Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

I have just finished a massive clean up of our articles through AWB, going through meteorological categories recursively, including the articles dealing with tropical cyclones and their related articles. In all, it was about 9,000 articles, and well over 500 of them ended up being changed. For the most part, problem articles weren't in this project, but rather the Meteorology project, but there were a fair amount of typos in our articles. So the project from a typo and formatting standpoint should be pretty good as of now. This is probably something I'll do once every year or two, as it makes sure all of our articles are up to par. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So that every member of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones is made aware, a few of us have decided to challenge ourselves to making the year of 2002 in tropical cyclones a Good Topic. That is - every storm article, timeline, and season article in the year of 2002 is going to be at least a good article or better yet, higher. This isn't a must-do project of ours, but we would like you to make some helpful contributions to help us achieve this goal, if time allows.

We're shooting for a deadline centered around April 2013, enough time to get all the necessary articles required for this goal. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 01:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would not set a deadline on it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a hard deadline YE. Remember this wasn't necessarily a must-do campaign, its just a challenge some of us set for ourselves. It can be shifted. We just "like" it to be done in Q1-Q3 of 2013. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 01:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget, we also need a worldwide season article. As of now, we don't have a good example of what a good Tropical cyclones in 2002 article should look like. I'd imagine it should focus on ENSO conditions, but beyond that I'm not sure. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is a worldwide scope really appropriate? Year end splits Southern Hemisphere seasons down the middle. Lumping all cyclones together by year results in information from the end three seasons being combined with info from the beginning of three other seasons. Perhaps it should be combined hemispherewise instead? Namely, Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclones of 2002 and Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclones 2001–02. This avoids SH issues regarding cleaving seasons. One possible objection might be that SH main articles would large duplicate the old SH season articles. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a year one would be appropriate. Like I said, overall ENSO conditions, the costliest/deadliest tropical cyclones. AFIAK, most people don't split the year into two, even in the southern hemisphere (outside of TC seasons). I think it's quite logical to have just an article on Tropical cyclones in 2002. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyways I have my own sandbox on this proposed article so we can get the general feel for things. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, I've started reviewing all "old" (My POV choice: 2008 and older) FAs that haven't already appeared there are in a suitable condition for Main Page. The work is being done in my userspace, here.

I find the storm season and hurricane articles particularly difficult to assess and I'd welcome the help of one of your experts who're familiar with FA standards. --Dweller (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There's one hurricane season, seven hurricanes and four tropical storms to assess from 2006... anyone? --Dweller (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Grateful thanks to Yellow Evan. --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

We have a number of articles at GAN which need review...I've submitted two of them myself which are met-related. It seems I am going to have to be the foster parent of the NHC orphan GAN, as the user that submitted it for GAN hasn't been active editing since mid-September. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

We also have a very long lived TC (Cyclone Rewa) at FAC which is in need of a few urgent reviews.Jason Rees (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You may be sorry you asked. I just reviewed it. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well you are my nightmare :P.Jason Rees (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That was my old xpilot username. That was a fun game to play using Sun workstations. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll review some more. I usually review one every time I put one of my own up, and I'll probably do another one of mine from the 2002 Pacific typhoon season I've been working on. It doesn't help with excess number of GAN's, but it'll help review some older ones at least. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I run into the problem of how much is too much of a contribution to an article that would prevent me from reviewing it. Similar to yourself, my hand has been in the till for so many years I don't realize how much I've done until I look at the article history. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha, yea, usually I try and do articles I know for a fact that I haven't done. Somewhat fortunately, for most storm/season articles, there is one main contributor. However, I know that's not the case for the meteorological articles, which I know you work on mainly. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Right now, we have 8 GAN's and to make matters worse and to make matters worse, a good chunk of our recent GAN's have been on recent ATL storm articles. I am not suggesting they should be merged or anything, but why did we stop working on older/non-ATL storms like we were doing the past few months. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing the busy part of the Atlantic hurricane season led to that development (even if it wasn't all that busy after early September). In a month or two, it will likely revert back to a less north Atlantic-centered effort. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. Hink and I first noticed it in May, but the global backlog elimination drive in June and early July, along with GC being incactive for a while, helped the problem till late last month. I've been reviewing a lot of articles and tbh this is not that bad. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

On an interesting note, I found no evidence that the SSHS was used in the EPAC during the EPHC era. Does that mean we should not use SSHS in articles? I am not sure, bit I will keep it the way it is for now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, unless the EPHC had an official system, it should stay the same. United States Man (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There was no SSHS in the Atlantic before 1972, but we use it for many more articles than that. I don't see why it should be any different in the EPAC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Should I include them in timelines? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Early Pacific typhoon seasons has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is here Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, please see my proposal at Template talk:Storm colour#Colors and accessibility guidelines. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Over the last few weeks I have been investigating the ACE totals, after having an email of Gary Padgett telling me that we were being inconstant with others including Ryan Maue, NCDC and Phil Klotzbach as we were not including subtropical cyclone totals. After an argument over this on IRC last night, i emailed Dennis Feltgen and Eric Blake of NHC who clarified that "NOAA uses ACE from all tropical and subtropical storms." So surely we should start using subtropical storm totals to avoid the ACE being classified as OR.Jason Rees (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we should use them in our totals. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'll go back and add the ACE for subtropical cyclones. Maybe somebody could change the ACE section on the recent seasonal pages to say that ACE for tropical and subtropical cyclones is now counted? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ask TAM, who could use an edit count boost and has AWB. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Should they include pressures? Only 1-2 storms a year have them, and in a couple seasons, none have them? I'm leaning towards no, but before I remove them from the 1984 Pacific hurricane season, I want some other comments. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree they should be removed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you replied only one minute after I posted this. Oh, and in case anyone was confused, I am referring to pre-1988 in this case. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there really no pressures available from EPHC CPHC or Mexico - it seems odd that tere wouldnt be any.Jason Rees (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Until re-analysis, yes. The only pressure available are from Recon, which in inactive seasons like 1984;, wasn't much of. I agree it is odd though, but the EPHC/CPHC did odd things. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, might as well remove it. United States Man (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, can we get rid of the pressure automatically showing up? This is part of the same issue. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Took me some time. Hope you'll like it.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Tropical Storm Arlene (2011) and Talk:Tropical Storm Harvey (2011). The main editor is inactive, and I don't want to fail it, so could somebody help address the few issues left. Thanks. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Ahnoneemoos, who is downgrading the importance of articles which are either the wettest or most damaging to impact the Caribbean region. Some of the storm names were retired because of their impact. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk)

Err, mate, WP:AGF and WP:WITCHHUNT. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a review of article importance: Is Erica 2009 really of high importance to WP:PR when it didnt do that much in damage.Jason Rees (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in having a discussion on this matter; tropical cyclones are not a subject I'm interested in. I was doing a cleanup on Puerto Rico-related articles and certain tropical cyclones articles happened to be part of that cleanup. Hope that clears things up. Once again, feel free to revert them, I won't be reverting your reverts per WP:ONLYREVERT. If anything, this matter should be discussed with the guys at WikiProject Puerto Rico since it's about the importance of an article in their WikiProject—you guys are the authoritative group on the parameters used for {{WikiProject Tropical cyclones}} but not on the {{WikiProject Puerto Rico}} template. Once again, I myself I'm not interested in getting involved on this and will simply disengage and let you guys do as you wish. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I assure you i was in the midst of inviting them to this discussion before i got distracted, either way im just curious to know about your reasons for downgrading certain ones to low importance as it would be useful to know why and could possibly lead to us having another way of assessing articles on behalf of other projects.Jason Rees (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I asked myself: how important is this article for Puerto Rico today? Then followed this process:

• Is the cyclone hitting the island or about to hit it? If so, mark it as top importance.
• Has the cyclone already passed through the island? If so, mark it as high since we will be dealing with its aftermath on Wikipedia.
• Is the immediate assessment finished and has formal reconstruction begun? If so, mark it as mid importance.
• Has reconstruction finished? If so, mark it as low importance.

Remember, I was looking at the articles from the WikiProject Puerto Rico perspective for the {{WikiProject Puerto Rico}} template. WikiProject Tropical cyclones should have its own process for the {{WikiProject Tropical cyclones}} template.

Hope this helps.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - its interesting to how people from other projects apply their importance parameters in relation to TC articles, the question before us then is do we adopt these standards across the project when we have to apply the parameter to other projects or do we continue to ignore the aftermath of a system and go with deaths/damages in the country/island concerned?.Jason Rees (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally believe that this project has no authority whatsoever over other projects. It should be them, not this project, the ones who determine how they classify the cyclones in their own project template. You need to realize that you guys are the authoritative group on classifying cyclones, but WikiProject Puerto Rico is the authoritative group and the subject matter experts on all matters related to Puerto Rico. They know how important an article is for Puerto Rico today—cyclone or not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Up to this point, the WPTC never really bothered with other projects' ratings, and IMO, we shouldn't really. If we call a storm high importance, then we have a reason for doing so. If another project calls it low importance, well, they are a different project after all. I'm with Ahnoneemos. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

While WP:PR maybe the authority for PR and we should bow down to them, we do have to rate things on other project scales at times in particular when we are dealing with TC's in Japan, Fiji or Africa, so i believe it would be good to get some consistency in place.Jason Rees (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. We don't have to tag for other projects. If the other projects want articles that we write in their statistics and stuff, they can add it in. I can't think of a single reason when we would need some sort of power over other projects' ratings. If we tag them, fine, but if someone from the project changes it, let them change it. With Hurricane Sandy, some projects call it low importance, high, some differ on the class rating. It's fine! We have our standards for our project, that's all we should worry about. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally believe it would be best if you add the corresponding WikiProject template but leave the importance parameter in blank. That way it shows up as uncategorized and someone from the corresponding project will determine its importance. I'm not a member of this project but I believe that's what best for Wikipedia as a whole. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.Jason Rees (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And honestly, there could probably be an article where WPTC rates it high, and another project rates it low. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Since people may not be paying attention at this time of year, let me mention that there is a cyclone called Bopha in the western Pacific that formed 3.5 degrees from the equator and is currently at Cat 5 strength and taking dead aim at the island of Palau, which is not really equipped for cyclones. Seems like it might be worth an article. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And it has one: Typhoon Bopha (2012).Jason Rees (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

We are always on the job here at WPTC. United States Man (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

After a discussion with User:Cyclonebiskit, it appears that the track map program we currently have will have to be revamped a bit for the new HURDAT format. Does anyone know code to be able to do that? It now includes additional points between six-hour points, such as landfall, peak intensity, or changes in intensity. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Or we could just convert it into the HURDAT Format and ignore the additional points using Keith Edkins Converter like we have to do now for the JTWC BT.Jason Rees (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the latest version of Cairo breaks the program; it'll have to be updated for this as well. I'd love to help but I only know Python. — Ines(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not too hard to code, considering I already wrote a parser for the ATCF format. Where is the link to the new format file? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/newhurdat-all.html.Jason Rees (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This mornings STWA from the JTWC clearly states that they consider 92P/03F to be a subtropical cyclone, so i am now wondering if i we can start saying that the JTWC consider a system a subtropical cyclone in the infobox hurricane small based on the STWA's. The coding for the infobox small is already in place and has been for some time (we would just have to use Type2=subtropical), so i am wondering with a few wording tweaks if we can start using the coding for systems which they clearly call subtropical.Jason Rees (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to change this, but List of Atlantic hurricane seasons redirects to Atlantic hurricane season in the hurricane infobox. Help! :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ive found the problem and i think the easiest solution would to either ignore it or move the EPAC, WPAC, NIO, SWIO, AUS and SPAC lists to maintain consistency.Jason Rees (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd seen this mentioned somewhere, but didn't keep track of what conclusion (if any) there was, and can't find it in any of the obvious places. The South Pacific basin is officially monitored by meteorological services in Fiji and New Zealand, neither of which have U.S. English as their English variant; many (not all) of the areas affected also don't. Is there any consensus on what WP:ENGVAR to use for storms and seasons in this area? e.g. use BritEng for greater consistency with the areas involved, use AmEng for consistency and ease of editing with most (all?) other basins, use whatever the article had originally as per ENGVAR, or something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There has never really been any consensus on this issue. Personally since i am British i would think that most of the SPAC articles follow BE with some influences of Am EN.Jason Rees (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think for the project to continue to run efficiently, we need occasional doses of camaraderie. So, with thirty seconds in 2012 UTC, I wish everyone a productive and happy 2013, both on and off wiki and in every personal endeavor. Cheers to all! Juliancolton (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JC! You too, and everyone enjoy their New Years. I'm spending the remainder of 2012 playing 3 hours of concerts for hundreds of people. :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i think everyone should have a happy new year and enjoy the first year since 1987 with 4 unique digits.Jason Rees (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

^ Also, good luck to everyone in the WikipCup, myself included. Happy New Year Everyone!!!!! YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This edit caught my attention. Should we be including unused names for rotating naming lists? It makes sense to include the whole name for the Atlantic, East Pacific (NHC only), and Southwest Indian Ocean, since each have their own list each year, but the rest of the basins have a rotating circular naming list. I'm not sure if we officially had the discussion, but at some point we got rid of the huge lists for WPAC, and I think for AUS. I propose we apply a worldwide standard: that when a naming list is rotated, we only include the names that were used. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. United States Man (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont see why we need to include the naming lists full stop after the year has ended in AUS, NIO and SPAC since the main naming lists are rotating. Its obvious what the names are just by looking at the TOC.Jason Rees (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Especially for the WPAC, where so many names are used, it becomes rather redundant to include the naming list. It doesn't provide anything new, I'll agree. However, it is a convenient section for including retirements for AUS and SPAC. I guess retirements could go into the season summary then. Would that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Retirement/removal of storm names should be already mentioned in seasonal summaries and in leads imo.Jason Rees (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's universally done, but I think it should be. So yea, I agree with your idea then, just getting rid of the naming lists, for AUS, SPAC, and NIO. But what about the eastern Pacific, which still has names from two different lists? If a season has 3 CPAC names and 12 EPAC names (as in 1994, 2002, or 2009), it might be confusing in the storm section who named what, particularly when the CPAC names are near the beginning of the alphabet. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We already do the basin season buttons, but I was thinking it might be nice (especially for non-Wikipedia editors who aren't familiar with navigating through the categories) to have a template box in the season articles (and maybe even on the cyclone articles too) that links to other basins's season articles. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? If there are no objections, I'll make up a template. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Better than having to maintain all of the season links in the "See also" sections. United States Man (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I forgot about the "See also" section, although I still think it makes sense to have it at the bottom with the other templates. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind/if you have time, could you create a rough draft in your sandbox so I could see exactly how it would fit into the articles. United States Man (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best to restrict it to seasonal articles but otherwise im agreeable.Jason Rees (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's roughly what I had in mind. We can change the positioning. We could either do alphabetical by Ocean (and then alphabetical by sub-division) or overall alphabetical, or here I Just followed the listing in the 2012 Atlantic article but clumped each ocean together and alphabetized the ocean clump by sub-division: User:Inks.LWC/Template:Sandbox. Feel free to play around with it in my userspace if you'd like. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Whenever i have to do worldwide things i think of it as a little tour and go ATL -> EPAC -> WPAC -> NIO -> SWIO -> AUS -> SPAC but anyway the only problem with doing it like that is how to play the SHEM. Would we have two templates per year?.Jason Rees (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it'd just be the one template, with the basins with split-year seasons getting two in parentheses like I did. And those could either be added in when the new year's template is made (as red links) or added in later once the article is created. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So you'd have links to 2011 and 2012 AHS etc on the same template?Jason Rees (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the AHS is a single-year season (or at least it typically is, and it's named as such). Look at the template in the link posted above - that's exactly how I envisioned it. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What im trying to get at is that the SHEM is always multi-season and would thus we would have to put links to 2 AHS, EPAC, WPAC and NIO seasons (ie 2012 and 13 for 2012-13 SPAC).Jason Rees (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahh I get what you're saying now. For those seasons' articles, I just envisioned putting up the 2012 and 2013 templates. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh, just my 2 cents, but I think it's fine just having it in the see also section. Seeing as how we already have a button bar in most season articles, I think it'd get a little cluttered, whereas the current format works fine. However, I'm not too opposed to it, and it looks nice, so if you wanna try it for the current season, we can see how people like it. It wouldn't be able to go further than the 90's, so let's try just with the current season and see what happens. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not? You don't think there should be season articles before 1990? We have SHEM articles back to 86-87 at this time. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the last year every basin has a season article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't we still link to the SHEM 5 year article for pre-1985 season button bars? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be in favor of the template going into all hurricane/cyclone/typhoon season article where that year has at least four basins with an article. An example would be (again just an example) if the year 1930 had articles for ATL, EPAC, WPAC, and NIO. Since at least four of the basins had articles we could include the template in those articles. But, if 1929 had only three (or less) basin articles then I wouldn't be in favor of including the template in those articles. Again that is just an example. United States Man (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we could, and I would support that. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

So do we want to try this out on 2012? Any suggested changes before I do so? Inks.LWC (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I made one minor adjustment. It looks okay to go ahead and create the template. United States Man (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What was the reasoning in moving SPAC to the end, separate from the other Pacific basins? Inks.LWC (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved it so it would be like the See Also sections. The N. Hemisphere and the S. Hemisphere are separate. United States Man (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh ok, I didn't realize there was a pattern to the See also section. So are we good to take this live for 2012 (and 2013?)? Inks.LWC (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We will need a template like this if we wish to have a 2002 worldwide GT. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking there must be a way of just having one template for all the seasons and deploy it something like {{Template name|Year=}}.Jason Rees (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think about that. That's a good idea. Although I wouldn't know how to code that. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasnt sure at first on how to code it but after looking at the button bar coding, i sorta took an informed guess and it worked. I have recycled both templates that were created and turned them into a Nhem and a SHEM option.

{{Northern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons|NHEM Year=2012|SHEM Year 1=2011-12|SHEM Year 2=2012-13}} {{Southern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons|SHEM Year=2011-12|NHEM Year 1=2011|NHEM Year 2=2012}} Jason Rees (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean NHEM Year 1=2011 and NHEM Year 2=2012. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh, it was just an example of how to deploy the template.Jason Rees (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Well, in any event, it looks all good to me. On a related note, if somebody's feeling ambitious, the 2010-2019 [basin] hurricane seasons templates could probably use the same principle, so that a new template wouldn't have to be made for each basin every 10 years. I still don't quite understand how the fields work, but if I get some free time, I could play around with this. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:05 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually thats not a bad idea, so i have written a template here, and deployed it and the other two templates here.Jason Rees (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I played around and got most of it to work with only 1 variable. I just need to get an if statement right, and it'll be good to go. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have written a template that requires only 1 year variable here. It works for a template that doesn't include the current year, but for some reason there's a display problem for templates with the current year. Both examples are deployed here. If someone sees the problem in my code causing the display error, feel free to let me know or fix it yourself. Otherwise, I have a work-around in mind, but it includes a line of extra code that I'd rather not include if we don't have to. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it by making all of the lines go one after the other, but there has to be a better fix then that, but i will make some enquires.Jason Rees (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think about doing that... but hey, if it works, I'm cool with it. And everything seems to be working fine and showing up right on the deployment test page. The nice thing about that template is that we won't have to do any editing to it ever (theoretically)... it'll automatically update when it becomes a new year. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

i just deployed it and it appears that weve got to go back to the drawing board if we want it to work in the SHEM, as its not accepting the 2 years at the mo.Jason Rees (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Crap, I forgot about that. I'm working on some law school stuff right now. I have an idea in mind to get it to work... I'll work on that late tonight. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of taking this to FLC at some point. I was wondering if anyone wanted to co-nominate it. I'm pretty busy IRL, so it'd be great to have some assistance there. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, once I get a good ways through 1932 Florida–Alabama hurricane, I can probably do some work with the list. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 20:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I can in an hour or so. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyclonic rotation is currently a 20-word stub. It would be very useful for it to be more substantial, unless it instead needs merging into a larger topic. Assuming it merits keeping as a separate article, it should be easy for anyone well-informed to make it a start-class article (or better) very quickly. It's also eligible for DYK under the 5x expansion rule (because it's only 128 characters at the moment, it would only need to reach 1500 characters - that's about 300 words - within 5 days to meet that DYK criterion.)

There's also Anticyclonic rotation in a similar state. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would think cyclone and anticyclone would cover both. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like we should make them redirects then. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to wait for Demiurge1000 to read the two suggested articles, and make sure the stuff is there in laymans terms before we redirect them.Jason Rees (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If this discussion is still open, I'd like to add my buck thirty-four (US). What I've been noticing is the variety of articles where the following statement has to be made to clarify some point being made (and sometimes this appears multiple times in an article):

Cyclonic motion is defined as being motion that is counterclockwise around a low pressure system, clockwise around a high pressure system, in the Northern Hemisphere, where Northern is defined as the top half of a rotating sphere when observed to rotate clockwise; and as being motion that is clockwise around a low pressure system, counterclockwise around a high pressure system, in the Southern Hemisphere, where Southern is defined as the bottom half of a rotating sphere when observed to rotate clockwise.

I'm exaggerating here of course, but the point is that these types of statements tend to be verbose. It sure would be nice to have this information available as a link in the articles that need it. Such that instead of the above, an editor can just simple say cyclonic motion and pipe it to the Cyclonic rotation article. I personally see no problem with just posting this as a stub and leaving it that way forever, kinda sorta "dictionary" style. Alternatively, we could put the information into a section and place that in an existing article, then pipe just to the section; like the Coriolis effect article where the "why's" of the motion are described. Watchwolf49z (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I know it's not exactly your regular fare, but I was wondering if I might convince one of you to get Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory up to GA status? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal to merge the article with tropical cyclone scales. I think it is worth discussing and notifying the project. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States to go up on the main page in the Today's Featured List section; you can find the nomination here. Some objections have been raised, and I am unsure how to respond to them. I would be grateful for any help you are willing to provide. I would particularly appreciate input on the suggestion that the tables all be merged into one. Neelix (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this needs to be discussed here, rather than just on the IRC channel. Should the button bars contain a symbol so that they can be made accessible by all even though in my personal opinion it seems pointless since i wouldn't of thought anyone would view them in isolation or show up on screen readers.Jason Rees (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need. The button bar is to differentiate the storms, mainly by letter (or number). The color is there so it isn't such a boring template, visually. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, another thing, WP:ACCESS is not part of the FLC criteria AFAIK. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, compliance with MOS, and in particular those elements which directly affect tables and graphs and keys etc are definitely within the requirements of FLC. Unlike FAC, we take ACCESS requirements very seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I just figured this out after I was reading it. Sorry for the mistake. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's so important, it should probably be made clearer to the FL criteria, since ACCESS isn't specifically mentioned there. (just as part of MOS) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:WIAFL criterion 5. Just because FACs ignore it, it doesn't mean we do. And for someone who has been through FLCs dozens of times I'm surprised to see that you're surprised we have this technical requirement. Even when applying it to templates or infoboxes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out though, if ACCESS is so important, it should be more explicitly worded. Probably not the right discussion here, but perhaps WP:ACCESS should be linked somewhere there. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, why? Part 5 of the criteria requires a compliance with the MOS. ACCESS is part of that. Again, I'm shocked that you and your esteemed colleagues aren't aware that we take compliance with ACCESS far more seriously than FAC. It's not hard, but it's worthwhile when we're constructing technically challenging pages, especially for those who use screen readers and similar to get the best out of our finest work. If that means you and your project have to do a little bit more thinking and acting rather than just dismissing the concept out of hand, so be it. Just do it. Most often, it's quicker, easier and more beneficial to the project as a whole to just go on and fix these things rather than make excuse after excuse not to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue whether WP:ACCESS is part of WP:WIAFL (come on guys, it's been that way for years!), can I see a suggestion/mockup of how a redesigned button bar would look? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• No. WP:ACCESS does not mandatory call to be any navigation or graphic element in an article to be accessible but does call that information is accessible in any way. Strength of storms is given in the article(s) on several places, so there's no need to invent in yet another redundant element. It also never was necessary within the timelines, btw. and I am still opposing that. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Matthbiasb. The main purpose of the template is to delineate storm's within the season anyways, not their intensities. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't even understand what Matthiasb said, so it's hard to agree with him or otherwise. Whether or not your perception of the purpose of the template is to "delineate the storm's within the season anyways", it may not be the case for all readers and all uses. If you all agree the intensities are not relevant to this, remove the intensities colouring. Job done! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean, it could just be in black in white, but then it'd be a very boring-looking template. I oppose removing the colours simply for aesthetic purposes. And I would still argue this doesn't violate ACCESS since their primary function in differentiating storms is the letters/numbers. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Matthiasb's point was that the strength of storms is shown above in the article (if done well) so as far as timelines ho. While debatable on the actual timeline graphs, it should IMO be a non-issue. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to personally comment on the colors question, because of the problems this caused within the project seven years ago, the last thing we need is another fight over it. (and don't give me the WP:CCC argument, quite aware of it.) I do, however, support the templates stand as is, because clearly this is a problem that FAC should be considering, not FLC forcing other projects. Focus there, not here as far as I am concerned. Mitch32^{(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.)} 02:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is: The template is there for navigation. It should not be considered as part of the informational flow of the document. If we have no colors, then sighted people don't know the intensities, and blind people don't know the intensities. Note that the intensities is simply to make navigation simpler; this is not the only, nor is it remotely the primary, place that this information is contained. If we have colors, then sighted people can see the intensities, and blind people still don't know the intensities. As far as they are concerned, nothing is being lost. No data is being obscured; they have the same ability they had before there were colors to click through to the articles in question and find out the intensities. That a navigational template helps one class of people more than another is not a sign that the other is being harmed. Now, if that information were being portrayed in the list itself, or in the article, in a fashion that blind users could not access, THAT would be a major problem. But that's not the case here. This is a navigational aid that is more helpful to some users than others. (I mean, it also technically discriminates against people who don't know what the letters mean) The only legitimate complaint I could see is if the colors made it impossible for the colorblind to differentiate and read the letters. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For me the section meteorological history is somewhat confusing and should be improved, considering timeline. But the main issue is that the section is contradicting the IB as for storm category as well as for wind speeds. The text explicitely mentions landfall wind speeds according to reanalysis of 240 kph which is significantly more than the wind speed in the IB. However it tells that the storm was upper cat 4 according to BoM scale while the infobox colour is red as for cat 5 storms. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

About three years ago, there were 1,436 articles in the project, of which 529 (36.86%) were GA or better, and 672 (46.8%) of articles were start or stubs. The overall Wikiwork (click for details, basically a metric to determine the overall quality by assigning a point for each class, 0 for FA, 6 for stub) was 3.605. Now, there are 1,848 (excluding pictures, current, and future class), an increase of 412 articles, or an increase of 29%. At the same time, 814 articles (44.05%) were GA or better, an increase of 285 (53% increase), and 775 (40.1%) were start or stubs, an increase of 103 (15% increase). What's key is that the GA+ grew from 36.86% to 44.05%, while starts and stubs dropped from 46.8% to 40.1%. That is for the project as a whole, however.

The stats are much more impressive for the storm and season articles, which are traditionally worked on much more often. As of January 2012, there were 1,299 articles, with a Wikiwork of 3.38. Now, there are 1,399 articles with a Wikiwork of 3.25. Put another way, 100 more articles, but 0.12 less in WW. Every season but the eastern Pacific have lower averages than a year ago. I'll put it in a table instead of talking about it though. It refers to the number of articles, and the average Wikiwork in parenthesis.

Basin	January 2012	February 2013	Change
ATL	660 (3.02)	671 (2.78)	+11 (-0.24)
EPAC	237 (2.74)	246 (2.86)	+9 (+0.12)
WPAC	218 (4.51)	242 (4.29)	+24 (-0.22)
NIO	59 (4.36)	62 (4.31)	+3 (-.05)
SWIO	32 (4.09)	55 (3.76)	+23 (-0.33)
AUS	44 (4.07)	60 (4.03)	+16 (-0.04)
SPAC	49 (4.02)	63 (3.63)	+14 (-0.39)

There have been impressive gains in 2013 alone. We currently have three seasons at or eligible for being a good topic (1954, 1955, and 1992 Atlantic hurricane seasons). Much work has been done to retired storm articles, including recent good articles for: Hurricane Carol, Hurricane Edna, Hurricane Connie, Hurricane Diane, Hurricane Janet, Hurricane Hattie, and Hurricane Andrew. 25 of the 50 Atlantic seasons from 1950-1999 are now at GA. Every basin worldwide but Australia now has at least one good season article, including good topics in every basin but Australia and North Indian Ocean. Part of the increase in stubs is the creation of articles for every season worldwide back to at least 1990.

There is still work to be done. There are still too many stub and start class articles, mainly season articles, but, as can be seen above, it's gradually getting better. Congrats to everyone with their hard work in the project, and keep it up! :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, the Atlantic is again the basin with the lowest ω. Team EPAC cannot let this stand! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Team EPAC? Aww, I didn't know we were taking teams. Dibs on Team Edouard, err, Edward? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Once upon a time, I checked my watchlist and see that a number of articles in a series have been moved, one of which I already revert (though I was told that this move is already reverted). This move, which was discussed on IRC shortly after Hink left this afternoon, is an okay idea. However, 2 of the articles do not reflect such format (IIRC the ATL and the EPAC). Furthermore, I think there should be links to all season articles somewhere, something that may or may not fit well into an article pertaining to climatology (though they could easily be moved to somewhere like Pacific hurricane, such articles AFAIK do not exact in the SPAC). I want to see the project's opinion on this to avoid any controversy down the road. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh - how i wish you had done some research before coming and posting here. Actually The Atlantic does reflect a climatology and we are going to be keeping the links to all season articles within the articles, they are just going to contain some more information on how many tropical cyclones form in each basin per year and will be a useful starting point for getting seasonal articles back.Jason Rees (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Atlantic hurricane articles had more climatology by the month and month standpooint, while Atlantic hurricane climatology focuses more on how an AHS is operated. And if we are keeping all links to season article and number of TC that formed each year per basin, that's fine and a very good article (and is IIRC the case for both the SPAC and the ATL). I totally agree that it is a useful starting point for getting SHEM seasons back to around 1970. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

While some of the content is on how an Atlantic hurricane season is operated - it is mainly on about stuff related to the climatology of the AHS. I also do wonder how much of that stuff we would know if it wasn't for the fact that we have a Professional Meteorologist that contributes to the project. Also if we were to keep the articles at their former name, we would face issues trying to get at least 3 of the articles up to scratch since they contain original research within their titles.Jason Rees (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm a bit confused. What exactly is being proposed here? Inks.LWC (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Inks.LWC, we are debating on wheather or not the title change from X hurricane season to X hurricane climatology should be reverted. JR, what you said is mostly true, I just want a project-wide agreement before we move forward. IMO we could a few things. Move to content pertaining to operations and HURDAT and general season-boundary related stuff to Atlantic hurricane season in addition to the Atlantic hurricane climatology (and same holds true to other basins if enough content) while keeping everything else the same. As for the OR issues you mention, it brings up something I never thought off before, but wouldn't SWIO/NIO/WPAC season articles also have OR in there titles as well? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes they do really have original research in their titles and in an ideal world should be moved away from their current titles but what do we move it to? My suspicsion is that they are already in the best places for the content that they contain.Jason Rees (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I object to all of them being moved. I think Atlantic hurricane season works better, since it describes the history of the season more so than anything about climatology (which is more covered in Atlantic hurricane article). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As I sorta touched on earlier, but was not clear on here's what I think we should do. If possible, we should do both an Atlantic hurricane climatology and an Atlantic hurricane season page as well as the Atlantic hurricane one. Now, this could work for the ATL, but I am not sure about the other basins. Let's put the OR issue aside for now and what is wrong wit the title Pacific hurricane season. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not a stubborn little git, i just honestly feel that the content within the articles is more appropriately named TC climatology since that is what it is. The only things that should be talked about on these pages is ENSO, and how many TC's form in each season and not stuff like the history of the warning centres or what the NHC or HPC get up during the season as that is tatt.Jason Rees (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(re to YE, ec) I thought AHS and PHS worked fine, personally. I don't see a need for all three articles in the Atlantic, since AH climatology is already covered in "Atlantic hurricane". That's the parent article for all Atlantic hurricane season articles. It's just a logical place to be. Granted, for PHS, since Pacific hurricane is well-covered, I wouldn't mind if there was a merger there. For all basins, perhaps the goal would be for whatever is the location for the list of seasons to also be the parent article for that basin? Therefore, move the little actual content on Pacific typhoon season to Typhoon. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hence, why I think we should do both. In the ATL one, some of the info is on operations and history of the season dates while other parts of it are stats/climatology sutff. Another option could be List of Pacific hurricane seasonal statistics (or something like that) that give number of named storms/hurricane for ever season. There is precedent elsewhere in WP; for example, all sports teams have pages that list season by season records. On the other hand, until the database get abnormally large (as in going back to colonial times), it's porbaly not a very good idea, but something to think about. What Hink said could work assuming I understand you correctly, moving climatology content to the parent Pacific hurricane article is a decent idea. JR, "not stuff like the history of the warning centres or what the NHC or HPC get up during the season as that is tatt" is why I oppose the climatology name change in the first place unless we do the opposite of what Hink said and move the operational-related content in Atlantic hurricane climatology to Atlantic hurricane, which may be a tad irrelevant for that particular article, so IMO is not the best idea in the world.. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

PH statistics sounds just like what the Atlantic does, and I think that works fine for "Atlantic hurricane season". If we're just adding stats and stuff in, I think that'd work fine as South Pacific cyclone, North Indian Ocean cyclone, etc., if there isn't the level of detail that the Atlantic has. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think these list articles should remain separate and be developed in the way that they have been as if we get them right they could be a really good resource for information on tropical cyclones in a given basin or even possibly each year.Jason Rees (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hink, yea, but as it's own separate page, which at this time, IMO is not warranted but could be considered down the road. JR, where would the operation-related info go then? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The operational related info is already in History_of_Atlantic_hurricane_warnings#Current_operations.Jason Rees (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Where could the concept related info go? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

[1].Jason Rees (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess that works for now, not sure if it is a great fit there though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's an idea.

What if this replaced the button bars? It's easy to read, easy to change for each season. I added in a fake TD 1 so you could see a TD column. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I like it, but we need to add the other articles (e.g. timelines) in there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh, that looks a bit boring. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The timelines are boring? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Hink's idea looks boring. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as we won't get rid of all of the timelines (mwahahaha...hah?... jk) Check it out now Tito. Timelines can easily be added, as can other stuff. YE, well, maybe it should be boring. We're Wikipedia, not Dr. Seuss. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

See the changes I made. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I used an old template and modified it to include some of our old button bar template's items, and can be seen below. I think it does a good job satisfying WP:ACCESS. Modifications should be made by someone with expertise in wiki-markup to make the template universal - so that only a few attributes are needed to tweak the template to each individual basin's needs. Any comments? TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 01:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What TAM said might work, but Tito's new idea is not too shabby either. I feel like we should do a hybrid somehow. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here is my draft of the hybrid template YE asked for:

Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I dont feel that the 2nd option is that great as i would rather not like to see the colours or have to use letter codes which i feel only certain hurricane editors would recognise when we get out into the Indian Ocean (eg: whats SCS? bonus points if you can get both). Instead id rather we just used full titles eg Severe Tropical Cyclone and Hurricane Katrina.Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, the benefit of the one I posted is that you don't have to keep posting "Hurricane X", "Hurricane X". I like Tito's though. It looks clean, neat, and explains the symbols. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but we could potentially bold names to indicate their retiring. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

JR, we can always add a legend to the bottom of the bottom to show the scale. TAM, that is against the MOS. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. The MOS says to use bold and italics sparingly, not never. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSBOLD, it says to "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis" and says that outside of the opener to only bold "

Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:

Table headers and captions Description (definition, association) lists (example: Glossary of the American trucking industry) Mathematical objects traditionally written in boldface such as vectors and the rational numbers Q Volume numbers of journal articles, in some bibliographic formats

" So, IMO it would be in appropriate to bold retired storms not to mention the difference of standards among retired storms worldwide. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I like Tito's suggestion as well. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I would personally prefer not to see the bolding and have been trying to actively discourage people from using it in a certain article which is a mess. But anyways yes YE we could add in a legend down the bottom or we could just use the proper names. Hink while it may be redundant to have urricane X a million times its surely better than having a lot of whitespace either side of the template.Jason Rees (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've written {{hurricane season bar}}, which will auto-fill the track map, link categories, books, etc. It still has a few rough edges, but I think it is serviceable. If you type:

{{Hurricane season bar
|year = 2012
|region = Pacific
|type = hurricane
|storms =
{{Hurricane season bar/button
 |intensity=storm
 |stormname=Aletta
 |type=tropical storm
 |linkname=2012 Pacific hurricane season#Tropical Storm Aletta
 |storminitial=A}}
{{Hurricane season bar/button
 |intensity=cat3
 |stormname=Bud
 |type=hurricane
 |linkname=Hurricane Bud (2012)
 |storminitial=B}}
...
}}

You get:

The main thing is that it allows you to replace the existing button bar templates rather quickly, by simply changing {{Hurricane season bar button}} to {{Hurricane season bar/button}}, and changing the |strength= parameter to the |type= parameter we use everywhere else (e.g. in {{infobox hurricane current}}). Should we go ahead and convert the button bars to this template? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

LOVE IT! We should implement it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I like that as well. But will it get too wide or could it become a three-row table? United States Man (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You can make it into a three-row table, or a four-row table for crazy years, a la 2005. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Really nice work. I appreciate the efforts made by everyone here to "pander to my whim" or otherwise do the best possible job for WP:ACCESS. It's a real success. Well done and thank you all for your patience and diligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if we have a project-wide consensus though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am oppose to this until we get it sorted to accept all basins and their various scales.Jason Rees (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a shame, I thought you guys were more "forward thinking", but perhaps not. Let's forget FLs etc from now on then, never mind, but still, thanks to Titoxd et al who actually wanted to solve the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's just change this for the ATL and EPAC for now, then, worry about the other basins later. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No lets get it all sorted right now, rather than leaving things up in the air yet again as after all we will have featured lists for other basins from time to time.Jason Rees (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I echo YE's concerns. Let's roll it out to the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific basins first, to make sure that I didn't forget anything important. There is no need for the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(break) I agree with Yellow Evan and The Rambling Man. Don't let one person get in the way. Everyone else supports it. United States Man (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Im not getting in the way, i just think it is better to make sure we wont need to reformat them completely for all basins before deploying them. After all its just making sure the image switches to the Aus Scale and making sure SUCS and other 4 letter codes can be displayed properly.Jason Rees (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think there's a clear consensus to roll it out, and see how it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I started to make the change last night for my basin, but I've run into an image-related problem. I don't have a Commons account for one and don't like messing with images, but a read link appears for season with no season summary image as shown here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That should be fixed now. The basin switcher should work now as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The South Pacific, WPAC and Australian ones now just need the scale to work and then they will be ok - the SWIO and NIO ones need space for the 4 letter codes. Oh and we also need them to stop showing up in hurricane infobox incomplete.Jason Rees (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have a Commons account, so if you ever need anything, just leave a message on my talk page. I did a few things for Hurricanefan25 back when he was still here. And that goes for anybody else who doesn't have a Commons account or needs help with a particular image. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a few articles on effects somehow related to tropical cyclones in their formative or dissipative stages, or that are indirectly related to tropical cyclones. Examples would be various flood articles, such as November 2000 Hawaii floods (remnants of Paul 2000), or 1985 Puerto Rico floods (wave that became Isabel). I bring this up because t appears that we have no policy on whether they are part of WPTC or not. For example, 2000 is included, but 1985 isn't (it's only in the weather events WP). We should get a consensus or coherent policy on it. For example, it's already been decided that the "impacts" of certain TC's would best be put in a flood article (for example, October 1983 Southwest United States floods instead of Tropical Storm Octave (1983)).

My own view is that impacts caused solely by dissipative or formative tropical cyclones (like the waves that later developed into them) should not be included. The reason is that in many cases, impacts like this are not caused exclusively by TC remnants/what became a TC, but rather something else, such as an upper-level trough or cold front interacting with the moisture or the system. For, the 1983 flood article says (emphasis added), in its lead: "October 1983 Southwest United States floods was a flood that most significantly impacted Arizona and New Mexico. It occurred through the interaction of the remnants of Pacific tropical storm Octave, as well as a stalled low pressure area off the west coast of California." An example of what I'm talking about. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I'm neutral on the issue. Sandy's recent impacts on the United States might cause stronger opinions within the project than you'd otherwise expect. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think if it's related to a TC at all, it should be part of the project. Whether it is formatted as a tropical cyclone article or a flood article depends on what is the logical choice is as far as an encyclopedia goes. So the Puerto Rico floods is logical since that is notable on its own, not notable for being precursor to a tropical cyclone. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hink on this. That seems like the best policy to adopt. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Hink as well. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we stop bolding the retired names, it doesnt do anything bar make us look silly imo, and seems to go against MOS:BOLD, which states that it is only to be used in a few special cases.Jason Rees (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Where do we bold them? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 12:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Overnight (UTC) CrazyC83 went through the button bars and bolded the retired names up, while also doing some other very minor formatting tweaks.Jason Rees (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with not bolding them. We just need to be consistent. Inks.LWC (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, being retired really is not much more than trivia in some places while in others it means it did damage. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of bolding, did we ever decide what to do about bolding countries (and states) that TCs have a landfall on? Inks.LWC (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I can see them italicized, not not bolded. I've grown less in favor of bolding landfalls over the years. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care... we just need to decide on something and be consistent (and then go back and make everything consistent, because as of now, there is a range of what's done). Inks.LWC (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I first only bolded Sandy, then realized there were a bunch of others in the new format. If you want to change, go ahead. I tried to find all the new format ones. I didn't bold any in the old format. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I posted some of this in the met project a little while back. For general interest, a new article on marine weather forecasting was introduced to wikipedia a few days ago, which generated quite the buzz initially (over 500 hits the first day, and about 80 hits a day since then). Of more interest to this project is the new Mariners Weather Log article. For those who have copies, digital or paper, I'm trying to provide general information as to the periodical's format and changes to it over the years, which should help you hunt down TC-related information within the publication. I've contacted the NDBC, who maintains the publication nowadays, in the hopes that they will host the digitized versions online on their MWL page. So far, the digital copies created from the 1980s onward are full versions of the publication, which should help out with this process. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Six months from the date of the name change, September 5, all www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov web addresses will vanish. Their WPC equivalents already exist. Do we have a bot that can change all the TC rainfall-related web addresses from hpc to wpc? All that needs to change, in many links across many articles, is one letter (w). A head's up. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Webcite them. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 12:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No way YE, that's more intensive then simply getting someone with AWB. DR, I'm sure we could get someone with a bot to do that, if it's as simple as just changing the letter from h to w. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about a bot, but there's probably an app for that. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Heres an idea, on the toolbar go to Advanced and find Search and replace and do it by hand.Jason Rees (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There are hundreds of links. I'd rather use a bot. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Make that thousands. There are 2071 links here in enwiki, and 523 links in Commons. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

When I tried to change all the Atlantic Hurricane wikilinks to North Atlantic Tropical Cyclone "by hand", it took quite a while (hours over a few days), and I probably only tackled about half of them. In that case, there were only 500 to change. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes its tedious work, Yes its time consuming, Yes its annoying, but i enjoy doing it as it gives us chance to have a look at some of our articles and improve them slightly especially when theres a ref without reftags. If someone wants to go through with AWB i have no objections and nor do i have any objections to a bot doing it, but will note that when the JTWC moved their website we couldn't get either.Jason Rees (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Contact de:User:Merlissimo. He has a bot dealing wich such stuff (MerlLinkBot, IIRC). He'll just need the old URL form, the new URL form (i.e. what is to be replaced)... wait. I'll contact him myself, but still need the new URL pattern – it is just only the change hpc into wpc, David? --Matthiasb (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep. Due to one change made (changing the name of a template from HPCMAX to WPCMAX), we know have broken links in a number of articles. I'm trying to repair some of the collateral damage when I see/notice it. The damage is done and the repairs have begun. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    • David it was only the change of a refname rather than of a template, but anyways the last one should of just been fixed.Jason Rees (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
      • =) Thegreatdr (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will talk with Merlissimo, stay patient since her gets such requests all day. However this is not a EN problem only, in DE we have at least a hundred instances as well, probably all Wikipediae which have articles related to blizzards and 'canes. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Did anything happen with this? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Jason changed a number of articles, but I'm still finding articles strewn through the TC and meteorology projects filled with HPC links. I've been slowly changing instances when I've found them. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If I'm understanding the situation correctly, we just need to replace "http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov" with "http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov", correct? If my understanding is correct, I can apply for a bot account that would use AWB to do this, and we (the project, through me) can use the bot for any such problems in the future. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yep, though id like to see the dead links fixed/repointed first.Jason Rees (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Well I'll put in a bot request for a bot that will work for the project, mainly doing work like link updating, and I guess we could use it for templates if there's ever a need to swap out templates again. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• The bot has been given trial privileges. As soon as it has AWB privileges, I'll test it out on 50 articles. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

All of the links in the article and file spaces have been changed. Did we want to change links on the talk pages as well, or just leave those alone? Inks.LWC (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help. If there are any hpc webpage links to the talk pages, it would make sense to change those too. The hpc web page addresses should expire in early September. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll go ahead and run that now then (same for the Project talk pages/archives, with the exception of this one). Inks.LWC (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Anything that was part of an archived discussion, and this page, were excluded. I did not do anything with user pages... if people want to have them switched over, they can do that on their own. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We largely have gotten rid of the "new format" for season articles, and in this case it presents a severe redundancy with 2006 Pacific hurricane season. I started an FLRC so we could merge the two together. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've created WxBot, a bot which runs through AWB, to perform tasks for meteorology-relate projects. So far it has been approved for link and template replacement, but if we need it to do anything else in the future, I can make a request for additional approved tasks. I have placed a subsection giving a brief overview of the bot on the Project page under the Participants section. If anyone feels as if there's a better place for the subsection, feel free to move it. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of those HPC links (and the watchlist flood :P ) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. If we need anything else done, let me know. At some point, we'll probably have to replace HPC with WPC on some of the articles, although that won't be able to be automated, since not every occurrence will need to be replaced. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.wis-jma.go.jp/d/o/

This database is truly trustable and useful, as JMA is the most serious meteorological agency in the world. Files since September 2011 are all completely available; most of them are in ****/Alphanumeric/Warning/Tropical_cyclone/. Do not directly cite archives as they will be all compressed files (.tar.gz) in one year.

Pacific & Indian

• PGTW = JTWC

Northwest Pacific

• BABJ = China
• PGUM = Guam
• RJTD = Japan
• RKSL = Korea
• VHHH = Hong Kong
• WSSS = Singapore

North Indian

• DEMS = India

Southwest Indian

• FIMP = Mauritius
• FMEE = Réunion

Australian region

• ABRF = Brisbane
• ADRM = Darwin
• APRF = Perth

South Pacific

• NFFN = Fiji
• NWBB = New Caledonia
• NZKL = New Zealand

-- Meow 07:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/­pub/­weather/­tropical/­GuamStuff/­

I cannot visit this website at all. Has it really been unavailable for long time? -- Meow 12:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Fraid so - it used to be an archive of JTWC warnings, STWAs etc. You should be able to replace warnings with NRL.Jason Rees (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any replacement? WebCite archives did not include warnings before 2009 or some year, so those old references are dead now. -- Meow 00:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a few archives scattered around, the best one is NRL and contains TCFA's and warnings by JTWC and NPMOC since 97/98. Others include MT Archive which includes TCFA's Progs and warnings but all in one day. Australian Severe Weather also contains Warnings per storm for the SHEM. There are also a few editors who have their own warning archives.Jason Rees (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Sadly, JTWC did not issue prognostic reasonings for earlier storms. -- Meow 03:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked MT Archive again, and it works! Although it takes time to find. -- Meow 19:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)