDAT link for seasonal data - this link has the seasonal ACE values, which will be the source for the seasonal totals. Also, if the NHC happens to mention monthly ACE totals (as it did in the Karina article), then that's fair game. For that article, only the first two sentences of that paragraph would have to be removed, if we agreed to it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we get more feedback on this? I see a user just added ACE to a NIO season article, which certainly doesn't even use ACE. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Currently there is a bit of an IRC discussion (gasp) between some of the project members. There is a rough agreement that ACE should not be used outside of the NHC basins, primarily due to inconsistencies with the warning centers. That's it, though. Also discussed was whether or not to remove from the individual pages, but there wasn't an agreement. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else want to respond? The usage of ACE currently is close to being decided. Would anyone be opposed to removing all mentions (except perhaps extreme ones) of ACE for individual storms in the sub-articles, and if so, why? Likewise, would anyone be opposed to removing the individual values from the season articles, and if so, why? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The palpable discrepancies between the official designations for United States hurricanes and HURDAT are adversely affecting articles' accuracy. For example, I furnished an article on the 1949 Florida hurricane. Officially, the list of United States hurricanes lists a Category 3 impact in the state of Florida, but the HURDAT file cites a maximum sustained wind of 150 mph (130 knots) at landfall. I produced a verifiable article with numerous sources, several of which supported the Category 3 classification. Subsequently, an anonymous contributor altered the 1949 Atlantic hurricane season article and reverted the Category 3 values for the maximum sustained winds. The person utilized HURDAT's winds and listed Category 4 winds for the Florida hurricane, as well as a Texas tropical cyclone that exhibited similar list/HURDAT discrepancies. The Texas hurricane is assessed as a Category 4 landfall (115 knots) in HURDAT, but the official list does not indicate winds higher than Category 2 strength in Texas. This conundrum leads to the question of accuracy: which source is more "authentic"? Wikipedia should yield reliable, viable, and truthful information.
The HURDAT database precedes the official list, which implies that the list is updated. Originally, HURDAT was conceived in the 1960s, while the first list of United States impacts was published in the 1970s. HURDAT contains numerous errors, since it has not been reanalyzed beyond 1920. A new paper from the reanalysis project discusses these issues. The official list states that the United States impacts are grouped by "the highest Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale impact in the United States based upon estimated maximum sustained surface winds produced at the coast." Therefore, a person gains the impression that the impacts are based on the modern Saffir-Simpson Scale standards, which utilize one-minute sustained winds (as opposed to central pressures) as the sole qualification of hurricane strength. However, the reanalysis paper notes the following facts:
"Another methodological concern is that the winds in HURDAT just before a hurricane landfall in the United States often do not match the assigned Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale. C. J. Neumann and J. Hope developed the first digital HURDAT records with 6-hourly position and maximum wind estimates in the late 1960s (Jarvinen et al. 1984), before the Saffir–Simpson scale was devised (Saffir 1973; Simpson 1974). The U.S. Saffir–Simpson scale categorizations for the twentieth century were first assigned by Hebert and Taylor (1975), based primarily upon central pressure observations or estimates at landfall. It was not until the late 1980s that the use of the Saffir Simpson scale categorization was based upon the winds exclusively, which is the current standard at NHC (OFCM 2005). Thus, reanalysis efforts in Landsea et al. (2004a,b) and in the work presented here have utilized the estimated maximum sustained winds for assignment of Saffir–Simpson category to be consistent with today’s analysis techniques."
This portion explicitly implies that the official list of United States hurricanes (which has been unaltered since its conception in the 1970s) is actually based on minimum central pressures. Note that the vast majority of the hurricanes (and their respective Saffir-Simpson designations) in the official list are largely confined to the original Saffir-Simpson Scale standards for central pressures per category. Note that the last section on Landsea et al (2004a,b) refers to the reanalysis project:
"and Coauthors, 2004a: The Atlantic hurricane database reanalysis project: Documentation for the 1851–1910 alterations and additions to the HURDAT database.
Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, and Future, R. J. Murnane and K.-B. Liu, Eds., Columbia University Press, 177–221.
——, and Coauthors, 2004b: A reanalysis of Hurricane Andrew’s intensity. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 1699–1712."
In other words, the official list of United States hurricanes actually lists Saffir-Simpson impacts by central pressure. The only sections that list United States impacts by winds are 1851-1920, which have been reanalyzed. All hurricanes' United States designations from 1920 to 1979 rely on central pressures in the list. That portion has not been updated to reflect modern Saffir-Simpson Scale standards. On the other hand, HURDAT cites maximum sustained winds.
What is the moral of this long diatribe? The long battle between "the list" and HURDAT in Atlantic tropical cyclone articles has been finally resolved. I was wrong: HURDAT (as opposed to the list) is the authentic source for maximum sustained winds at landfall for all tropical cyclones from 1921 to 1979 (pending reanalysis). Therefore, the 1949 Florida and Texas hurricanes should be listed as Category 4 hurricanes at landfall. CVW ( Talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
After hink's recent response in the section above, and my search of my own talk archives and the first 12 of the project archives (time consuming,) it appears this problem hasn't been discussed yet. It has made sense the main units used in season and storm articles for the Western Hemisphere should have mph prominent over SI units, since the warning centers are based within the US, where imperial units are still commonly used. However, this is not true in the Eastern Hemisphere. I've been placing knots as the major unit for tropical cyclones in the Pacific typhoon season articles (since it is the most common nautical term), with convert templates shifting the values to km/h. Is this reasonable? I could see a real POV issue if we used mph in the Eastern Hemisphere, since the world outside the US has essentially embraced SI over imperial units. Thegreatdr ( talk) 16:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Also there is a problem with the mph in many articles, mainly when the Template:Convert is used. The wind speeds publsihed by the NHC are commonly rounded by 5 knots. Therefor converted into mph the result should be rounded by five. When one is using now mph as a base for converting into km/h the output can be wrong. Following are some values and there verification of that wrong way of convertig wind speeds (I just hope I haven't make mistakes).
So we must ever convert from the source data into the unit we need, i.e. knots directly into km/h and not via mph into km/h. Cocerning the use of mph in genereal I think to remember a discussion on one of the MOS pages some time ago. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thats the way i prefer to do them and i have been doing it that way untill Hink moaned at me for using knots earlier this week Jason Rees ( talk) 19:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Any more comments? This is somewhat important. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The point of this discussion wasn't whether to use template:convert or not. It's whether to use knots or not, and the knot, while used by scientists, isn't usually used by the public (AFIK). I propose the main unit we use is mph and imperial for NHC and CPHC, with metric in parenthesis, and metric for all of the other basins, with imperial in parenthesis. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
( \n) So, to summarize:
Need | The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality |
Top | Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia |
High | Subject contributes a depth of knowledge |
Mid | Subject fills in more minor details |
Low | Subject is mainly of specialist interest. |
In light of the recent discussion on Talk:Hurricane Ioke and elsewhere, it would help getting some clarification on this. Some users believe the importance should be based on the basin only, but a voice of opposition suggested it be project wide. I am stuck in between, but after looking at WP:1.0 (and the table on the right provided by 1.0), I am leaning toward project wide. User:Potapych brought up a good point that the importance influences the articles chosen for the printed version of Wikipedia. For storms, that would mean an extremely obvious tilt toward low importance, perhaps as answered by the question "How much would the project suffer without that article?" For seasons, I think make only a certain number of recent seasons as automatically mid-importance, maybe making the cutoff like 1980. Comments are appreciated so we can put the issue to rest. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
There has been some minor discussions about this between Thegreatdr, Juliancolton, Hurricanehink and myself about this but not absolute solution has been found. This problem with the numbering of the TD's in 1969 (and possibly other seasons) is due to a document posted here by Thegreatdr which contains all the tracking data on past tropical depressions. However, after looking at 1969 in hopes of creating a timeline article for it, I discovered that the numbering of the TD's was very confusing.
AL0169 SIX 052900 1969 12.0 82.0 25 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
This is the first line for 1969, it shows the basin (AL), storm number (01), year ('69), the storm name (Six) the date and time (May 29, at 00 UTC in 1969), the lat. and lon. (12.0N 82.0W), maximum sustained 1-min winds in knots (25kts), and some other stuff which I don't understand yet. But how can TD Six be the first storm of the year? and for that matter, how can TD Five be the second (see below)? Hopefully we can figure this one out, all comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated.
AL0269 FIVE 052900 1969 26.1 77.8 25 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I have windows so when I tried to download the track map generator, I used Cygwin (something like that). When I typed in the instructions from User:jdorje/tracks, it couldn't find it, does anyone know what to do?-- Irmela08 02:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
NHC told be personally not to trust the original HURDAT-formatted dataset they e-mailed me, since it was a digitized version of a dataset created by one person who retired 20 years before, and could have errors. However, the HURDAT versions I posted on the talk pages are the same tracks as those used in the annual tropical systems articles. Tropical depression definitions have changed over time, and the non-developing system database has not been reanalyzed, which is why I received such instruction. The version I have on the HPC website (in the extended best track dataset format) is a modified version of what was given to me by NHC which takes into account the Daily Weather Map series and has an increased amount of data and usefulness. If you want to reference that version, go right ahead. Just keep in mind I haven't fully reanalyzed the dataset, so it could change over time. Thegreatdr ( talk) 14:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I was really surprised to find that Katrina wasn't the costliest hurricane ever, but rather some hurricane that hit Miami in 1926. 157 billion dollars! That seemed amazing to me, especially considering that the total GDP for the entire country was only $750 billion in 1926. Then I looked at the table closer and saw that it was adjusted for something called "wealth normalization". Since there was no explanation of what the heck that was anywhere in the table, I did a little digging and discovered that the $157 billion was not the actual (inflation-adjusted) damage done by the 1926 Miami hurricane, but what the damage would hypothetically be if an identical storm hit today. Does it strike anyone else as strange that we have a table called "Costliest U.S. Atlantic Hurricanes" that has no relation to the actual costs of any actual U.S. Atlantic hurricanes? Can we change this? Costs adjusted for wealth normalization is an interesting side note, but it shouldn't be the PRIMARY "costliest hurricane" statistic, should it? How about some real data here? 68.101.165.156 ( talk) 07:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated 2004 Atlantic hurricane season for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliancolton ( talk • contribs)
Along the lines of the previous discussion (scroll up), I have set up the final review pages for any articles added to the page before November. Please go comment at the page, so we can take a pruning knife and shorten it... Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 08:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I found a set of NCDC publications that covers Caribbean-wide daily highs/lows/precipitation that starts around 1925 and ends in 1966. Today I started making changes to the Excel files at work, the main Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Maxima page, and the List of wettest tropical cyclones by country page to add the new statistics. Recent work on the wikipedia page has focused upon Antigua and the Bahamas. FYI, because this information could be useful within the season or individual storm articles. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Whilst having a look through some of the PTS articles i noticed the following mistakes weve been making.
Jason Rees ( talk) 23:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Unlike US centers, JMA is not very serious about TDs, be they major (35-knot-to-be, 30-knotter) or especially minor (no wind speed). They come and go much more casually than a US TD or an Australian "Tropical Low". After all, TD warnings of the latter two types are issued by merely JMA, not under the auspices of RSMC Tokyo, which has the responsibility to warn on 35+ knot storms and what will become 35 knots in 24 hours. In other words, there is no international/regional "officialness" in those "xxJPxx" bulletins--it is just another country's take on the weather. HkCaGu ( talk) 23:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
My question: are JMA depressions actually considered tropical cyclones? What if they are that basin's equivalence of a low pressure area? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, I was wondering... since our numbers are beginning to dwindle AND its beginning to get boring here. Could we take over a few extra areas - extend the projects reaches... so we could take over control of Extratropical Lows and related things. We also need to make those numbers go up again. While we are still a big WP project we need to make ourselves bigger. Is there any chance of us getting a few more adverts for the Wikiproject?
Thanks
User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions - Its good to be back! 22:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I need help on this one. I think I have got it up to start class but am not sure what it needs to get to C class. Thanks User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 15:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Could an admin please move this page: User:Itfc+canes=me/pablo (including talkpage) to Tropical Storm Higos (2008) for me please. User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The article Hurricane Severity Index is about an interesting notion but is not very different from Accumulated cyclone energy. I'm not familiar with this index, nor the authors, but it is mentionned in the article that it is a proprietary item, not a general knowledge one. I don't know if it should be deleted but I've added the Avert template to warn the reader. Any comment ? Pierre cb ( talk) 23:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Template:Largest Atlantic Hurricanes 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) 22:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to call for help AGAIN but I have a problem on my 2009 Atlantic hurricane season sandbox... some of the text has dissappeared but I cannot find the coding that has made it dissapper... the text is still there in the edit box...
HELP!!!
User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, the creation of Timeline of the 1997 Pacific hurricane season kinda means the 1997 Pacific hurricane season should go under retention, as that article presents a notable gap. In other words, the topic has 3 months from the date of the article's creation (i.e. until March 25) to get the article to FL and into the topic, otherwise someone can nominate the topic for removal - rst20xx ( talk) 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Um.. I thought that I was doing this seasons season articles??? I have seen all of them pop up....
Any reason??
User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Over the years, I've seen people race to create new storm articles, as if somehow this means the article is theirs or this somehow adds to their prestige within the project. This is not the case. Feel free to improve any article you are interested in on here. If you want to improve an article to GA or FA, you don't need to ask any of our permissions. If you feel you want to inform the person who initially created or did much of the work in the article that you'd like to improve it, that's your call. It's not required or expected. Thegreatdr ( talk) 16:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hink is gone, so it will be up to us to help the articles through GAN/GAR/GAC, if any issues spring up during its review. Thegreatdr ( talk) 10:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that recently the JTWC has been highly conservative with their intensities, with a current example being ITC Fanele. The official 1-minute winds (according to the international best track writer) is the 10-minute winds multiplied by 1.14. With this, Fanele should be 114kts (1-min) but the intensity from the JTWC is 90kts. I think that we should start using the conversion as the official 1-minute winds instead of the JTWC advisories for the SHem. Thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Cyclone biskit 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
For the 1985 Pacific typhoon season article, we need to generate tracks for the April and early July systems. Their tracks are at this web site on pages 46 and 51, and both are considered TDs within that document. Once they're added, the article can be submitted for GAC/GAN/GAR. Thanks for whatever help you all can provide. Thegreatdr ( talk) 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
After some discussion on the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season page, I split off information from the lead and created a timeline for the article, which has become standard to the Pacific typhoon season articles. It was then noticed that some of the recent Atlantic articles had a separate timeline article associated with them. Why is this? Is this going to be done for all tropical cyclone seasons in all basins? If the answer is no, we need to reconsider these articles, because it would violate neutral point of view, and make one wonder "What makes the Atlantic so special?" Its activity is not especially important in the global scheme of things. Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Dolly TCR is out. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a though, instead of individual editors working on articles in their userspace, it seems that it would be more productive to collaborate on them in project-space sandboxes to allow for a more broad participation. Not sure if it'll work due to the lack of editors, but is it worth a shot? – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
How would that differ from just editing the article within a normal wikipedia article space? I've never quite gotten the idea of sandboxes...they occasionally flare conflict within the project when multiple people create a sandbox for a system, or someone creates the main article while someone is sandboxing. There is an appropriate tag to place on top of an article you're significantly editing out in the main wikipedia space. Although the idea is good, it's already used within normal wikipedia articles. Maybe that's why I like it. =) Thegreatdr ( talk) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Since Ramisses is busy for a little while In real life can someone do the trackmaps for the SPAC 08-09 Tracking data is here
Three of the tropical depressions from the 1986 Pacific typhoon season, whose track maps are within this document, need maps. Thanks for whatever help you all are able to provide. Thegreatdr ( talk) 16:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
00010 07/20/1986 TROPICAL STORM 00020 07/20*1882482 30 1000*1962488 30 998*2032494 35 996*2082498 35 996* 00030 07/21*2152504 35 996*2182511 35 996*2202516 30 998*2252523 0 998* 00040 07/22*2272530 0 998*2272533 0 998*2272536 0 998*2262540 0 1002* 00050 07/23*2282546 0 1004*2302550 0 1002*2302550 0 1002*2352555 0 1002* 00060 07/24*2402560 0 1004*2402570 0 1004*2402580 0 1004* 0 0 0 0* 00070 TS 01010 08/09/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 01020 08/09* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*1742467 25 998*1772474 25 998* 01030 08/10*1792481 25 998*1832487 25 997*1882490 25 996*1932496 25 996* 01040 08/11*1922505 25 995*1912527 30 994*1962524 30 994*2042530 30 996* 01050 08/12*2202535 25 997* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 01060 TD 02000 09/02/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 02010 09/02*3002200 30 992*3092207 30 992*3212214 30 992*3372217 30 993* 02020 09/03*3512210 30 996*3612201 30 997*3802190 30 998*4042177 25 998* 02030 TD 03010 11/25/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 03020 11/25*0812497 30 1002*0832500 30 1002*0862502 30 1002*0902502 30 1002* 03030 11/26*0932500 30 1002* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 03040 TD
Despite the look, it is in the proper format if you copy from the source code of this page. I'm not completely helpless. =) Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Due to the lack of activity on the A-class review page for the project, I'm proposing that we use our IRC channel to a greater extent and have the ACR there. By having it there, discussions can both start and close faster being that many of us (frequent editors) are online. Everyones thoughts on this are much appreciated :) Cyclone biskit 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This was on the met project page. FYI. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the old hurricane seasons articles I think we use confusing titles and are including somewhat "original research":
So I think that the articles concerned should be renamed, and another heading should be found for the introes. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if you can get hurricane images from the mid-late '60s online, if so where? -- Yue of the North 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Since this project is one the most prolific featured article producers, members may wish to know of the proposed addition of a criterion to the featured article criteria. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Proposal for 1(f). Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to call for help AGAIN but I have a problem on my 2009 Atlantic hurricane season sandbox... some of the text has dissappeared but I cannot find the coding that has made it dissapper... the text is still there in the edit box...
HELP!!!
User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, the creation of Timeline of the 1997 Pacific hurricane season kinda means the 1997 Pacific hurricane season should go under retention, as that article presents a notable gap. In other words, the topic has 3 months from the date of the article's creation (i.e. until March 25) to get the article to FL and into the topic, otherwise someone can nominate the topic for removal - rst20xx ( talk) 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Um.. I thought that I was doing this seasons season articles??? I have seen all of them pop up....
Any reason??
User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Over the years, I've seen people race to create new storm articles, as if somehow this means the article is theirs or this somehow adds to their prestige within the project. This is not the case. Feel free to improve any article you are interested in on here. If you want to improve an article to GA or FA, you don't need to ask any of our permissions. If you feel you want to inform the person who initially created or did much of the work in the article that you'd like to improve it, that's your call. It's not required or expected. Thegreatdr ( talk) 16:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hink is gone, so it will be up to us to help the articles through GAN/GAR/GAC, if any issues spring up during its review. Thegreatdr ( talk) 10:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that recently the JTWC has been highly conservative with their intensities, with a current example being ITC Fanele. The official 1-minute winds (according to the international best track writer) is the 10-minute winds multiplied by 1.14. With this, Fanele should be 114kts (1-min) but the intensity from the JTWC is 90kts. I think that we should start using the conversion as the official 1-minute winds instead of the JTWC advisories for the SHem. Thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Cyclone biskit 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
For the 1985 Pacific typhoon season article, we need to generate tracks for the April and early July systems. Their tracks are at this web site on pages 46 and 51, and both are considered TDs within that document. Once they're added, the article can be submitted for GAC/GAN/GAR. Thanks for whatever help you all can provide. Thegreatdr ( talk) 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
After some discussion on the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season page, I split off information from the lead and created a timeline for the article, which has become standard to the Pacific typhoon season articles. It was then noticed that some of the recent Atlantic articles had a separate timeline article associated with them. Why is this? Is this going to be done for all tropical cyclone seasons in all basins? If the answer is no, we need to reconsider these articles, because it would violate neutral point of view, and make one wonder "What makes the Atlantic so special?" Its activity is not especially important in the global scheme of things. Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Dolly TCR is out. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a though, instead of individual editors working on articles in their userspace, it seems that it would be more productive to collaborate on them in project-space sandboxes to allow for a more broad participation. Not sure if it'll work due to the lack of editors, but is it worth a shot? – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
How would that differ from just editing the article within a normal wikipedia article space? I've never quite gotten the idea of sandboxes...they occasionally flare conflict within the project when multiple people create a sandbox for a system, or someone creates the main article while someone is sandboxing. There is an appropriate tag to place on top of an article you're significantly editing out in the main wikipedia space. Although the idea is good, it's already used within normal wikipedia articles. Maybe that's why I like it. =) Thegreatdr ( talk) 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Since Ramisses is busy for a little while In real life can someone do the trackmaps for the SPAC 08-09 Tracking data is here
Three of the tropical depressions from the 1986 Pacific typhoon season, whose track maps are within this document, need maps. Thanks for whatever help you all are able to provide. Thegreatdr ( talk) 16:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
00010 07/20/1986 TROPICAL STORM 00020 07/20*1882482 30 1000*1962488 30 998*2032494 35 996*2082498 35 996* 00030 07/21*2152504 35 996*2182511 35 996*2202516 30 998*2252523 0 998* 00040 07/22*2272530 0 998*2272533 0 998*2272536 0 998*2262540 0 1002* 00050 07/23*2282546 0 1004*2302550 0 1002*2302550 0 1002*2352555 0 1002* 00060 07/24*2402560 0 1004*2402570 0 1004*2402580 0 1004* 0 0 0 0* 00070 TS 01010 08/09/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 01020 08/09* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*1742467 25 998*1772474 25 998* 01030 08/10*1792481 25 998*1832487 25 997*1882490 25 996*1932496 25 996* 01040 08/11*1922505 25 995*1912527 30 994*1962524 30 994*2042530 30 996* 01050 08/12*2202535 25 997* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 01060 TD 02000 09/02/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 02010 09/02*3002200 30 992*3092207 30 992*3212214 30 992*3372217 30 993* 02020 09/03*3512210 30 996*3612201 30 997*3802190 30 998*4042177 25 998* 02030 TD 03010 11/25/1986 TROPICAL DEPRESSION 03020 11/25*0812497 30 1002*0832500 30 1002*0862502 30 1002*0902502 30 1002* 03030 11/26*0932500 30 1002* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 03040 TD
Despite the look, it is in the proper format if you copy from the source code of this page. I'm not completely helpless. =) Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Due to the lack of activity on the A-class review page for the project, I'm proposing that we use our IRC channel to a greater extent and have the ACR there. By having it there, discussions can both start and close faster being that many of us (frequent editors) are online. Everyones thoughts on this are much appreciated :) Cyclone biskit 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This was on the met project page. FYI. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the old hurricane seasons articles I think we use confusing titles and are including somewhat "original research":
So I think that the articles concerned should be renamed, and another heading should be found for the introes. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if you can get hurricane images from the mid-late '60s online, if so where? -- Yue of the North 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Since this project is one the most prolific featured article producers, members may wish to know of the proposed addition of a criterion to the featured article criteria. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Proposal for 1(f). Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
<--And, as I showed with this example, I merged all of the useful content into the season section without losing any information. The naming trivia isn't needed (appears in dabs), nor is the ACE (which, sadly, is still in the season articles). The same can be done with the other articles which had no land impact. As I also noted with Erick, it comes down to an interpretation of WP:NOT, most significantly with these two points.
But that's just me. ♬♩ Hurricanehink( talk) 06:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia should cover every historical storm for which there is something to say based on reliable sources. Storms of recent years that were experienced by wikipedians themselves are more dubious. For historical storms, whether they have their own articles, or are grouped, or are listed, depends on the amount of differing content, which depends on the content in the sources. Once historical storms are sorted, recent storms can be sorted based on comparison with historical storms, out of our desire to be consistent. Exactly how information is arranged is best left to interested editors. AfD participants will not upset the system if the is agreement on a reasonable method. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Julian. Potapych, we score better than many of other wikiprojects, for example the Arena football project. Hink, I can easily find other soures, the Weather Channel, Fox news, and CNN.com. I feel that when you merge pages, you are hurting Wikipedia. A wikiproject should grow, not shrink. Leave Message , Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox
Judging from JC's actions, this recent merging spree is overdoing it. IIRC, merging was one of the problems with the project, yet there was a sudden influx in it. I don't think we should really be thinking about what articles to get rid of. It's fine to have stub articles or ones that don't have much information. There are much shorter articles throughout wikipedia, so there's no reason to make this project have standards like that. Everyones thoughts on this are very important for this to be resolved. Cyclone biskit 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the new one, I still don't think that all of the named ones should get articles. TS Chris in 2000, for example, could probably never have enough info for an article. Nothing should be inherently notable; we should have some criteria for determining tropical cyclone notability. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
On IRC, we're talking about named storms and their notability, and I thought of something that could use a comment. What about named storms that were de-classified in post-analysis ( Isobel 07, Kendra 66, or Hillary 67)? Alternatively, what about unnamed storms that were only classified in post-analysis ( 2006, 1991, 1987? With these exceptions, can naming really be considered an adequate test for notability? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes
No
As the second and third polls finished without a clear consensus we are going to have another poll to hopefully settle this argument once and for all
All named storms are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, but not necessarily all to have their own article" ?
User:Juliancolton/WPTC poll. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)