Talk:Tropical Storm Omeka

Impact?

Sorry for jumping prior to this (possibly) being published, but I noticed none of the sources actually link Omeka to the Hawaiian impact. After all, it was a full 15º west of Hawaii. I just wanted to point that out. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is directly linked to Omeka, it's all from the precursor system and the nearby Kona Low associated with the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, just fyi, that probably shouldn't be in the article once published, if it isn't related to Omeka, particularly since none of the news sources even mention the storm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure this article needs to exist with its current name? There is much questionable content in the impact section, and the meteorological history can be covered by the season article. Just because Omeka formed within the envelope of a Kona-like low does not mean you can attribute the impact of the low to Omeka. If you want to form an article on the Kona low (the first paragraph of the impact section), fine; the content should not lie within this article. I don't see the clear line of logic that argues that Omeka is the latest forming tropical cyclone in the Central Pacific, when there have been seasons with NO tropical cyclones in that basin. To me, seasons with no tropical cyclones forming in the basin would trump a December system forming, no? It seems convenient to lump in the eastern Pacific to help establish this "record." It is unlikely that CPHC or NHC would mention this "record" in their TCRs, so it should be left out, or heavily qualified, if left in this or the season articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, we need to be consistent with impact sections that are only loosely related. Either this article be about the rare December storm, or it should be about the Hawaiian flooding impact. From what I've seen, it can't be both. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a way for one article to cover both events. Look at how we handled the Halloween Storm of 1991. That would be how it could be done. Basically, you talk about the Kona low and all its impact, then mention in a sidebar that it led to the formation of a subtropical storm which became a tropical storm. That way, the impact is correctly attributed to the Kona and not the TS. It would probably be the best way of handling this system, because the Kona impacts were significant and could merit an article of its own. If the consensus is for the Omeka article to continue in existence, the notability should be more tied to the unusualness (if a word) of the development of a subtropical cyclone in the Central Pacific, not some potentially trivial record its storm report may ever mention. The Hawaiian impacts would then have to be removed. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But the Perfect Storm was one continuous storm. It was an extratropical storm that developed into a tropical cyclone. That doesn't appear to be the case for Omeka, where it loosely associated with a larger Kona low, that in turn caused impact. My main problem is that right now, no sources link the Hawaiian impact with Omeka. At least with the Perfect Storm, we have very clear linking between the extratropical storm that caused the billion in damage and the subsequent tropical hurricane. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between the two situations. However, since none of the sources link the Hawaiian weather with Omeka (we didn't either at map discussion yesterday), it means that content must be removed as long as this article continues to be named Tropical Storm Omeka. I've removed that content, which can always be grabbed later if someone wants to produce an article on the Kona Low. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Group with year

When this article was made about a week ago, there was no "2010" with it. Although the name will unlikely be used again for a long time, we should only leave it without the year if it is a retired name. Also, Hurricane/Typhoon Ele and Huko arent given the main article, so why is this storm given it? Rye998 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ele and Huko will be moved in time. There is no need to have the "2010", even if it isn't retired, as there is no other storm of the same name. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Even though there is no other storm of the same name, it's going to be re-used at some indefinite point in the future(assuming it won't be retired), so why shouldn't it have the "2010" with it? It's unlikely this will be the last time this name will be used, and as I mentioned, Ele and Huko are the only storms of their names, but neither of them have the "main" article, so why should Omeka be given it in that case? I don't think storms like Omeka should be given the main article unless they are retired, even though they won't be reused for some time. Rye998 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, when it is eventually moved, we can move the title. However, as of now, there is no need to disambiguate it. I'll go ahead and move Ele and Huko. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That could be 40-50 years away, based on how long it is taking storms to go through the original four lists developed in 1979. I think we can deal with the problem then, if still alive and contributing to wikipedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The title was just moved back to (2010) at the end, which I disagree with. As said before, the 2010 isn't needed, since the name won't be needed for decades, as DR says. Really, per WP:TITLE, there is no need for the 2010. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Todo

• "On December 18, 2010, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center " "Central Pacific Hurricane Center" to "Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC)". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Done
• "Over the following two days, the system tracked southwestward, entering the Western Pacific basin, and began transitioning into a tropical cyclone." to "Over the following two days, the system tracked southwestward, entering the Western Pacific basin. It then began to transition into a tropical cyclone." Also, change the link to Pacific typhoon to typhoon. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Done
• "The storm was assigned the name Omeka several hours later as it moved into the Central Pacific basin." just say CPHC warning zone YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Done
• "Upon doing so, Omeka attained its peak intensity with winds of 50 mph (85 km/h)." I thought it was 60 mph. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Done
• "cyclone in the western Pacific Ocean." don't link to Pacific Ocean. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• "to a minimal tropical storm later on December 20.[8]" define that. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Done
• "with winds of 40 mph (65 km/h).[9]" move this to the impact. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Done
• How come you don't use the CPHC summary for much of the MH? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Done, I was lazy. —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail
• "Crossing into the northeast Pacific on December 20, Omeka existed in the northeast Pacific later than any other storm since 1949, when official records begin in the basin.[7][11]" neither source backs it up. I think I can find you a real source though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Done
• "Throughout 2010, the entire Pacific Ocean experienced record-low tropical cyclone activity due to a strong La Niña. Since Omeka was the first storm in the Central Pacific during the year, it marked the latest start to a season since reliable records began, excluding seasons with no storms.[11][14]" source the CPHC summary for that and tweak it to what you have in the opener. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Done

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Omeka/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 01:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi CycloneIsaac! I will be reviewing Tropical Storm Omeka. Overall, nice job on this GAN! Anyway, I have a few queries before I can pass/fail this article:

• If Omeka became subtropical on December 18, then why does the infobox say it formed on December 16? Done
• I don't know if this is feasible, but could you somehow add a link at least one of the seasons in the lede (i.e. 2010 Pacific hurricane season and/or 2010 Pacific typhoon season). It just looks odd not having one. Done
• "The storm was assigned the name Omeka several hours later as it moved into the CPHC area of responsibility." - A layman probably wouldn't not what the CPHC's area of responsibility is. Add a note saying that it is from 140°W to the International Dateline. Also, it should be "CPHC's area of responsibility". Done
• "It then began to transition into a tropical cyclone." - Wikilink tropical cyclone Done
• "Shortly thereafter, wind shear in the region increased, causing the system to weaken." - It is hard to determine what "Shortly thereafter" means, as there is no date mentioned in the previous two sentences. I would ditch "Shortly thereafter" and replace it with "Later on December 20,..." Done
• "and by December 18 transitioned into a subtropical cyclone." ---> "and by December 18 it transitioned into a subtropical cyclone." Done
• "As the low moved over warmer waters," - Wikilink "warmer waters" to sea surface temperatures Done
• "it was able to maintain an area of deep convection near its center." - Avoid using "it" or "its" twice in a sentence. Substitute one of them with "the storm", "the cyclone", etc. Done
• "issued their first advisory on the system at 0900 UTC on December 20," - Wikilink UTC Done
• In the meteorological history, we round both distances and wind speeds (both US and metric units) to the nearest 5th digit. There are three that need to be fixed:
  • "situated roughly 505 miles (813 km) south of Midway Island." Done
  • "with winds of 60 miles per hour (97 km/h) and a barometric" Done
  • "December 20, with winds of 40 miles per hour (64 km/h)." Done
• "On December 21, the center of Omeka brushed Lisianski Island, with winds of 40 miles per hour (64 km/h)." - Although this is outside of the MH, it should be fixed too. Done
• On Reference 1, change "Craig, Timothy; Houston, Samuel;" to "Timothy A. Craig, Samuel H. Houston". Also, why do you have this on reference 1: " United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service."? The others by CPHC do not have that stuff. Done
• On reference 14, change "James Franklin, Lixion Avila" to "James L. Franklin, Lixion A. Avila" Done
• Nice work. I am now gonna pass this article and list it as a GA.--12george1 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Omeka image

Someone can find a image of Omeka when it was officially tropical? I think that would be more fitting to the article's context. ABC paulista (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

TD Nine-C

As you all already know, Tropical Depression Nine-C has formed in the Central Pacific at December 31 0300 UTC. If TD Nine-C manages to strengthen to TS Pali, would it be recorded as the latest TS ever, surpassing Omeka? --Weatherlover819 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Tropical Storm Omeka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/ac/acpn50.phfo.two.cp.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/ac/acpn50.phfo.two.cp.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/ABPW10_201012182230.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/ww/wwjp25.rjtd..txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/ww/wwjp25.rjtd..txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/pages/TWS.php?dt=201101
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/pages/TWS.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Tropical Storm Omeka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 12:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus for a merge at Talk:2010 Pacific hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 12:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.