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 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
{{Infobox hurricane current}}
: "kn" versus "kt"I notice that in many of the current storm infoboxes, we have been using "kn" as an abbreviation for "knots." This conflicts with the National Hurricane Center, though, which uses "kt." When and why did we start using "kn" instead of the abbreviation used in official advisories? Master of Time (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Someone reply, please? Master of Time (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Ophelia (2017) to be moved to Hurricane Ophelia. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 16:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Lan (2017) to be moved to Typhoon Lan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 21:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I came across this discussion from an era gone by seeking to form consensus on units to use in the bodies of articles (seems the template takes care of the units in the infobox.) But I didn't see that information anywhere straightforward in the policies. It seems a fairly standard way of doing things has developed these days, even if that discussion never came to actual official declaration? It would seem those policies might be useful to inform people of in the main guide, or at worst the TC style guide. If some things are still flexible/undecided, that could be noted too? Just to give some sort of formal placement to what works and is predominant (even if not an official standard?)
My reasoning for seeking this is actually quite tangential... I fell into the NHC rounding error trap in improving/expanding Hurricane Erin (1995) last year and was later corrected... and was confused for a long while, even as I continued on investigating down the rabbit hole of why. Eventually I came to find they'd updated their rounding in this talk topic, but of course old product archives on NHC's site (and probably many other places) still list the old mis-rounded wind speeds.
So after coming here and searching for the policy on which rounding to use (and not particularly finding a set consensus on that either in the talk... where are we at?) It would seem a standard, a quick notice on that within the policy statement on wind speed units, and maybe even an inline comment noting the issue put within the pages of old NHC-basin TCs might just prevent people from tripping over themselves later/getting a mess of inconsistent pages. Certainly we could just stick to the status quo as is so often the case, and leave it open to the chaotic nature, if we absolutely must... but even then, a note in the guidelines would at least help people like me from pulling out a few more hairs? ;-)
Cheers, JeopardyTempest ( talk) 09:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated Hurricane Mitch 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Auree ★ ★ 09:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi and just to note, doesn't mean both the EPac and Atlantic basins have officially ended, doesn't mean to immediately create the 2018 seasons. Please don't get too excited about this. The Atlantic one could be created when the first TSR forecast is issued (which is around mid this month) and the EPac could be created at least the same time as that, but just to be safe, I would create it just before January 1. See what has been discussed last year. The WPac and Nio articles are simply fine to be created any time this month as those basins 'never end'. Thanks so much. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Yellow Evan: @ Jason Rees: @ Meow: @ Hurricanehink: @ Cyclonebiskit: @ Supportstorm: @ LightandDark2000: @ Jasper Deng: Do you guys think we should continue doing ACE calcs in different basins? Really imo if ACE calcs are mentioned in the EPac and Atlantic basins, then it should be mentioned in other basins. Especially ACE is used with 1-min sustained winds. Full discussion and reasons here: User talk:Jason Rees#SHEM ACE considered as OR?. What are your guys thoughts on this? Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Also while I support the usage of RSMC data, I would rather see it sourced rather than us defining which systems count/don’t count since that is OR. Jason Rees ( talk) 16:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I ask that we use JTWC data for ACE for the reasons illustrated above. Y E Pacific Hurricane 15:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been noticing that we have been getting more and more articles on storms on the main page. So much so, that I began to wonder if this is related to an increase in their frequency. Are there more storms these days?
This has started questions spinning around inside my head. Here are some more of them...
Is global warming causing an increase in the frequency and severity of storms?
The search phrase Frequency of storms isn't redirected anywhere. Should it?
The search phrase Severity of storms isn't redirected anywhere. Should it?
Does the phenomenon of more and stronger storms have a name?
Is there an article on it?
Is this simply a whether pattern or an example of climate change?
What are the driving factors?
Will the frequency and severity continue to increase?
What are the ramifications?
Did humans cause this?
If so, is it reversible?
Is there a similar increase in other types of storms (tornadoes, etc.)?
Is there a cause-effect relationship between the warming of the oceans and wildfires?
How has the change in storm frequency/severity impacted the meteorological field?
What questions should the public-at-large be asking?
What the heck is going on?
Sincerely, The Transhumanist 21:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Jasper Deng, Jason Rees, Yellow Evan, Typhoon2017, Hurricanehink, Keith Edkins, Meow, Cyclonebiskit, Supportstorm, MarioProtIV, ChocolateTrain, LightandDark2000, and Nino Marakot: and to all other users I have worked with or in general, I just wanted to say thank you guys so much for another great year! We had some ups and downs, but we still handled it and got through it. Thanks for your contributions and the teamwork we've made to create these articles. Yes we still have good ol' Tembin out there, but I hope everyone have (had) a great Christmas and have a happy holidays! I really enjoyed working with you guys and I hope 2018 will be another great year for us and the project and have more fantastic TCs. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
:Happy Festivus
🐱
💬
09:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I've started work on an article for the 1942 October tropical storm , feel free to add any info if you like. 216.24.109.110 ( talk) 17:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that the intensities for SWIO cyclones in the seasons from 1962-63 to 1967-68 match up with the values from Neumann (can be found via IBTrACS) as if they were 1-minute intensities converted to 10-minute. But in the 1968-69 season, the intensities appear to assume the values from Neumann are already in 10-minute winds (for example here for Enid-Fanny). I haven't checked on any later seasons yet, but there are inconsistencies, what should we do about it? Additionally, I have been unable to find any information on whether Neumann's values are in 1-min or 10-min. atomic 7732 20:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm just getting annoyed now. There are some anon users who are stuffing up in the past several days. Anon users beginning with 2405:204:4... btw. They remove infoboxes for no reason, some I guess create "new storms" because they just want to, and one actually changed 06F to 05F. I don't know when this will calm down but unfortunately it's still happening :( . Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@ ChocolateTrain, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, Jason Rees, Jasper Deng, Keith Edkins, LightandDark2000, MarioProtIV, Nino Marakot, Supportstorm, Typhoon2013, Typhoon2017, and Yellow Evan: This is my first nomination of a featured picture candidate. If it is promoted, it will be the first single typhoon featured picture of the English Wikipedia, and more people will be aware of annular tropical cyclones. Whether you support or oppose, I appreciate your attention. I also apologise for any inconvenience I caused before. 🐱 💬 02:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 16:57:17 (UTC)
Promoted File:Noru 2017-07-31 0415Z.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I will not be able to use my computer from 14 February to 21 February. Therefore, I can only update JTWC track maps and some information during the period, as those things can be done via my phone and tablet. I reported the issue of the International Dateline of Worldview yesterday, yet NASA has no deadline to fix it. Finally, I also appreciate people like Typhoon2013 and Nino Marakot who helped promote the satellite image of Typhoon Noru as a featured picture of the English Wikipedia. Happy Chinese New Year. 🐱 💬 01:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season starts off: "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an active Atlantic hurricane season", and others have a similar pattern. I'm doing a survey on some style questions. Does anyone object to "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an unusually active season", or "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was unusually active", moving the link down to the second sentence? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Jason Rees, Typhoon2013, Jasper Deng, Cyclonebiskit, and Supportstorm: I think we need to decide how we are going to handle the season effects tables here. While the "consensus" was to change the table format across all basins, I think it is a bit over the top. I think the Atlantic and EPac should be excluded from the newer table as it involves way more text having to be added in to fulfill the table, while Template:TC stats cyclone3 allows way less text to be put in yet come out with a similar result (which reduces the amount of bytes added). Though the fact of the newer format was to include sortability and to adhere WP:V, JD recently made it sortable which fixes that issue. However one thing that still needs to be addressed is the verification part, which I've partially been able to add however it is still buggy (and could probably use some help). Plus, having to convert to the newer table for the more recent Atl seasons (as its scattered about from the years 1979 to now with a notable truncation post-2003), esp say the extremely active ones. Basically if we could fix the cyclone3 template up to adhere WP:V we can perhaps go back to that one if applicable. An alternative way to do this is to just leave it as it is now but just add the refs inside the damage/death slots akin to what 1980 and 1992 have which honestly doesn't look so bad. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Jasper Deng: @ Yellow Evan: @ Jason Rees: @ Meow: @ Supportstorm: @ Hurricanehink: @ Typhoon2013: @ Typhoon2017: Don't remember having a full-fledged discussion on this and there's been a decent amount of back and forth on recent major events...what should be done with the "current storm information"? As an encyclopedia, we should be prioritizing an encyclopedic format but when dealing with active events we need to adjust for that. In regards to storm sub-articles, since we have more space to work with I propose we include the general {{ infobox hurricane}} as the primary infobox shown with {{ infobox hurricane current}} relegated to the "current storm information" section. This allows us to maintain the (usually) up-to-date info on the storm without taking away the always valuable infobox hurricane template. Recent example using Gita: dual template version; single template version~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 07:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I like having the regular infobox in the top-right of the article for current storms. That is standardized for all TC articles. This way users can get important info like when the storm formed, areas affected, and most importantly it’ll another way of reminding the user that the storm is still current (in the dissipation field). I also like having the current infobox in the “Current storm section”, which is like the section in the season article. It just seems the most natural to me having the two infoboxes separate. Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 12:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This all seems to be partially related to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and keeping it the way it is now with the infobox hurricane hidden is perfectly fine, albeit maybe adding the affected areas and formation date to make up for that. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 14:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Kathleen (1976) to be moved to Hurricane Kathleen. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
List any proposed A-Class assessments here. Discussion will take place on the article talk page. In general, at least two people should endorse promotion.
All of the below is based on style guidelines per
WP:MOS.
Note: The names and titles used as examples in this guide are fictional and do not represent real articles or reports unless otherwise stated
|date=
field. While this can normally be found at the top of the source, it is sometimes hidden in a more obscure location (e.g. the bottom of the page, the page history, or the url of the page). For web sources that are frequently updated, use the most recent revision date. If the source is undated, this needs to be indicated by adding "n.d.", as such: |date=n.d.
|accessdate=
field. This is always the case for online newspapers or web sites, though retrieval dates should be considered for online reports as well. For books and journals, even when electronic (such as Google Books), a retrieval date is unnecessary.|author=
field, only list the name(s) of the person or people that wrote the piece (i.e. the "First" and "Last" fields are applicable). Anything else does not belong in the author field: never a (government) institution, department, or organization, nor their sub-branches—these belong in the publisher.|publisher=
field, it is rather cumbersome and impractical to include every single parent department (NCEP, NWS, NOAA) in |publisher=
for a report or document published by the WPC. Therefore, simply listing the lowest branch as the publisher suffices (so Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). Weather Prediction Center. rather than Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). Weather Prediction Center; National Centers for Environmental Prediction, NOAA. or something).|publisher=
of reports, not the |author=
or |work=
. Example: NOT Hink, Andrew; Weather Prediction Center (2015). Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian. National Centers for Environmental Prediction (Report). College Park, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.{{
cite report}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link), but simply Hink, Andrew (2015). Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). College Park, MD: Weather Prediction Center.|work=
field is often redundant here, unless the referenced report/document is part of a project, database, or contained in a separate website. In this case the project/database/website name may be listed as work, though this is often optional.{{cite report|url=http://pluiesextremes.meteo.fr/antilles/2010-Earl.html|title=Earl 2010: Ouragan|publisher=Météo France|date=n.d.|accessdate=September 13, 2015}}
. However, note the "Pluies Extrêmes Aux Antilles" ("Extreme Rainfall in the Antilles") at the top of the webpage and within the url; this suggests this is a separate web archive/database for extreme rainfall events in the Antilles, documented by Meteo France as an extension of their website (meteo.fr). In this case, the |work=
parameter may serve disclose this additional information.|newspaper=
field (or the more obsolete |work=
field), list the name of the newspaper. Online newspapers are sometimes hard to distinguish from web or radio sites; looking for an "About us" section on the site or searching the newspaper name on Wikipedia may help in this case.|publisher=
parameter is used for sources from broadcasters (i.e.
BBC), news channels (i.e.
CNN,
Fox News), radio channels (
CBS Radio), etc. For newspapers, listing the publisher is unnecessary and redundant.|author=
field for the news agency (i.e. AFP, AP, Reuters, etc.). There is a special |agency=
field to list these agencies. Again, only names of individuals should be included in the |author=
field.A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Isaac (2012) to be moved to Hurricane Isaac. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 07:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I get the impression that people are reluctant to write about systems outside of NHC's AOR, while people who know what they are doing and wouldnt mind doing them like myself @ Cyclonebiskit and Hurricanehink: are busy with other projects. As a result, I thought I would summarise where to find the best information for a TC from each of the main warning centres outside of the NHC AOR. It is also worth noting that with much appreciation that @ Keith Edkins: archives every single one of the main warnings from all of the warning centers on his website, before archiving them through Webcite and putting them on the talk page of each season. Once a system is completed these are archived in the relevant monthly subpage and can be called upon by anyone at any time and come in very useful.
Significant advisories
For historical TC's I have acessessed a number of ATCR/TCR's for Nadi and have compiled a list of resources in my user space. Jason Rees ( talk) 04:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else has been getting an increased number of image deletion request with images they uploaded, but I certainly have. There seems to be some campaign over on the commons to flag tropical cyclone files for deletion en masse. I figure it's a form of vandalism because some of the deletion reasons are vague or saying the copyright is invalid because the anon couldn't be arsed to look through the source to find the image. The irritating thing is some of the images have been deleted without any discussion by admins that didn't look into it.
The reason for the post is if you had the same problem I was thinking of submitting on the administrators noticeboard about the user and group of anons doing this. Supportstorm ( talk) 16:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
(Cross posting as their are so many wiki projects n this subject I am not sure what one is most active) I am checking Good Articles with cleanup tags on them. Cyclone has a tag asking for expansion of the section on climate change, and I am inclined to agree with the tagger. This is a vital article of top importance to this project, which I think is reasonably active, so I am hoping someone is willing to look into this. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Master of Time, B dash, LightandDark2000, MarioProtIV, Jasper Deng, Cyclonebiskit, Typhoon2013, Typhoon2017, Meow, and Hurricanehink: I feel like a discussion is needed over the edit war that seems to be breaking out, on if we should include the timings of every watch and warning within each of the articles. I personally can see both sides of the coin as I see that it is interesting to include them however, we do have to remember that it is up to each individual nation to issue the watches and warnings. We also have to ask ourselves which ones to include and how to do it ( HCCOR's/TCCOR's) anyone? While remembering that in some cases (France/Ireland/UK) they issue watches and warnings but coloured alerts. Jason Rees ( talk) 15:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The section about the effects of Hurricane Sandy on the Jersey Shore lacks totally of sources. Maybe one who is familiar with Sandy could add them. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 13:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Typhoon2013, Meow, Jasper Deng, Hurricanehink, Atomic7732, Golbez, PoisonCarnival8, Bjones1123, HurricaneCalebN, CooperScience, Yellow Evan, HurricaneDude2016, Typhoon 2017, Cyclonebiskit, Juliancolton, Titoxd, 12george1, and Thegreatdr: @ MarioProtIV:
After the furore over the name: Irene being retried for Irma before retired itself and being replaced with Idallia for 2022, I really feel that we need to look at the naming sections worldwide and decide what pieces of trivia we are including. For example at various times over the last couple of days, we have been trying to claim that 2017 time travelled to be before 2005. This was because 2017 had four names retired which as things stand ties 1955, 1995 and 2004 for the second most amount of names retired in a season with 2005 AHS having the record. Except its only a basin record since if you applied that record worldwide: you would find that 97-98 SPAC and 1995-96 AUS hold the record with 7 names each, while 1991-92 SPAC has 6 names retired. Yes you could argue that AUS/SPAC have lower standards for retirement, but you would be wrong to do so since they are the only two basins bar the Atlantic to consistently retire names. We also have to remember that ideally, we should have someone saying that this is the record rather than us determining it ourselves. As a result of all of this, I feel that we should get rid of the record from 1955, 1995, 2004 and 2017 AHS but keep it in 2005 AHS, but make it clear that it's only a basin record with links added to 1997-98 SPAC and 1995-96 AUS. I am also loathed to see three level headers for retirement sections and would prefer to include it in the blurb up the top.
While I am on about the topic of naming, I also strongly feel that it is not worth having naming sections, in some our articles where the list rotates, such as the South Pacific and Australian regions. It is also worth noting that within the SPAC we have had seasons such as 1990-91 where only 1 or 2 names have been taken from the main list of names. In these cases, I would prefer to add a few lines on the naming to the seasonal summary section after the season has ended. I also feel that this would be easier for our readers to follow as rather than going through the whole article they can grab the relevant information on the naming before they read the article. These are just my thoughts as the main editor surrounding the tropical cyclone naming articles, and I would be curious to hear other peoples thoughts on either subject which is why i have pinged so many people. Thanks. Jason Rees ( talk) 15:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Removing the storm names section from each season would be tedious work, and I feel it would just be a waste of information. It's better to include the entire name list that was used under its own section, with a subsection under it for retirement. Cooper 15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Edit: I noticed you only suggested removing the storm names section for certain seasons such as those south pacific cylone seasons. In that case, it would not be a bad idea to move the storm names from those seasons elsewhere. Cooper 15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
There's the beginnings of a discussion on inflation figures for damage at WP:ERRORS today. Thoughts? Standard inflation figures generally reflect the prices of consumer goods, not replacement value for capital expenses, agriculture, etc. ... are inflation figures calculated in any specific way for hurricane damage? Also, these figures are wildly different for different countries, and I'm not sure how that factors in. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
It is coming up to the start of the busy season, when we get a lot of new editors, and some (most) of them might not know what they are doing. Let’s not forget that we were all beginners at one point, and some of us old farts retire, we will need to rely on new editing talent. This season, let’s try and get these new editors learning the ropes, and have them feel like a part of the community. If any of you see any new users who seem like they could use some editor assistance, please be patient with them, and if it seems like they really need assistance, feel free to send them to my talk page, where I’ll gladly offer assistance.
Also on this note, if you see any potentially interested editors on Facebook, Twitter, Storm2k, or another online hurricane community, perhaps reach out to them. This project has a lot of good articles that can serve as guides to the new editors, but there are a lot of rules that might scare away some users. With some help from current users, these newbies can hopefully learn the ropes and join this great community.
Make Wikipedia Great Again! Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 14:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Can someone who uploads images do me a favor and upload some satellite pics from HURSAT or GIBBS of some WPAC tropical cyclones? The old images from DT were deleted a while back, and I want to send a few of my old WPAC articles to GAN and don't want this holding it back. Specifically, 1987 and 1993 PTS are lacking in images. Y E Pacific Hurricane 00:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I made a sandbox for what I think (and Jason Rees disagrees) could be a useful article (and eventually also C2, C1, and TS). We already have articles on C4 and C5 hurricanes. After being against it 10 years ago (sorry Julian) I now think this sort of article would be helpful, especially for insurance companies, governments, and statisticians alike. I don't have too much time these days to edit, but one of my goals this year is new user retention. Seeing how many hours an article like this takes, it could be a good collaborative effort, especially for some Wikipedians who are eager to edit but don't know what to do.
The following articles could/should be created:
Stay awesome Wikipedians! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Just an FYI that Draft:2018 Southeast Pacific subtropical cyclone has been submitted to AfC is anyone would like to comment on it's notability/suitability as an article. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) to be moved to Subtropical Storm Alpha. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 06:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, as you may know, the URL weather.unisys.com/hurricane/archive is no longer working since they upgraded their website. To access the advisories contained therein, please use radar.duxpond.com/hurricane/archive instead. Damien4794 ( talk) 10:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) to be moved to Subtropical Storm Alpha. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 02:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems that we haven't a trackmap for Carlotta and the season map shows only half-Bud. I tried to make it myself, but I don't have the needed ressources. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 11:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a Featured Topic, but the talk page for Hurricane Daniel (2006) claims it's a Good Topic. I'm reporting this here because I don't know what kind of bookkeepping is involved when the change is made (and because it will be at TFA in July). - Dank ( push to talk) 12:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:WIAFT criterion 3(a)(i) states that at least 50% of the articles in a topic have to be featured for it to be a featured topic, so 8 featured articles if all 15 were kept, or 12 articles (including the 6 already featured) to make it a featured topic. So if you want it to be a featured topic, merge 3 good articles.-- 十 八 19:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Quick update - I have merged the content from Aletta, Bud, and Ileana, so I propose mergers for all three. Kristy and Sergio seem a bit more substantive compared to these three. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and I don't know necessarily what to do since I'm a new editor and I'd like to propose an article idea to see if it is worth creation between all of us and our is Hurricane Aletta of 2018 Cyclone of Foxes ( talk) 16:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I was wandering as people had made articles in the Atlantic over storms that didn't impact land such as Jose from 2017 which is mostly its meteotological history. Anyways but sure I'll create the Cat2 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone of Foxes ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of that I've just added 1971's C3 Pacific hurricanes so I'm pretty much done with listing out all the storms. Going a little off topic, but does anyone know why 1971's Francene is listed as Francesca in HURDAT? I'm assuming that's a typo for now because 1971's Monthly Weather Review lists it as Francene. ~ KN2731 { t · c} 13:20, 16 July 2018 (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 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
{{Infobox hurricane current}}
: "kn" versus "kt"I notice that in many of the current storm infoboxes, we have been using "kn" as an abbreviation for "knots." This conflicts with the National Hurricane Center, though, which uses "kt." When and why did we start using "kn" instead of the abbreviation used in official advisories? Master of Time (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Someone reply, please? Master of Time (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Ophelia (2017) to be moved to Hurricane Ophelia. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 16:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Lan (2017) to be moved to Typhoon Lan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 21:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I came across this discussion from an era gone by seeking to form consensus on units to use in the bodies of articles (seems the template takes care of the units in the infobox.) But I didn't see that information anywhere straightforward in the policies. It seems a fairly standard way of doing things has developed these days, even if that discussion never came to actual official declaration? It would seem those policies might be useful to inform people of in the main guide, or at worst the TC style guide. If some things are still flexible/undecided, that could be noted too? Just to give some sort of formal placement to what works and is predominant (even if not an official standard?)
My reasoning for seeking this is actually quite tangential... I fell into the NHC rounding error trap in improving/expanding Hurricane Erin (1995) last year and was later corrected... and was confused for a long while, even as I continued on investigating down the rabbit hole of why. Eventually I came to find they'd updated their rounding in this talk topic, but of course old product archives on NHC's site (and probably many other places) still list the old mis-rounded wind speeds.
So after coming here and searching for the policy on which rounding to use (and not particularly finding a set consensus on that either in the talk... where are we at?) It would seem a standard, a quick notice on that within the policy statement on wind speed units, and maybe even an inline comment noting the issue put within the pages of old NHC-basin TCs might just prevent people from tripping over themselves later/getting a mess of inconsistent pages. Certainly we could just stick to the status quo as is so often the case, and leave it open to the chaotic nature, if we absolutely must... but even then, a note in the guidelines would at least help people like me from pulling out a few more hairs? ;-)
Cheers, JeopardyTempest ( talk) 09:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated Hurricane Mitch 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Auree ★ ★ 09:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi and just to note, doesn't mean both the EPac and Atlantic basins have officially ended, doesn't mean to immediately create the 2018 seasons. Please don't get too excited about this. The Atlantic one could be created when the first TSR forecast is issued (which is around mid this month) and the EPac could be created at least the same time as that, but just to be safe, I would create it just before January 1. See what has been discussed last year. The WPac and Nio articles are simply fine to be created any time this month as those basins 'never end'. Thanks so much. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Yellow Evan: @ Jason Rees: @ Meow: @ Hurricanehink: @ Cyclonebiskit: @ Supportstorm: @ LightandDark2000: @ Jasper Deng: Do you guys think we should continue doing ACE calcs in different basins? Really imo if ACE calcs are mentioned in the EPac and Atlantic basins, then it should be mentioned in other basins. Especially ACE is used with 1-min sustained winds. Full discussion and reasons here: User talk:Jason Rees#SHEM ACE considered as OR?. What are your guys thoughts on this? Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Also while I support the usage of RSMC data, I would rather see it sourced rather than us defining which systems count/don’t count since that is OR. Jason Rees ( talk) 16:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I ask that we use JTWC data for ACE for the reasons illustrated above. Y E Pacific Hurricane 15:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been noticing that we have been getting more and more articles on storms on the main page. So much so, that I began to wonder if this is related to an increase in their frequency. Are there more storms these days?
This has started questions spinning around inside my head. Here are some more of them...
Is global warming causing an increase in the frequency and severity of storms?
The search phrase Frequency of storms isn't redirected anywhere. Should it?
The search phrase Severity of storms isn't redirected anywhere. Should it?
Does the phenomenon of more and stronger storms have a name?
Is there an article on it?
Is this simply a whether pattern or an example of climate change?
What are the driving factors?
Will the frequency and severity continue to increase?
What are the ramifications?
Did humans cause this?
If so, is it reversible?
Is there a similar increase in other types of storms (tornadoes, etc.)?
Is there a cause-effect relationship between the warming of the oceans and wildfires?
How has the change in storm frequency/severity impacted the meteorological field?
What questions should the public-at-large be asking?
What the heck is going on?
Sincerely, The Transhumanist 21:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Jasper Deng, Jason Rees, Yellow Evan, Typhoon2017, Hurricanehink, Keith Edkins, Meow, Cyclonebiskit, Supportstorm, MarioProtIV, ChocolateTrain, LightandDark2000, and Nino Marakot: and to all other users I have worked with or in general, I just wanted to say thank you guys so much for another great year! We had some ups and downs, but we still handled it and got through it. Thanks for your contributions and the teamwork we've made to create these articles. Yes we still have good ol' Tembin out there, but I hope everyone have (had) a great Christmas and have a happy holidays! I really enjoyed working with you guys and I hope 2018 will be another great year for us and the project and have more fantastic TCs. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
:Happy Festivus
🐱
💬
09:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I've started work on an article for the 1942 October tropical storm , feel free to add any info if you like. 216.24.109.110 ( talk) 17:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that the intensities for SWIO cyclones in the seasons from 1962-63 to 1967-68 match up with the values from Neumann (can be found via IBTrACS) as if they were 1-minute intensities converted to 10-minute. But in the 1968-69 season, the intensities appear to assume the values from Neumann are already in 10-minute winds (for example here for Enid-Fanny). I haven't checked on any later seasons yet, but there are inconsistencies, what should we do about it? Additionally, I have been unable to find any information on whether Neumann's values are in 1-min or 10-min. atomic 7732 20:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm just getting annoyed now. There are some anon users who are stuffing up in the past several days. Anon users beginning with 2405:204:4... btw. They remove infoboxes for no reason, some I guess create "new storms" because they just want to, and one actually changed 06F to 05F. I don't know when this will calm down but unfortunately it's still happening :( . Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@ ChocolateTrain, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, Jason Rees, Jasper Deng, Keith Edkins, LightandDark2000, MarioProtIV, Nino Marakot, Supportstorm, Typhoon2013, Typhoon2017, and Yellow Evan: This is my first nomination of a featured picture candidate. If it is promoted, it will be the first single typhoon featured picture of the English Wikipedia, and more people will be aware of annular tropical cyclones. Whether you support or oppose, I appreciate your attention. I also apologise for any inconvenience I caused before. 🐱 💬 02:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 16:57:17 (UTC)
Promoted File:Noru 2017-07-31 0415Z.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I will not be able to use my computer from 14 February to 21 February. Therefore, I can only update JTWC track maps and some information during the period, as those things can be done via my phone and tablet. I reported the issue of the International Dateline of Worldview yesterday, yet NASA has no deadline to fix it. Finally, I also appreciate people like Typhoon2013 and Nino Marakot who helped promote the satellite image of Typhoon Noru as a featured picture of the English Wikipedia. Happy Chinese New Year. 🐱 💬 01:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season starts off: "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an active Atlantic hurricane season", and others have a similar pattern. I'm doing a survey on some style questions. Does anyone object to "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an unusually active season", or "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was unusually active", moving the link down to the second sentence? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Jason Rees, Typhoon2013, Jasper Deng, Cyclonebiskit, and Supportstorm: I think we need to decide how we are going to handle the season effects tables here. While the "consensus" was to change the table format across all basins, I think it is a bit over the top. I think the Atlantic and EPac should be excluded from the newer table as it involves way more text having to be added in to fulfill the table, while Template:TC stats cyclone3 allows way less text to be put in yet come out with a similar result (which reduces the amount of bytes added). Though the fact of the newer format was to include sortability and to adhere WP:V, JD recently made it sortable which fixes that issue. However one thing that still needs to be addressed is the verification part, which I've partially been able to add however it is still buggy (and could probably use some help). Plus, having to convert to the newer table for the more recent Atl seasons (as its scattered about from the years 1979 to now with a notable truncation post-2003), esp say the extremely active ones. Basically if we could fix the cyclone3 template up to adhere WP:V we can perhaps go back to that one if applicable. An alternative way to do this is to just leave it as it is now but just add the refs inside the damage/death slots akin to what 1980 and 1992 have which honestly doesn't look so bad. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Jasper Deng: @ Yellow Evan: @ Jason Rees: @ Meow: @ Supportstorm: @ Hurricanehink: @ Typhoon2013: @ Typhoon2017: Don't remember having a full-fledged discussion on this and there's been a decent amount of back and forth on recent major events...what should be done with the "current storm information"? As an encyclopedia, we should be prioritizing an encyclopedic format but when dealing with active events we need to adjust for that. In regards to storm sub-articles, since we have more space to work with I propose we include the general {{ infobox hurricane}} as the primary infobox shown with {{ infobox hurricane current}} relegated to the "current storm information" section. This allows us to maintain the (usually) up-to-date info on the storm without taking away the always valuable infobox hurricane template. Recent example using Gita: dual template version; single template version~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 07:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I like having the regular infobox in the top-right of the article for current storms. That is standardized for all TC articles. This way users can get important info like when the storm formed, areas affected, and most importantly it’ll another way of reminding the user that the storm is still current (in the dissipation field). I also like having the current infobox in the “Current storm section”, which is like the section in the season article. It just seems the most natural to me having the two infoboxes separate. Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 12:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This all seems to be partially related to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and keeping it the way it is now with the infobox hurricane hidden is perfectly fine, albeit maybe adding the affected areas and formation date to make up for that. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 14:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Kathleen (1976) to be moved to Hurricane Kathleen. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
List any proposed A-Class assessments here. Discussion will take place on the article talk page. In general, at least two people should endorse promotion.
All of the below is based on style guidelines per
WP:MOS.
Note: The names and titles used as examples in this guide are fictional and do not represent real articles or reports unless otherwise stated
|date=
field. While this can normally be found at the top of the source, it is sometimes hidden in a more obscure location (e.g. the bottom of the page, the page history, or the url of the page). For web sources that are frequently updated, use the most recent revision date. If the source is undated, this needs to be indicated by adding "n.d.", as such: |date=n.d.
|accessdate=
field. This is always the case for online newspapers or web sites, though retrieval dates should be considered for online reports as well. For books and journals, even when electronic (such as Google Books), a retrieval date is unnecessary.|author=
field, only list the name(s) of the person or people that wrote the piece (i.e. the "First" and "Last" fields are applicable). Anything else does not belong in the author field: never a (government) institution, department, or organization, nor their sub-branches—these belong in the publisher.|publisher=
field, it is rather cumbersome and impractical to include every single parent department (NCEP, NWS, NOAA) in |publisher=
for a report or document published by the WPC. Therefore, simply listing the lowest branch as the publisher suffices (so Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). Weather Prediction Center. rather than Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). Weather Prediction Center; National Centers for Environmental Prediction, NOAA. or something).|publisher=
of reports, not the |author=
or |work=
. Example: NOT Hink, Andrew; Weather Prediction Center (2015). Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian. National Centers for Environmental Prediction (Report). College Park, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.{{
cite report}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link), but simply Hink, Andrew (2015). Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). College Park, MD: Weather Prediction Center.|work=
field is often redundant here, unless the referenced report/document is part of a project, database, or contained in a separate website. In this case the project/database/website name may be listed as work, though this is often optional.{{cite report|url=http://pluiesextremes.meteo.fr/antilles/2010-Earl.html|title=Earl 2010: Ouragan|publisher=Météo France|date=n.d.|accessdate=September 13, 2015}}
. However, note the "Pluies Extrêmes Aux Antilles" ("Extreme Rainfall in the Antilles") at the top of the webpage and within the url; this suggests this is a separate web archive/database for extreme rainfall events in the Antilles, documented by Meteo France as an extension of their website (meteo.fr). In this case, the |work=
parameter may serve disclose this additional information.|newspaper=
field (or the more obsolete |work=
field), list the name of the newspaper. Online newspapers are sometimes hard to distinguish from web or radio sites; looking for an "About us" section on the site or searching the newspaper name on Wikipedia may help in this case.|publisher=
parameter is used for sources from broadcasters (i.e.
BBC), news channels (i.e.
CNN,
Fox News), radio channels (
CBS Radio), etc. For newspapers, listing the publisher is unnecessary and redundant.|author=
field for the news agency (i.e. AFP, AP, Reuters, etc.). There is a special |agency=
field to list these agencies. Again, only names of individuals should be included in the |author=
field.A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Isaac (2012) to be moved to Hurricane Isaac. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 07:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I get the impression that people are reluctant to write about systems outside of NHC's AOR, while people who know what they are doing and wouldnt mind doing them like myself @ Cyclonebiskit and Hurricanehink: are busy with other projects. As a result, I thought I would summarise where to find the best information for a TC from each of the main warning centres outside of the NHC AOR. It is also worth noting that with much appreciation that @ Keith Edkins: archives every single one of the main warnings from all of the warning centers on his website, before archiving them through Webcite and putting them on the talk page of each season. Once a system is completed these are archived in the relevant monthly subpage and can be called upon by anyone at any time and come in very useful.
Significant advisories
For historical TC's I have acessessed a number of ATCR/TCR's for Nadi and have compiled a list of resources in my user space. Jason Rees ( talk) 04:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else has been getting an increased number of image deletion request with images they uploaded, but I certainly have. There seems to be some campaign over on the commons to flag tropical cyclone files for deletion en masse. I figure it's a form of vandalism because some of the deletion reasons are vague or saying the copyright is invalid because the anon couldn't be arsed to look through the source to find the image. The irritating thing is some of the images have been deleted without any discussion by admins that didn't look into it.
The reason for the post is if you had the same problem I was thinking of submitting on the administrators noticeboard about the user and group of anons doing this. Supportstorm ( talk) 16:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
(Cross posting as their are so many wiki projects n this subject I am not sure what one is most active) I am checking Good Articles with cleanup tags on them. Cyclone has a tag asking for expansion of the section on climate change, and I am inclined to agree with the tagger. This is a vital article of top importance to this project, which I think is reasonably active, so I am hoping someone is willing to look into this. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Master of Time, B dash, LightandDark2000, MarioProtIV, Jasper Deng, Cyclonebiskit, Typhoon2013, Typhoon2017, Meow, and Hurricanehink: I feel like a discussion is needed over the edit war that seems to be breaking out, on if we should include the timings of every watch and warning within each of the articles. I personally can see both sides of the coin as I see that it is interesting to include them however, we do have to remember that it is up to each individual nation to issue the watches and warnings. We also have to ask ourselves which ones to include and how to do it ( HCCOR's/TCCOR's) anyone? While remembering that in some cases (France/Ireland/UK) they issue watches and warnings but coloured alerts. Jason Rees ( talk) 15:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The section about the effects of Hurricane Sandy on the Jersey Shore lacks totally of sources. Maybe one who is familiar with Sandy could add them. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 13:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Typhoon2013, Meow, Jasper Deng, Hurricanehink, Atomic7732, Golbez, PoisonCarnival8, Bjones1123, HurricaneCalebN, CooperScience, Yellow Evan, HurricaneDude2016, Typhoon 2017, Cyclonebiskit, Juliancolton, Titoxd, 12george1, and Thegreatdr: @ MarioProtIV:
After the furore over the name: Irene being retried for Irma before retired itself and being replaced with Idallia for 2022, I really feel that we need to look at the naming sections worldwide and decide what pieces of trivia we are including. For example at various times over the last couple of days, we have been trying to claim that 2017 time travelled to be before 2005. This was because 2017 had four names retired which as things stand ties 1955, 1995 and 2004 for the second most amount of names retired in a season with 2005 AHS having the record. Except its only a basin record since if you applied that record worldwide: you would find that 97-98 SPAC and 1995-96 AUS hold the record with 7 names each, while 1991-92 SPAC has 6 names retired. Yes you could argue that AUS/SPAC have lower standards for retirement, but you would be wrong to do so since they are the only two basins bar the Atlantic to consistently retire names. We also have to remember that ideally, we should have someone saying that this is the record rather than us determining it ourselves. As a result of all of this, I feel that we should get rid of the record from 1955, 1995, 2004 and 2017 AHS but keep it in 2005 AHS, but make it clear that it's only a basin record with links added to 1997-98 SPAC and 1995-96 AUS. I am also loathed to see three level headers for retirement sections and would prefer to include it in the blurb up the top.
While I am on about the topic of naming, I also strongly feel that it is not worth having naming sections, in some our articles where the list rotates, such as the South Pacific and Australian regions. It is also worth noting that within the SPAC we have had seasons such as 1990-91 where only 1 or 2 names have been taken from the main list of names. In these cases, I would prefer to add a few lines on the naming to the seasonal summary section after the season has ended. I also feel that this would be easier for our readers to follow as rather than going through the whole article they can grab the relevant information on the naming before they read the article. These are just my thoughts as the main editor surrounding the tropical cyclone naming articles, and I would be curious to hear other peoples thoughts on either subject which is why i have pinged so many people. Thanks. Jason Rees ( talk) 15:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Removing the storm names section from each season would be tedious work, and I feel it would just be a waste of information. It's better to include the entire name list that was used under its own section, with a subsection under it for retirement. Cooper 15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Edit: I noticed you only suggested removing the storm names section for certain seasons such as those south pacific cylone seasons. In that case, it would not be a bad idea to move the storm names from those seasons elsewhere. Cooper 15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
There's the beginnings of a discussion on inflation figures for damage at WP:ERRORS today. Thoughts? Standard inflation figures generally reflect the prices of consumer goods, not replacement value for capital expenses, agriculture, etc. ... are inflation figures calculated in any specific way for hurricane damage? Also, these figures are wildly different for different countries, and I'm not sure how that factors in. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
It is coming up to the start of the busy season, when we get a lot of new editors, and some (most) of them might not know what they are doing. Let’s not forget that we were all beginners at one point, and some of us old farts retire, we will need to rely on new editing talent. This season, let’s try and get these new editors learning the ropes, and have them feel like a part of the community. If any of you see any new users who seem like they could use some editor assistance, please be patient with them, and if it seems like they really need assistance, feel free to send them to my talk page, where I’ll gladly offer assistance.
Also on this note, if you see any potentially interested editors on Facebook, Twitter, Storm2k, or another online hurricane community, perhaps reach out to them. This project has a lot of good articles that can serve as guides to the new editors, but there are a lot of rules that might scare away some users. With some help from current users, these newbies can hopefully learn the ropes and join this great community.
Make Wikipedia Great Again! Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 14:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Can someone who uploads images do me a favor and upload some satellite pics from HURSAT or GIBBS of some WPAC tropical cyclones? The old images from DT were deleted a while back, and I want to send a few of my old WPAC articles to GAN and don't want this holding it back. Specifically, 1987 and 1993 PTS are lacking in images. Y E Pacific Hurricane 00:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I made a sandbox for what I think (and Jason Rees disagrees) could be a useful article (and eventually also C2, C1, and TS). We already have articles on C4 and C5 hurricanes. After being against it 10 years ago (sorry Julian) I now think this sort of article would be helpful, especially for insurance companies, governments, and statisticians alike. I don't have too much time these days to edit, but one of my goals this year is new user retention. Seeing how many hours an article like this takes, it could be a good collaborative effort, especially for some Wikipedians who are eager to edit but don't know what to do.
The following articles could/should be created:
Stay awesome Wikipedians! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Just an FYI that Draft:2018 Southeast Pacific subtropical cyclone has been submitted to AfC is anyone would like to comment on it's notability/suitability as an article. Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) to be moved to Subtropical Storm Alpha. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 06:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, as you may know, the URL weather.unisys.com/hurricane/archive is no longer working since they upgraded their website. To access the advisories contained therein, please use radar.duxpond.com/hurricane/archive instead. Damien4794 ( talk) 10:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) to be moved to Subtropical Storm Alpha. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 02:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems that we haven't a trackmap for Carlotta and the season map shows only half-Bud. I tried to make it myself, but I don't have the needed ressources. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 11:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a Featured Topic, but the talk page for Hurricane Daniel (2006) claims it's a Good Topic. I'm reporting this here because I don't know what kind of bookkeepping is involved when the change is made (and because it will be at TFA in July). - Dank ( push to talk) 12:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:WIAFT criterion 3(a)(i) states that at least 50% of the articles in a topic have to be featured for it to be a featured topic, so 8 featured articles if all 15 were kept, or 12 articles (including the 6 already featured) to make it a featured topic. So if you want it to be a featured topic, merge 3 good articles.-- 十 八 19:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Quick update - I have merged the content from Aletta, Bud, and Ileana, so I propose mergers for all three. Kristy and Sergio seem a bit more substantive compared to these three. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and I don't know necessarily what to do since I'm a new editor and I'd like to propose an article idea to see if it is worth creation between all of us and our is Hurricane Aletta of 2018 Cyclone of Foxes ( talk) 16:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I was wandering as people had made articles in the Atlantic over storms that didn't impact land such as Jose from 2017 which is mostly its meteotological history. Anyways but sure I'll create the Cat2 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone of Foxes ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of that I've just added 1971's C3 Pacific hurricanes so I'm pretty much done with listing out all the storms. Going a little off topic, but does anyone know why 1971's Francene is listed as Francesca in HURDAT? I'm assuming that's a typo for now because 1971's Monthly Weather Review lists it as Francene. ~ KN2731 { t · c} 13:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)