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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
People in this project might be interested, since the recent chatter involves this project. The link is here. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The article Wallkill River tells about most serious flooding on the river after two hurricanes hit the Northeastern U.S. while not elaborating further. However the statement is unreferenced.
1955 Atlantic hurricane season does not help, since there are three possible storms, Connie, Diane, and Ione. Though it might be the combined effects of Connie and Diane which are meant.
Please add the missing information and/or reference if you can. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 12:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the rationale for adding multiple superfluous categories to storm disambiguation pages? The articles on the actual storms should have the applicable categories, not the disambiguation pages. Having them on both results in redundant entries in the categories. For example, what is the benefit of have both the article Hurricane Diana (1984) and the disambiguation page Hurricane Diana (disambiguation) included in the category Category:1984 Atlantic hurricane season? older ≠ wiser 14:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Currently the category description on Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation says:
I see no reason why that disambig box should be deprecated. I find that disambig box nice since it has extra explanation about what kind of disambig page it is, just like the other specialised disambig boxes like {{ airport disambig}} and {{ roaddis}}. And it means it is easier to change/update the category name if it is added by a template. So, I want to remove the statement that it is deprecated. I have brought this up for discussion over at Template talk:Hurricane disambig#Reasons for removal of this template. Please discuss there.
Also, we are thinking of adding a "cyclone/hurricane/typhoon" parameter to {{
disambig}}, so that we can use for instance {{disambig|cyclone|airport|road}}
when a disambig page lists several other things under the same name. The parameter "cyclone" will make {{disambig}} categorise the page into
Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation. See discussion at
Template talk:Disambig#Yet another branch.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 09:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of them have too many links per entry (they should only have one) and too much punctuation. How about we format them like this Hurricane Claudette? Put the list with the most entries first and call it the Northern Atlantic Ocean? Potapych ( talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Just so you guys know: Hurricane Linda will be on TFA tomorrow, so put it on your watchlists. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have this? As we don't have a Southern Hemisphere cyclone season article explaining that term we only have a confusing bunch of redirects, lists and pseudo-disambigations and we have the possibility to use SHem as a possible entry to the Basin parameters in the hurricane infobox and the small hurricane infobox. Since I never actually saw an article using it I am wondering for some time but until now I bothered to ask.
|
|
Appearantly it does make a difference, compare my examples – from left to right Aus and SHem basins with unchanged winds and pressures. So what is this for? -- Matthiasb ( talk) 10:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hurricane editors should know by now that date ranges are not separated by WP:EMDASHes, rather by WP:ENDASHes. The syntax at {{ Infobox Hurricane Small}} is too complicated for me to fix; please address.
Likewise, there is a faulty hyphen in {{ Infobox hurricane season}} that should be an WP:ENDASH; pls get hyphens and dashes sorted in all of the hurricane templates. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This should be discussed here.
I have no objection to using DMY instead of MDY if that is the norm for the countries in that basin.
I think currencies should be converted to US dollars for templates since the US dollar is the de facto international currency. The Australian articles would involve not only Australian dollars, but PGK, Rupiahs, Soloman islands dollars, etc. It would be too complicated to include all, but they could be mentioned in the text.
I also think dates and times should remain in UTC format. The times at landfall could probably be converted to local time if the editor prefers. Editors should be careful to avoid confusion if local time and UTC are on different days.
Please do not make anymore changes to the format without discussing it here first. Potapych ( talk) 05:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Why should be used USD? Why not Euro, Yen, Suisse franks, Pound sterling??? To answer this myself, we should use the currency used in the specific cyclone's comitee's yearly meeting's report – any converting into any currency only for comparing would be a POV problem. And no, the US dollar is not a de facto international currency. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 19:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you use images from Google Earth with Satelite overlay because I think that you could because the satelite images are from NASA, but does anyone else have a diffrent opinion?
-- Yue of the North 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
But you can go on http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/ because the satellite is from http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/ so you'll know if where had the satellite that had been taken. Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 20:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I was going to review an article for GAN this afternoon ( Cyclone Innis (2009)) before I realized that there was no chance that its TCR would be out from Nadi, Fiji. When I asked the person who submitted it to GAN about this, they mentioned that 3 TC's had already been approved for GA from the 2008/2009 season, without TCRs! The rules we follow for GANing individual storm articles are the same for the southern hemisphere as they are up north, aren't they? Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It isnt out offically yet but thanks to Americas Hurricane conference we have found a summuary of a presentation given by the JTWC which uses best track info.
Final figures from JTWC
Highlights from the report
The A-Class review system desperately needs more participants. Any help is greatly appreciated. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to help out, the page is temporarily at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Hurricane_Camille. The new page's length is approaching the size of the page out in the main space. Since only 4 people supported the general idea of collaborating on older articles, I haven't added a new section to the project main page. However, that doesn't mean we can't collaborate on articles in a more informal way. Thegreatdr ( talk) 21:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Its now offically out Jason Rees ( talk) 01:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Why should the pre tropical cyclone part erased after the TCR came out? It's useful. Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 03:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Theres a new rule at FLC that says lists should have 10 or more items - which after disscussion with one of the FL Directors, Hink and myself have interpretated as meaning that seasons that have timelines with under 10 Depressions will not be able to pass. Which means most timelines from the North Indian Ocean, will not be able to pass as the seasons do not have more than 10 Depressions on average. Ive been thinking over the last couple of days on how to make a way around this and ive come up with 3 options. I personally prefer Option 1 as i think it would be easier to do Jason Rees ( talk) 01:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but can't you just keep them the way they are with out the FLC? -- Yue of the North 14:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm getting back to substantial work on WPTC for the first time since December, but I've hit a wall on my current effort, located at User:Dylan620/Sandbox/Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. I'm currently trying to add a footnote to my timeline regarding the measurement of tropical cyclone estimated sustained wind speed (exaxctly like this, I even copied the HTML into my timeline), but it's not working. Thoughts? -- Dylan ( chat, work, ping, sign) 12:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
See here; the project doesn't really use ACE for individual articles, and it's basically unsourced. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Since we're on a roll in discussing things, we are having a discussion tonight on tropical cyclone naming. We agreed that naming is fairly trivial, since it's a human-applied activity for natural events. There is a place for some of the trivia, perhaps on Tropical cyclone naming, but not in every tropical cyclone article. Basically, this is the proposal.
To remove everything about naming in all storm articles and storm sections in season articles, except for information on subsequent use
It's worth mentioning when the storm was used next. Example: The name was used next in 20XX. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep for Retired hurricanes, wierd ones like Adele, Kirsten, Joni, keep the ones that have meaning in the West Pacific. Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 04:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
A couple of us have been chatting about elevating the older TC articles, especially the retirees, to GA or FA status as a project, rather than individually. In years back, vital articles could be sent through the article improvement drive, but that went defunct nearly a year ago. If we created something like "article of the month," like the now-defunct article of the fortnight, where 3+ editors dedicated their time to improve the retirees/TC-related vital articles to GA/FA status, how many people within the project would be interested in contributing to their improvement? I think if we got 5-10 people interested, we should go forward with such a project. I'll take silence as zero, of course. =) Thegreatdr ( talk) 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
To cyclonebiskit...the articles that would need to be improved are already created. It would be a matter of possibly expanding them and/or citing them better. Thegreatdr ( talk) 04:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think a collaboration thing could work, and I know how it could work. First, I think any collaboration should start an article completely fresh. Otherwise, there may be attempts to keep unneeded information, and the reason for collaborating might become shadowed. Second, I think if it were to be made fresh, it would have to be in some sort of neutral sandbox, so anyone can work on it, but it's not being shown at all times. As such, I'll bring back an idea that was suggested, which is using a project sandbox. I, for one, think the project should collaborate on Hurricane Camille, seeing as it will be the 40 year anniversary this August. It would be great to have it featured by then, and if we collaborate, we can get it done. I went ahead and made this - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Hurricane Camille. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Assessment Page: I've put this article at GAR following several discussions with members of the project. In general, the article does not cover enough of the storm to be considered a GA. Input from other members in the project is much appreciated. Cyclone biskit 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking, and I'm a bit unsatisfied with that article, for the reason that most of the content there is under the wrong title. Most of that article is on a storm that brought strong winds to Atlantic Canada in November 2001, and was actually listed as one of the top 10 weather events in Canada in 2001. I wrote the article, and the reason I put it under Noel's article was that the event was only loosely related to Noel, in that it absorbed it and became stronger. I regret the article choice now, and basically, I think the impact should be part of, say, November 2001 Canada storm.
One solution would be to move it, and then greatly reduce the focus on Noel. The alternative solution would be to create a new article, move the impact over there, and be left with a more bare article on Noel. Any thoughts? --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
We agreed a couple years back to restrict the core articles to some of the general met articles, as well as 1-2 storms per basin. I think of storms which hit Texas more worthy than Ike (Carla and Beulah come to mind), if Ike is considered one of our project's 13-14 core articles. That alone disallows Ike. Hence, I removed Ike from that list, and it is appropriately listed on our long vital articles list. Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Thegreatdr ( talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Just some more extreme tropical cyclones: Mitch, Bhola cyclone, few other unnamed NIO cyclones, Tip, Gilbert, Hugo, Allen why can't people remember storms in the 70s 80s and 90s. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC) I'm divided if it deserves to be top, right now, but perhaps it'll be lowered over time. If there was a tropical cyclone encyclopedia released this year, inevitably it would have a section on Ike, due to the high (recent) interest in it. Ten years from now, in a more general encyclopedia, it probably wouldn't get the attention. Should we base importance on how important it is right now, or should it be based on how it would be judged from a time vacuum? If it is the former, then more recent storms would be considered more important; this is not necessarily a bad thing, since more recent storms do get a lot of attention. If it is the latter, then that means a more evenly distributed attention across the seasons, which also wouldn't be a bad thing. As usual, I can't make a decision, but I still want to put my own uncertainty into words. :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that the cat is out of the bag about article viewership within the project, perhaps this page can become a guide for which articles to improve to GA/FA next. I see that people want to rate importance by viewership, which is one way to do so. So why not improve the articles which the masses flock to most? It definitely looks like we were in line with the public need in the eastern Pacific. It's the Atlantic where our interests as a project don't overlap as well with the public need. Just a thought. Thegreatdr ( talk) 15:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are running Mac OS X, I strongly suggest you set this up on your computer. It's not really fair to have one or two people make all of them when it is so easy to get started yourself. The difficult part is formatting data into HURDAT format because of the amount of time this can consume. I can answer questions about Mac installations, but I can't help with other platforms. If you tried this before, maybe it was before Jdorje fixed it a few months ago. Potapych ( talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Allstrak recently created {{ Tropicalcyclone}} as an alternative to {{ tropical cyclone}}, and has transcluded it onto a few articles. I personally like the idea of a collapsible navigation template, but I figured it should be brought here for discussion before substituting it in. - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea as well though i would strongly recommend including links to the lists of historic cyclone names and the retired storms lists. Jason Rees ( talk) 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Although technically part of the broader meteorology project, I thought I'd let you all know that wind is up for FAC. I placed it in the template for this project, since it is related. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this really top-importance? – Juliancolton | Talk 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was settled that JMA information would be used from years 2000 and on, and JTWC would be the primary source from 1999 and earlier. (And it's not like you have any choice since JMA doesn't make earlier reports easily available if they even exist.) I noticed that pressure data in the infoboxes has been mixed up in a lot of those articles, so someone needs to go through them and fix them. Potapych ( talk) 04:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it comes down to two viewpoints. 1) Do we go by what is official now, or 2) Do we go by what was more commonly used *then*? For the Atlantic, there's little debate. We use HURDAT, and we supplement it by MWR and such. So, what if we applied it to another non-NHC basin. Should we use JTWC or BoM pre-2000? What about MFR? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of nominating this at TfD because it does not make sense to anyone unfamiliar with JMA's system of numbering. There is no explanation to be found near the template, and I don't think one of these should be created for every season. Potapych ( talk) 22:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Idea: what about something collapsible in the Infobox? Just look at a random Simpsons episode - it has all of the episodes in a season neatly at the top. That way, we could put the full name in, and avoid the numbers and letters completely. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Check it out. I'm not sure if this is the ideal solution to the button bar problem, but I like it more than the button bars, which I do feel are confusing. There could be some tweaking, but I really like this approach of listing the storms in the Infobox. Yes, that would mean making a template for each season, but I really don't think we need one of those if it's a season with only one article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Though it does not result in a different appearing of articles we should keep the parameter entries of the small hurricane infoboxes in the same order, as per documentation Basin/Image/Track/Formed/Dissipated/1-min winds/Pressure (with the modification where applicable). In many instances trackmap or sat image are included following the pressure or other data. That makes controlling of such articles harder.
Related to this I wonder why sometimes those parameters are not included already when a depression develops but editors seem to add them in rather, after trackmaps and/or satellite images are available. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The old infobox that is deperecated needs orphaning if poissible. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3AInfobox+hurricane+small&namespace=0 shows he aoutstanding uses. Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC).
I think that move wasn't well considered with insight. Actually that's how canonical institutions "name" that storm. Neither NHC or the NWS and other meteorological institutions use " 1978 January subtropical storm", that titel does not exist outside Wikipedia. Such an article name is Wikipedia:Original research. Hurricanehink, please move them back. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Why not just do what WP:METEO does, and when faced with two unnamed hurricanes, do something like "June 1970 unnamed hurricane" and "August 1970 unnamed hurricane", or "Unnamed hurricane (June 1970)" and "Unnamed hurricane (August 1970)" That way it isn't WP:OR, it's descriptive (and not ambiguous like choosing a region to name it after). - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes im sure Jason Rees ( talk) 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There are 4 Tropical Storms in the WPAC 1 in the SPAC and 2 in the Aus - They all reached Tropical Storm Strength but were not named by the RSMC/TCWC and thus would need the unnamed Tropical Storm title. Jason Rees ( talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Instead of going inactive, I say that we start to work on whats important. We could do a collab for Andrew or a good topic drive for the 2005 AHS. Our goal as a project should be to get all of these articles below to GA status.
EPAC | ALT |
---|---|
1992 Pacific hurricane season | Hurricane Andrew |
Hurricane Kathleen (1976) | Hurricane Camile |
Hurricane Paul (1982) | Hurricane Ike |
Hurricane Liza (1976) | Hurricane Rita |
Hurricane Stan | |
Hurricane Wilma |
Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
Its back - but we have a problem. All of the archives have not reappeared yet. Now i fear they are gone for ever but i think i have a solution for some of the archives Jason Rees ( talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Has Webcite crashed again because all of the newly archived JMA and PAGASA data for TD 08 (Huaning) is gone. -- An ha mi rak 01:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember seeing info on current storms that wasn't written into current storms like TS Carlos. To be more specific, this revision of 2008 Atlantic hurricane season listed Hurricane Paloma's then-current storm information, a list of watches and warnings, and links to the NHC's latest public advisory and forecast/advisory on the storm. I am disappointed to see this information missing at Carlos' section on the 2009 Pacific hurricane season article. Before adding the information myself, I'd like to get a rough WPTC consensus on it. Best, Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) 21:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple days ago, I placed the precipitation article up for peer review, which has already yielded an important comment on the met project talk page. Since precipitation is strongly related to tropical cyclones, I thought I'd place a comment here, in case anyone within this project wished to comment. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to let people know: Hurricane Ioke is up on the main page tommorrow. Jason Rees ( talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
JulianColton and I recently had a discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb#Hurricane Humberto regarding the overcategorization of tropical storm disambiguation pages, and he recommended I notify you all about it. Basically, the dab pages are being categorized not only in the proper dab categories, but also in the pages for articles about tropical storms. This is now getting fixed. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay... that's it for tonight. I've removed the over-the-top categories for all the subcategories of Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation except for Category:Pacific hurricane disambiguation and Category:Pacific typhoon disambiguation, though I admit there's some overlap with the others in these. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm extremely shocked that no one noticed this before but Tropical Storm Javier in 1998 was one of the costliest and deadliest storms in the basin. Officials confirmed at least 162 fatalities, with reports of over 1,000 deaths, and damages are at least $1.5 billion. Since this will take a lot of searching to get good information, I've started a project sandbox located at this link. We'll probably need editors who have archives that cost money to help out a lot, such as Cool3 ( talk · contribs) and Hurricanehink ( talk · contribs) (we can contact him via email) to gather more information as there is bound to be many news reports on the flooding. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1. Dabomb87 ( talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
heads-up, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison/archive1. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 30 July 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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
People in this project might be interested, since the recent chatter involves this project. The link is here. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The article Wallkill River tells about most serious flooding on the river after two hurricanes hit the Northeastern U.S. while not elaborating further. However the statement is unreferenced.
1955 Atlantic hurricane season does not help, since there are three possible storms, Connie, Diane, and Ione. Though it might be the combined effects of Connie and Diane which are meant.
Please add the missing information and/or reference if you can. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 12:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the rationale for adding multiple superfluous categories to storm disambiguation pages? The articles on the actual storms should have the applicable categories, not the disambiguation pages. Having them on both results in redundant entries in the categories. For example, what is the benefit of have both the article Hurricane Diana (1984) and the disambiguation page Hurricane Diana (disambiguation) included in the category Category:1984 Atlantic hurricane season? older ≠ wiser 14:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Currently the category description on Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation says:
I see no reason why that disambig box should be deprecated. I find that disambig box nice since it has extra explanation about what kind of disambig page it is, just like the other specialised disambig boxes like {{ airport disambig}} and {{ roaddis}}. And it means it is easier to change/update the category name if it is added by a template. So, I want to remove the statement that it is deprecated. I have brought this up for discussion over at Template talk:Hurricane disambig#Reasons for removal of this template. Please discuss there.
Also, we are thinking of adding a "cyclone/hurricane/typhoon" parameter to {{
disambig}}, so that we can use for instance {{disambig|cyclone|airport|road}}
when a disambig page lists several other things under the same name. The parameter "cyclone" will make {{disambig}} categorise the page into
Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation. See discussion at
Template talk:Disambig#Yet another branch.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 09:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of them have too many links per entry (they should only have one) and too much punctuation. How about we format them like this Hurricane Claudette? Put the list with the most entries first and call it the Northern Atlantic Ocean? Potapych ( talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Just so you guys know: Hurricane Linda will be on TFA tomorrow, so put it on your watchlists. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have this? As we don't have a Southern Hemisphere cyclone season article explaining that term we only have a confusing bunch of redirects, lists and pseudo-disambigations and we have the possibility to use SHem as a possible entry to the Basin parameters in the hurricane infobox and the small hurricane infobox. Since I never actually saw an article using it I am wondering for some time but until now I bothered to ask.
|
|
Appearantly it does make a difference, compare my examples – from left to right Aus and SHem basins with unchanged winds and pressures. So what is this for? -- Matthiasb ( talk) 10:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hurricane editors should know by now that date ranges are not separated by WP:EMDASHes, rather by WP:ENDASHes. The syntax at {{ Infobox Hurricane Small}} is too complicated for me to fix; please address.
Likewise, there is a faulty hyphen in {{ Infobox hurricane season}} that should be an WP:ENDASH; pls get hyphens and dashes sorted in all of the hurricane templates. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This should be discussed here.
I have no objection to using DMY instead of MDY if that is the norm for the countries in that basin.
I think currencies should be converted to US dollars for templates since the US dollar is the de facto international currency. The Australian articles would involve not only Australian dollars, but PGK, Rupiahs, Soloman islands dollars, etc. It would be too complicated to include all, but they could be mentioned in the text.
I also think dates and times should remain in UTC format. The times at landfall could probably be converted to local time if the editor prefers. Editors should be careful to avoid confusion if local time and UTC are on different days.
Please do not make anymore changes to the format without discussing it here first. Potapych ( talk) 05:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Why should be used USD? Why not Euro, Yen, Suisse franks, Pound sterling??? To answer this myself, we should use the currency used in the specific cyclone's comitee's yearly meeting's report – any converting into any currency only for comparing would be a POV problem. And no, the US dollar is not a de facto international currency. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 19:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you use images from Google Earth with Satelite overlay because I think that you could because the satelite images are from NASA, but does anyone else have a diffrent opinion?
-- Yue of the North 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
But you can go on http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/ because the satellite is from http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/ so you'll know if where had the satellite that had been taken. Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 20:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I was going to review an article for GAN this afternoon ( Cyclone Innis (2009)) before I realized that there was no chance that its TCR would be out from Nadi, Fiji. When I asked the person who submitted it to GAN about this, they mentioned that 3 TC's had already been approved for GA from the 2008/2009 season, without TCRs! The rules we follow for GANing individual storm articles are the same for the southern hemisphere as they are up north, aren't they? Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It isnt out offically yet but thanks to Americas Hurricane conference we have found a summuary of a presentation given by the JTWC which uses best track info.
Final figures from JTWC
Highlights from the report
The A-Class review system desperately needs more participants. Any help is greatly appreciated. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to help out, the page is temporarily at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Hurricane_Camille. The new page's length is approaching the size of the page out in the main space. Since only 4 people supported the general idea of collaborating on older articles, I haven't added a new section to the project main page. However, that doesn't mean we can't collaborate on articles in a more informal way. Thegreatdr ( talk) 21:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Its now offically out Jason Rees ( talk) 01:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Why should the pre tropical cyclone part erased after the TCR came out? It's useful. Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 03:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Theres a new rule at FLC that says lists should have 10 or more items - which after disscussion with one of the FL Directors, Hink and myself have interpretated as meaning that seasons that have timelines with under 10 Depressions will not be able to pass. Which means most timelines from the North Indian Ocean, will not be able to pass as the seasons do not have more than 10 Depressions on average. Ive been thinking over the last couple of days on how to make a way around this and ive come up with 3 options. I personally prefer Option 1 as i think it would be easier to do Jason Rees ( talk) 01:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but can't you just keep them the way they are with out the FLC? -- Yue of the North 14:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm getting back to substantial work on WPTC for the first time since December, but I've hit a wall on my current effort, located at User:Dylan620/Sandbox/Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. I'm currently trying to add a footnote to my timeline regarding the measurement of tropical cyclone estimated sustained wind speed (exaxctly like this, I even copied the HTML into my timeline), but it's not working. Thoughts? -- Dylan ( chat, work, ping, sign) 12:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
See here; the project doesn't really use ACE for individual articles, and it's basically unsourced. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Since we're on a roll in discussing things, we are having a discussion tonight on tropical cyclone naming. We agreed that naming is fairly trivial, since it's a human-applied activity for natural events. There is a place for some of the trivia, perhaps on Tropical cyclone naming, but not in every tropical cyclone article. Basically, this is the proposal.
To remove everything about naming in all storm articles and storm sections in season articles, except for information on subsequent use
It's worth mentioning when the storm was used next. Example: The name was used next in 20XX. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep for Retired hurricanes, wierd ones like Adele, Kirsten, Joni, keep the ones that have meaning in the West Pacific. Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 04:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
A couple of us have been chatting about elevating the older TC articles, especially the retirees, to GA or FA status as a project, rather than individually. In years back, vital articles could be sent through the article improvement drive, but that went defunct nearly a year ago. If we created something like "article of the month," like the now-defunct article of the fortnight, where 3+ editors dedicated their time to improve the retirees/TC-related vital articles to GA/FA status, how many people within the project would be interested in contributing to their improvement? I think if we got 5-10 people interested, we should go forward with such a project. I'll take silence as zero, of course. =) Thegreatdr ( talk) 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
To cyclonebiskit...the articles that would need to be improved are already created. It would be a matter of possibly expanding them and/or citing them better. Thegreatdr ( talk) 04:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think a collaboration thing could work, and I know how it could work. First, I think any collaboration should start an article completely fresh. Otherwise, there may be attempts to keep unneeded information, and the reason for collaborating might become shadowed. Second, I think if it were to be made fresh, it would have to be in some sort of neutral sandbox, so anyone can work on it, but it's not being shown at all times. As such, I'll bring back an idea that was suggested, which is using a project sandbox. I, for one, think the project should collaborate on Hurricane Camille, seeing as it will be the 40 year anniversary this August. It would be great to have it featured by then, and if we collaborate, we can get it done. I went ahead and made this - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Hurricane Camille. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Assessment Page: I've put this article at GAR following several discussions with members of the project. In general, the article does not cover enough of the storm to be considered a GA. Input from other members in the project is much appreciated. Cyclone biskit 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking, and I'm a bit unsatisfied with that article, for the reason that most of the content there is under the wrong title. Most of that article is on a storm that brought strong winds to Atlantic Canada in November 2001, and was actually listed as one of the top 10 weather events in Canada in 2001. I wrote the article, and the reason I put it under Noel's article was that the event was only loosely related to Noel, in that it absorbed it and became stronger. I regret the article choice now, and basically, I think the impact should be part of, say, November 2001 Canada storm.
One solution would be to move it, and then greatly reduce the focus on Noel. The alternative solution would be to create a new article, move the impact over there, and be left with a more bare article on Noel. Any thoughts? --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
We agreed a couple years back to restrict the core articles to some of the general met articles, as well as 1-2 storms per basin. I think of storms which hit Texas more worthy than Ike (Carla and Beulah come to mind), if Ike is considered one of our project's 13-14 core articles. That alone disallows Ike. Hence, I removed Ike from that list, and it is appropriately listed on our long vital articles list. Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Thegreatdr ( talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Just some more extreme tropical cyclones: Mitch, Bhola cyclone, few other unnamed NIO cyclones, Tip, Gilbert, Hugo, Allen why can't people remember storms in the 70s 80s and 90s. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC) I'm divided if it deserves to be top, right now, but perhaps it'll be lowered over time. If there was a tropical cyclone encyclopedia released this year, inevitably it would have a section on Ike, due to the high (recent) interest in it. Ten years from now, in a more general encyclopedia, it probably wouldn't get the attention. Should we base importance on how important it is right now, or should it be based on how it would be judged from a time vacuum? If it is the former, then more recent storms would be considered more important; this is not necessarily a bad thing, since more recent storms do get a lot of attention. If it is the latter, then that means a more evenly distributed attention across the seasons, which also wouldn't be a bad thing. As usual, I can't make a decision, but I still want to put my own uncertainty into words. :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that the cat is out of the bag about article viewership within the project, perhaps this page can become a guide for which articles to improve to GA/FA next. I see that people want to rate importance by viewership, which is one way to do so. So why not improve the articles which the masses flock to most? It definitely looks like we were in line with the public need in the eastern Pacific. It's the Atlantic where our interests as a project don't overlap as well with the public need. Just a thought. Thegreatdr ( talk) 15:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are running Mac OS X, I strongly suggest you set this up on your computer. It's not really fair to have one or two people make all of them when it is so easy to get started yourself. The difficult part is formatting data into HURDAT format because of the amount of time this can consume. I can answer questions about Mac installations, but I can't help with other platforms. If you tried this before, maybe it was before Jdorje fixed it a few months ago. Potapych ( talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Allstrak recently created {{ Tropicalcyclone}} as an alternative to {{ tropical cyclone}}, and has transcluded it onto a few articles. I personally like the idea of a collapsible navigation template, but I figured it should be brought here for discussion before substituting it in. - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea as well though i would strongly recommend including links to the lists of historic cyclone names and the retired storms lists. Jason Rees ( talk) 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Although technically part of the broader meteorology project, I thought I'd let you all know that wind is up for FAC. I placed it in the template for this project, since it is related. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this really top-importance? – Juliancolton | Talk 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was settled that JMA information would be used from years 2000 and on, and JTWC would be the primary source from 1999 and earlier. (And it's not like you have any choice since JMA doesn't make earlier reports easily available if they even exist.) I noticed that pressure data in the infoboxes has been mixed up in a lot of those articles, so someone needs to go through them and fix them. Potapych ( talk) 04:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it comes down to two viewpoints. 1) Do we go by what is official now, or 2) Do we go by what was more commonly used *then*? For the Atlantic, there's little debate. We use HURDAT, and we supplement it by MWR and such. So, what if we applied it to another non-NHC basin. Should we use JTWC or BoM pre-2000? What about MFR? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of nominating this at TfD because it does not make sense to anyone unfamiliar with JMA's system of numbering. There is no explanation to be found near the template, and I don't think one of these should be created for every season. Potapych ( talk) 22:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Idea: what about something collapsible in the Infobox? Just look at a random Simpsons episode - it has all of the episodes in a season neatly at the top. That way, we could put the full name in, and avoid the numbers and letters completely. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Check it out. I'm not sure if this is the ideal solution to the button bar problem, but I like it more than the button bars, which I do feel are confusing. There could be some tweaking, but I really like this approach of listing the storms in the Infobox. Yes, that would mean making a template for each season, but I really don't think we need one of those if it's a season with only one article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Though it does not result in a different appearing of articles we should keep the parameter entries of the small hurricane infoboxes in the same order, as per documentation Basin/Image/Track/Formed/Dissipated/1-min winds/Pressure (with the modification where applicable). In many instances trackmap or sat image are included following the pressure or other data. That makes controlling of such articles harder.
Related to this I wonder why sometimes those parameters are not included already when a depression develops but editors seem to add them in rather, after trackmaps and/or satellite images are available. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The old infobox that is deperecated needs orphaning if poissible. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3AInfobox+hurricane+small&namespace=0 shows he aoutstanding uses. Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC).
I think that move wasn't well considered with insight. Actually that's how canonical institutions "name" that storm. Neither NHC or the NWS and other meteorological institutions use " 1978 January subtropical storm", that titel does not exist outside Wikipedia. Such an article name is Wikipedia:Original research. Hurricanehink, please move them back. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Why not just do what WP:METEO does, and when faced with two unnamed hurricanes, do something like "June 1970 unnamed hurricane" and "August 1970 unnamed hurricane", or "Unnamed hurricane (June 1970)" and "Unnamed hurricane (August 1970)" That way it isn't WP:OR, it's descriptive (and not ambiguous like choosing a region to name it after). - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes im sure Jason Rees ( talk) 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There are 4 Tropical Storms in the WPAC 1 in the SPAC and 2 in the Aus - They all reached Tropical Storm Strength but were not named by the RSMC/TCWC and thus would need the unnamed Tropical Storm title. Jason Rees ( talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Instead of going inactive, I say that we start to work on whats important. We could do a collab for Andrew or a good topic drive for the 2005 AHS. Our goal as a project should be to get all of these articles below to GA status.
EPAC | ALT |
---|---|
1992 Pacific hurricane season | Hurricane Andrew |
Hurricane Kathleen (1976) | Hurricane Camile |
Hurricane Paul (1982) | Hurricane Ike |
Hurricane Liza (1976) | Hurricane Rita |
Hurricane Stan | |
Hurricane Wilma |
Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
Its back - but we have a problem. All of the archives have not reappeared yet. Now i fear they are gone for ever but i think i have a solution for some of the archives Jason Rees ( talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Has Webcite crashed again because all of the newly archived JMA and PAGASA data for TD 08 (Huaning) is gone. -- An ha mi rak 01:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember seeing info on current storms that wasn't written into current storms like TS Carlos. To be more specific, this revision of 2008 Atlantic hurricane season listed Hurricane Paloma's then-current storm information, a list of watches and warnings, and links to the NHC's latest public advisory and forecast/advisory on the storm. I am disappointed to see this information missing at Carlos' section on the 2009 Pacific hurricane season article. Before adding the information myself, I'd like to get a rough WPTC consensus on it. Best, Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) 21:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple days ago, I placed the precipitation article up for peer review, which has already yielded an important comment on the met project talk page. Since precipitation is strongly related to tropical cyclones, I thought I'd place a comment here, in case anyone within this project wished to comment. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to let people know: Hurricane Ioke is up on the main page tommorrow. Jason Rees ( talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
JulianColton and I recently had a discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb#Hurricane Humberto regarding the overcategorization of tropical storm disambiguation pages, and he recommended I notify you all about it. Basically, the dab pages are being categorized not only in the proper dab categories, but also in the pages for articles about tropical storms. This is now getting fixed. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay... that's it for tonight. I've removed the over-the-top categories for all the subcategories of Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation except for Category:Pacific hurricane disambiguation and Category:Pacific typhoon disambiguation, though I admit there's some overlap with the others in these. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm extremely shocked that no one noticed this before but Tropical Storm Javier in 1998 was one of the costliest and deadliest storms in the basin. Officials confirmed at least 162 fatalities, with reports of over 1,000 deaths, and damages are at least $1.5 billion. Since this will take a lot of searching to get good information, I've started a project sandbox located at this link. We'll probably need editors who have archives that cost money to help out a lot, such as Cool3 ( talk · contribs) and Hurricanehink ( talk · contribs) (we can contact him via email) to gather more information as there is bound to be many news reports on the flooding. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1. Dabomb87 ( talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
heads-up, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison/archive1. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)