Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 33

Proposed
Category 5 (SSHWS)	Category 5 (SSHWS)
Category 4 (SSHWS)	Category 4 (SSHWS)
Category 3 (SSHWS)	Category 3 (SSHWS)
Category 2 (SSHWS)	Category 2 (SSHWS)
Category 1 (SSHWS)	Category 1 (SSHWS)
Tropical storm (JTWC scale)	Tropical storm (JTWC scale)
Tropical depression (JTWC scale)	Tropical depression (JTWC scale)
Unknown	Unknown

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 31

→

Colors???

What in the hell just happened to all the colors??? Template:Tropical_cyclone_template_values Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Netoholic changed the values here:[1] Supportstorm (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONTRAST is an important accessibility standard, because certain colors can make it hard or impossible for some users to read the text. Remember that the text is the important aspect of an infobox, the color is a secondary luxury that, if we're going to use, we must use in a way that doesn't interfere with the ability of visually-impaired users. If people want to discuss different MOS-compliant color schemes, we can do that, but the old colors just cannot stay. -- Netoholic @ 06:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but I believe the previous colors were diverse enough to not be an issue for most users. The suggested colors are too similar and I'm having difficulty distinguishing categories in the articles. Supportstorm (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"Most users" isn't the MOS standard. Impaired readers are of course a minority, but we have to accommodate them. You can test the contrast of the old colors using the tools on the WP:CONTRAST section, and you'll verify that they aren't compliant. Remember, the colors are a luxury, not a critical feature - its the text that is important for differentiating categories of storms. Most of the colors are the same as before, just lighter for readability. I'm pretty sure its something that people can get used to, and if there is an alternate color scheme that is compliant that people want to discuss, that's fine too. The only colors that we can't use are the ones that don't fit the WCAG 2.0 requirements. -- Netoholic @ 07:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we have to accommodate to them since they have ways of accessing the same information within the article. There are legends to the colors and what they represent in the timeline. And the colors only make up certain parts of the article. Keeping the previous color scheme it would mean readers could easily see the colors and know what they mean without wasting energy reading text which is impossible with your scheme. Supportstorm (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we do have to accommodate them. And I'm sorry, but the attitude that readers are "wasting energy reading text" is frankly ridiculous to an extreme. -- Netoholic @ 08:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Humans are visual learner. In this case if learning that a certain color would associate to, let's say, tropical depression then every time you saw the color you could more easily recognize the subject as being tropical depression. That's my view on it and it's not ridiculous. It's a rational theory and one I use myself : / Supportstorm (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a long-term fix to comply with an important standard, it has to happen. You and others will adapt to the new colors fast for the quick recognition you need it for. I realize a change can be jarring, but it is necessary. -- Netoholic @ 08:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Look I'm going to say this. I don't like this change. I don't agree with some of your incentives. Whether this has any merit to this argument is honestly unimportant, but I leave it like this to get out a statement. I like that you want to better this site, we all have that goal. However I think there are more constructive places that could use your and my attention and this is not one of them. Thanks. Supportstorm (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that after this in late 2012, that the colours did comply to the "important standard" of WP:CONTRAST that Netohoilc refers to. However since i know nothing about colours bar what i like etc, and i recognise that the standards would have moved on i will bow my head to @Dodoïste: opinion.Jason Rees (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that this does not match the color of both the timeline graph and the track maps. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The main problem with the track maps is not what colors are used, but rather that they fail to "ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information". The track maps should #1) use symbols for various levels of intensity (ex. ①,②,③,④,⑤ tinted with color), and #2) should include a key to the symbols on the image itself. This is a separate discussion though. -- Netoholic @ 18:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The symbols are a non-starter, as they would become a blurry, illegible mess at the resolutions that track maps are typically used. Adding an on-map key introduces internationalization issues, since enwiki is not the only project that uses these maps, and places a burden on other projects (such as eswiki, dewiki, frwiki, zhwiki, etc...) that do not have enough editors to be able to produce these. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Like almost all our guideline pages, ACCESS has been written assuming that people will follow the instructions: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." So, guideline pages typically don't try to anticipate every exception. They expect editors to figure out not to add numbers that would be too small to see to an image, and not to remove the single-pixel hues that are there on the theory that someone might not see them. I applaud anyone who's working on ACCESS issues, but this isn't the right call to make. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

original version
accessible version

To answer Titoxd's claim that this change "would become a blurry, illegible mess", I've put together a mockup of the method I suggested. You can see that at a thumbnail level, the difference is almost imperceptible, but when expanded, the accessible version becomes useful to those that have color vision impairments. I'll concede his point about the on-image key/legend being a language problem, but providing distinguishing characteristics (other than color) to conform to WP:COLOR is entirely possible. -- Netoholic @ 05:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I am fed up with being forced to defend WPTC against the reckless and unilateral changes of User:Netoholic. His undiscussed change left wide color-code discrepancies across many hundreds of articles, and unless he intends to update every last track map image on the site, he will leave the template alone. I'm sure he judges us all backwards lowlifes who can't accept change, and that it's his responsibility to show us the light, but nobody is above the standard procedure of seeking consensus if your changes have been contested. His actions continue to constitute edit warring, and he continues to make editing an extremely unpleasant experience. This must end. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. -- Netoholic @ 18:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with him a bit. There has been an overwhelming consensus against most of your chances, and to interfere with what statistically is one of the more prolific projects on this site is getting highly disruptive and you refuse to recognize it as such. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I used the program listed at WP:CONTRAST, along with the luminosity algorithm as specified on that page along with the values from Template:Storm colour. It appears that all the colors are compliant with the Wikipedia standards, although it would be best if someone else could confirm this. — Iune (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Using Snook's color contrast tool all of the current colors listed at {{Storm colour}} are WCAG 2 AAA compliant when black text (#000000) is used upon them. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 15:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

But what about Blue text? (ie:Links).Jason Rees (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Failure of color compliance is evident in several of the current storm colors when applied to clicked (purple) links and unclicked (blue) links. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, which means we have to either lose the links in the infobox headers (and anyplace else these colors are used) or simply make the adjustment now which eliminates the long-term need to even worry about it. -- Netoholic @ 18:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We could remove them, unless we can find another place in the infobox to link it then, if it is such an issue. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is worth removing the links affected - i think its only the ones to the scales which we can live without and may bring us into line with WP:Overlink.Jason Rees (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest, we can't really remove the links to the scales. The categories are not self-explanatory, and very few article body text links to the scale information (probably because they've come to rely on the infobox to provide that link). There is no strong reason to keep these particular colors. I'd me more apt to remove the colors completely than to remove the link, since colors are supposed to be entirely optional. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree since where both infoboxes are deployed links to the scales will be deployed, especially if its me writing the article for the Australian TCIS.Jason Rees (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jason Rees:} - I just don't understand why you want to lose something that has informational value (the scale link) just to preserve a color scheme that is unofficial, and ultimately unnecessary. These colors are used in many ways, like season button navbars, where it is impossible to remove the links without crippling the functionality. We can just change the colors and never, ever, have to deal with this accessibility issue in the future. -- Netoholic @ 19:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the scale links are already in prose, so why overlink? We could always remove the link in the button bars as well. And no, we would have to deal with this again, since changing all the track maps is highly time consuming (about seven years ago, we spent months changing the color based on personal preference. Right now, we have around 10K maps that would need to be changed). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Flawed reasoning. We do not need to change 10k track maps immediately, or ever. What should happen is the track generator itself first be made complaint with WP:COLOR, and then proceed forward from there. But that is a separate, and really unrelated, task to the storm colors used in templates. Whether there is work to be done or not, the MOS color guidelines exist and we should be correcting what we need to in order to comply. And really, when I look at the track maps, the colors are basically the same (red=intense, blue=less intense) and the specific hue is barely a concern. This is just not that radical of a change. -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'd rather have consistency. The MOS exists to make Wiki easier, but you've gone a little too far with the project in forcing changes to comply to the MOS. It is very much related, and it is a pretty big change, yes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

MoS standards are consistency. The MoS exists to ensure consistency. This project is not an island unto itself. The current color definitions are problematic, and once fixed, the project can move forward from that point on. Don't accuse me of "forcing changes" - I am not accusing you of resisting standards. I am bring attention to problems which I would expect this project would want to solve, to preserve their reputation for high standards. Don't prove me wrong. -- Netoholic @ 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

While I greatly appreciate your effort, I think it would have been better of that you would have discussed this first. Anyway, well, if we change the colors in the infobox but no the track map, how is that consistent? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is this suddenly such an issue? Color blindness is fairly common, and yet I have not seen any complaints when looking at pages for the past few years. Dustin (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is kind of a non-argument, isn't it? I mean, the accessibility guidelines have been around for years around this issue, and it was brought up before, but no one followed through on any actions. This can't really be seen as a "surprise" move and even if you've not seen any complaints, remember that we have far more silent readers than editors on Wikipedia. Besides, isn't the goal to accommodate disabilities before someone has to complain? -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin In this case, the solution is relatively simple, we just have to remove links in the header bars. Based off of the 2012 discussion, the solution suggested then to bring the color scheme into compliance was to remove the links in the header bar; we can simply remove that and have compliant colors. Also, @Netoholic, could you take a look at my comment about when the header bars should appear two threads up? — Iune (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should still keep the text if we remove the links. That is the main idea you are presenting, correct? Dustin (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the color contrast with the links AA compliant? ACCESS implies that AA compliance may be acceptable. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I got an answer to this question here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In the event that we decide to change the color scheme, I have created an alternate scheme as shown below. At the moment this is a suggestion, so feel free to comment if you see any changes necessary. This proposal only features a few marginal tweaks to the current color scheme being used.

Alternate {{storm colour}} proposal A
UNK	TD		TS		C1	C2	C3	C4	C5
UNK	D	TD	TS	STS	TY

-- TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, C5 is too soft. ~~I'll see what I can put together.~~ Cloudchased (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The C4-C5 transition does not have enough of a difference in hue, and is difficult to distinguish in a map background. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, to address the accessibility concern for color-blind people, the deepest reds and blues aren't available for us, so in order to have distinct color differences between the categories, I think we have to introduce greens to the spectrum and deepen the yellow. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of this yellow for Category 3, could we use the old Category 2 color? IMO, this yellow is a bit too bright (I don't know how to explain this better) and would be a bit painful to look at on infoboxes. — Iune (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair request - strong yellow can be a bit jarring. I made the change in my example above. -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to Katrina's track map using this color scheme... I'm not particularly happy with the Category 2 color here... it seems a bit too much like the Category 1 color IMO. http://imgur.com/EyH5ejO — Iune (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you use Hurricane Ioke's track map, the issue gets worse IMO; the Category 4 and Category 3 colors aren't distinct enough between each other, and the Category 1 and 2 colors are similarly not distinct enough, I'm having trouble distinguishing them unless I zoom in. http://i.imgur.com/mxM08EB.png — Iune (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal C
C5	C4	C3	C2	C1	STS	DEP	UNK

@Netoholic: Would this proposal be alright? IMO, the problem with the two shades of green was that they are too similar, and the new Cat 3-4 colors similarly blend into each other. I eliminated the lighter shade of green (used for Cat 2.), and re-used the old Cat. 1-4 colors for Cat. 2-4. in this proposal. — Iune (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's Ioke's track under that color scheme: http://i.imgur.com/ie6zDE2.png — Iune (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Green is a color that indicates that things are safe, which sends mixed messages when a Category 1 tropical cyclone is about to make landfall in a populated area. This is the reason why green hues are not used in the color scheme. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Green is not universally "all clear", and green is used in many weather-related scales and on maps, including those within official hurricane reports. No one would reasonable assume Wikipedia is indicating an "all clear" just because we happen to use green someplace, but I am open to alternatives. -- Netoholic @ 07:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Iune: - The issues with colors in regards to the templates that have text/links that are placed in front of the colored backgrounds. There's no particular reason why the track maps have to use the same colors. The only problem with the track maps is the use of only color, which is why I've proposed a change to make the intensities more visible by using different symbols. -- Netoholic @ 07:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Iune: I've combined yours and mine a bit, and made the green a bit less intense. I think we're very close. -- Netoholic @ 18:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a simulation of what color-blind people see WPTC color schemes.From top left to bottom right:Protanopia,Deuteranopia,Tritanopia,AchromatopsiaProtanomaly,Deuteranomaly,Tritanomaly,Achromatomaly

Just for comparisons, I have created this image to simulate what color-blind people see Netoholic's plan and the current color scheme (From top left to bottom right:Protanopia, Deuteranopia, Tritanopia, Achromatopsia, Protanomaly, Deuteranomaly, Tritanomaly, Achromatomaly).Krit-tonkla ^talk 17:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but remember the goal, which is to make the text (specifically links) stand out in contrast so that color-blind readers can read it. As long as they can do that, we can use whatever colors make sense for normally-visioned. The goal isn't to make the colors look good for every type of color-blindness. I've changed my example above to simulate link color and bold, as would be in the headers. -- Netoholic @ 17:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the issue hasn't been settled yet, and there is still edit warring, I protected the template until everyone agrees once and for all. It is too highly visible of a template to be edited so many times over the past month. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well... I tried to install the version on the right, which takes in feedback from multiple people in this section, but got reverted by someone who hasn't even participated in this discussion yet. So... what more is preventing people from signing off on this? We're potentially annoying up to 8% of readers, who have color vision problems, by making it more difficult than necessary for them to read the text contained in places that use the old color scheme. The other option is to just flat-out remove all colors from the infoboxes/navbars. -- Netoholic @ 19:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I just wanna ask again, why do we have to change it? I want to be really sure, since this affects literally thousands of maps, and I would hate for our users with track maps (such as User:Cyclonebiskit to have to upload them all again. Per an independent user's analysis of our colors, they're AA compliant. If we're making just minor changes, I wholeheartedly oppose changing them to save the hours and hours of works for the users with the track map generators. And as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is equally about the track maps as it is labeling the storm colors in the infoboxes/templates. I'd rather just remove the links from the templates, per the discussion above. There is no need to link them as much as we do. We can still say which scale it is, just don't link it, as we already link the scales in the articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This does not immediately affect maps (there are slightly different accessibility problems with those, and should be handled separately). This is to allow people with color-vision problems to easily read the text in the headers of the infobox and in season navigation buttons. The current color scheme is not AA-compliant. Read above in this very section and on Template talk:Storm colour and you'll see several independent confirmation of this. You can even go to this utility and plug in foreground #0645AD and background #ff6060 / #ff8f20 / #5ebaff and verify it yourself. That Military WikiProject post was a check on their color scheme, not WPTC's. Removal of the links is not a good option, since you're still left with barely-readable black text and on season button navbars, removing the links would destroy the whole purpose of the navbar. The alternative to an accessible color scheme is no color scheme at all on the infoboxes/navbars. -- Netoholic @ 19:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the discussion, and I thought that the current colors are AA-compliant, just not if they included links, per @TheAustinMan:. I thereby propose that we remove the links. It's the simplest solution - it'd make season articles cleaner, and there wouldn't need to be a change in colors. You're acting like it's either we change the colors or we're defying Wiki law, so I'm not sure if this third solution is allowed to be discussed, but I figured I'd implore anyway. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm the aforementioned statement which was attributed to me. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is it preferable to remove a useful function (links) just to preserve the specific, unofficial, and largely arbitrary current color scheme? Why are members of this project so protective of it, and what value does it really bring to Wikipedia? If you want to remove the links, how can you know that all the articles will still have clear links to the appropriate scales in the article body? For example, Typhoon Rammasun (2014), a recent article about a WPac storm has -no- links to Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale nor to Tropical cyclone scales except in the templates, and I suspect that case is extremely common especially in less-recently worked on articles. If there's no link to the scale, you'd have no context or explanation for displaying the 1-min winds header at all, and that would have to be disabled too. Why do you consider it "simpler" to remove links by editing dozens (maybe more) templates, rather than just adjust the color scheme now and not ever have to worry about this issue in the future? If you prefer the "simplest" approach, then revert to my last edit on Template:Storm colour and its done. -- Netoholic @ 23:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is it preferable to not remove something that more often not constitutes to overlinking? The majority of our articles will still have links to scales in the body. Those links can be added esaily, and as more and more articles get finished, will likely will be added. The 1 min header can be adjusted later on. It is "simpler" since we won't have to change several thousand of track maps. We could remove the links and not ever have to worry about this issue in the future. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"more often [than] not constitutes to overlinking" - Please provide examples. I gave an example of an article that, if the links were removed from templates, would have zero links describing the wind scales used. -- Netoholic @ 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some worked by various members of TC project: Hurricane Ida (2009), Typhoon Amy (1951), Hurricane Iselle (2014), Typhoon Betty (1987), Cyclone Rewa, Typhoon Nabi], Typhoon Hal (1985), Cyclone Susan, and Typhoon Jangmi (2008). AS for whether it is overlinking, depends on your MOS interpretation. 00:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And if the article doesn't have a scale mentioned, then we should find a way to add it in. That's not a valid reason for not removing the scales. We should always specify the scales that we use in prose in the articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK doesn't apply to this situation, and in fact explicitly allows for exception for this case: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." (emphasis mine). I don't see how your examples currently are even close to failing OVERLINK, because the link in the infobox is helpful and is in clear, direct association with the scale category being displayed. Even if an article happens (more by pure chance today) to link to Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale or to Tropical cyclone scales, that link is dissociated, falling somewhere deeply hidden in the middle of long body text, and it is not helpful.
Again, people are still making extremely problematic propositions but failing to answer my basic question: Why is there so much resistance to simply slightly changing the colors so that the issues of accessibility are eliminated in one swift motion? You can try to propose all the alternatives you want, but until you actually explain this irrational attachment to this specific color scheme, you're not going to be able to make a convincing argument. -- Netoholic @ 02:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does it have to be an either/or? Why can't we discuss the option of removing the links? I'm just wondering... ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you value this specific color scheme over the links? -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Netoholic, here's my alternative idea about the colors. Let's not do anything! We are essentially fixing something that isn't broken. Repeatedly you have been told that there aren't problems with the colors and thousands of maps will have to be altered. Besides, someone else might come along later and say that there is little contrast between the Category 5 and typhoon colors. See Hurricane John (1994), for example.--12george1 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that WP:CONTRAST is a thing, and I don't think it is reasonable to annoy up to 8% of readers who have color vision problems. There is no reasonable explanation as to why this specific color scheme is necessary. So changing it, is both easy and in support of making the content more accessible. If colors continue to be an issue (as in "little contrast"), they can be removed completely as colors are not supposed to be critical elements. -- Netoholic @ 04:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Consistency, standard, how it's been, same as the maps are. But, you've brought up the point that we overlink, and I think it's a good idea to get rid of them. It's really just the easiest solution. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you overlink, I presented the opposite case saying it is not overlinking. You have me confused with someone else. -- Netoholic @ 04:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Replying to what you said to both GC and me, the easiest solution would be simply removing the links. So what's your issue with that? We can (and should) always link in prose. I don't understand your crusade here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already given a long answer as to why OVERLINK does not apply and why removal of the links would damage articles, because you cannot guarantee that the links are already present or clear in relation to the infobox/navbox usage. -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with just including them in prose and not the infobox? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be in both place, not one or the other. A reader cannot be reasonably expected to locate a link to the cyclone scales from among the main article body, when a link can be provided in context right along with the category in the header. Plus, I guarantee the people in this project will hate the result of what needs to be done to remove all links from places using this non-accessible color scheme. Here is a list of all the templates that use the storm colors. If you guys really insist on removing the links rather than making a simple change to the color scheme, these will need to be checked and have any links removed that are on top of the colors. Any volunteers to start that work? Likewise, you will forever have to watch out for re-insertion of links to these templates, or for any new templates that get created in the future. -- Netoholic @ 05:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Why have it in both? It's pointless And I disagree that the reader should not be expected to locate a link from an article. If anything, a reader is more likely to find in the articles, so infoboxes are often overlooked. And if they can't find it anywhere, that's their problem. To be honest, you're gasping for straws here IMO. The color scheme is accessible, provided the link is removed from the infobox and/or storm color template. That is simple and better than the alternate solution of having to change thousands of track maps in addition to the storm colors. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Track maps are a separate topic, and do not have to be updated as a result of this change. The general color scheme is the same, just lighter in the proposed version. This proposed change only applies to the templates, not the images. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Netoholic:, I suggest you stop. I have brought up a legitimate way to deal with your concerns, and you are completely dismissing it. This discussion is getting WP:Lame. I'm not sure if you're trying to tire us all out until we see it your way, but I'm not having it. It's been over a month since you started interacting with our WikiProject. I recognize that we don't WP:OWN any templates, but your whole series of interactions with us has been one giant WP:BROKE, particularly this latest issue. May I ask why you are on this crusade against the hurricane editors? Do you realize that you have caused one editor to consider retiring, and several other editors to reduce their edit workload simply over the unfolding drama of dealing with you? You are doing more harm than good in interacting with this WikiProject. As far as I'm concerned, changing the colors but not the maps is a nonstarter, and this solution works well despite your claims to the contrary. Thank you for your concerns. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

While it may be hard for you to integrate into your perceptions, my only concern on this topic is a "crusade" against a color scheme which does not promote accessibility, not a set of editors. I can understand though that when you can't give a logical reasoning as to why the project uses this specific color scheme, you will resort to casting aspersions about my motivations (this is the second time you've done so). What it comes down to is this: you (and other) editors like the current color scheme for subjective ("WP:IJUSTLIKEIT") reasons. I do not dislike the current color scheme, any more than I like my proposed one, but the current color scheme objectively is provably problematic for up to 8% of our readers who have color vision problems. Your alternative of removing the links, as a "solution" to aiding that 8% of readers, in fact adds more annoyance to all the readers who lose the ability to quickly reference the intensity scales in use. Here is a list of all the templates that use the storm colors. If you all would like to remove the links from those templates, go for it. I think it is the wrong idea, and I think you'll end up hating the result, but please do it today, without delay. This was supposedly the result of the discussion two years ago, and no one did the work. Its often easier to say a solution is "simpler", when its an abstraction and you don't actually have to do the work, which is why I suspect no one has actually started to do it. So please, Hurricanehink, remove the links immediately. But if in a few days no one has completed the task, I want you to capitulate that the proposed new color scheme is the solution which is actually simpler and objectively better, and assist me in implementing it by reverting to my last edit to the Storm colour template and protecting it from reversion until the project members get used to it. -- Netoholic @ 16:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The links have been removed, largely in part to me (which tested them out) and JR (which implemented them). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thx for your work :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Picked the low-hanging fruit, but still plenty of work still to be done. 2001 Atlantic hurricane season#Season impact tables for example. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That can be converted easily. We don't even include landfalls on those charts anymore. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So {{TC stats first landfall}}, {{TC stats landfall}}, {{TC stats next landfall}} and {{TC stats no landfall}} should be orphaned and deleted? -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC) (added 2 links since post)

Yep. 2001 AHS was addressed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment here, but addressing what Hurricanehink and Cyclonebiskit have said above, the storm colors probably don't need to be changed. The change in colors caught thousands of editors (including me) and readers, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, completely off guard. That really wasn't necessary, in my opinion, and since no one raised any objections during the past 9 years in which this color scheme was used, it was probably fine the way it was. Not to mention that the new colors gave multitudes of users and readers alike headaches just trying to navigate the TC articles and differentiate the storm intensities after the implementation (without consensus, by the way) of the new colors. The articles have huge viewing rates, so the unexpected changes probably didn't have any positive effects, especially given the reactions I saw here on this talk page. And quite frankly, I think that the original colors worked out much more effectively. If need be, we can add colored text into the infoboxes (and maybe the storm tracks if it is really necessary), but since the colors are already good the way they are (heck, that's why editors changed them to their current color scheme in 2005), they don't really need to be changed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You know, LightandDark2000 right here brings up a misconception that I want to address. When you say "no one raised any objections during the past 9 years", that is flagrantly incorrect. People have brought up MOS:COLOR/WP:ACCESS concerns before, but each time those objections have been dismissed and resisted, resulting in excuses why the status quo should be considered an exception to these guidelines:

#Bold text in season timelines - Aug 2008
#Issues with WP:Accessibility - Jun 2012
Template_talk:Storm_colour#Colors_and_accessibility_guidelines - Nov 2012
#Accessibility - Feb 2013

So the one thing that cannot be said is that this has "never come up". Even if that were true, that is not any kind of strong argument. Wikipedia improves by innovation, not stagnation, and this dependence on this specific, inaccessible, color scheme needs to be addressed. For now (and I would encourage current and future readers of this section who agree), I will raise this MOS-violation up in the FA/GA process when I can. Perhaps, if more outside editors look at this issue and if some articles get held back due to color/access concerns, then maybe this project will start to pay attention to it and actually work on some solutions rather than continue to stagnate and hurt the usability for some readers. -- Netoholic @ 17:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, major changes such as those cannot be implemented without solid community consensus. While I strongly oppose any major color change, I believe that the Cat 3 and 4 colors are a little too similar, and I also agree that is necessary, a text inclusion can be implemented into the storm tracks. But until we get solid support from the Wikipedia community, we cannot go through with any of the proposed changes. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What else is there to be discussed regarding the colors? JR removed the links. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Several tasks remain at #Removal of links. There is also the issue of the track maps and the timelines. -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: - There is solid support from the Wikipedia community, which is why the MOS:COLOR/WP:ACCESS guidelines exist. What you really mean to say is that nothing can be implemented until the WPTC community accepts what the rest of the Wikipedia community has come to consensus about. -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no issue with timelines. And I should note that on the top of the ACCESS page there is this: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions.". I think we've satisfied access to our best of our ability at this point. It simply is not worth the hassle changing colors when the same enegery can spent added content, something that satisfies all readers, not just a small percentage. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Netanholic, yes, that was what I meant to say. But I also agree with Yellow Evan, if the colors are already satisfactory, then there's no need to spend extra energy attempting to change them. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of links

~~Template:Infobox hurricane current (backlinks edit) - links over colors (under Current Storm Status and "detailed information" link~~)
~~Template:Philippine Tropical Cyclone Signals (backlinks edit)~~ - links over colors, plus increase font size (<small> should only be used sparingly)
~~Template:HurricaneWarningsTable (backlinks edit)~~ - links over colors, plus increase font size
Orphan and delete these per above:
Template:Stormstats start (backlinks edit) (looks orphaned, speedy delete?)
Template:Hurricane path (backlinks edit) (looks orphaned, speedy delete?)

I'm going to maintain a list of problem spots above. Please indicate when each task has been completed. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I took care of the first 3. The next 4 should be deleted shortly, but right now, there's minimal useage even though such format has been phased out. The last 2 we don't use anymore I don't think. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Several links remain in the hurricane_current template. -- Netoholic @ 08:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There are still several removal tasks that need to be performed (and maybe more that I haven't identified). Members of this project need to address these ASAP. -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of us are in the process of reworking the tables as time allows. Remember though that Wikipedia has no deadline and that we are all volunteers.Jason Rees (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the last link in color on the Infobox hurricane current a couple days ago. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You missed some. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

All of the links that can't be there due to access-related issues are gone, per the transclusion. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you said. There are links in the template to [[Tropical_cyclone_scales|Australian scale]] and [[Japan Meteorological Agency|JMA]]. Please remove them. -- Netoholic @ 22:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, those are the default and are seldom used. Removed, thanks for pointing them out to me. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing links was your idea and supported by a bunch of people here. Its not really acceptable to then say "well, we don't have a deadline" because we've seen from the previous discussion 2 years ago that nothing actually got done. You can't have it both ways. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't imagine why on earth you would be surprised that your telling people what they "need to do", and that they need to do it "ASAP", led to your being given a polite reminder that conscription is not currently used to enforce Wikipedia editing in any jurisdiction.

Also, "You can't have it both ways" doesn't make any sense in this context. Yes it's disappointing that things decided 2 years ago aren't completed 2 years later, but being the person that makes a proposal that something should be done, does not make that person individually responsible for carrying out the work. There seems to be a colossal misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works going on here... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Adjusting season infobox?

There was an ongoing discussion about the see also section, and I wanted to refocus it a bit. Right now, the SHEM seasons all link to one another, but the NHEM ones don't. Why not? It'd be easy to just add it, so that 2005 AHS would also link to PHS, PTS, and NIO all in the same infobox. That's what infoboxes are for, after all. See also sections are more appropriate for seasons that are actually similar, like other see also sections. Basically, for the coding, all that'd have to be added is a few lines to include NIO, WPAC, EPAC, and ATL.

For a similar discussion, I also don't think we should link the NHEM seasons to the seasons at the same time in the SHEM. There is little relation between 2005 AHS and 2004-05 SWIO seasons. If you wanted a link for both of them, then it should be an article for Tropical cyclones in 2005 (which has been proposed off and on over the years). However, by result of how the infobox would be coded, you could still add the ones from across the hemisphere if you wanted. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. United States Man (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I don't think this would be that controversial, does anyone who know coding want to make this change? I'm a bit of a coding n00b. :/ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose the removal of the SHEM links from NHEM articles and visa versa for various reasons, including the fact that the Worlds weather is interconnected. Hurricanehink makes the point that 2005 AHS and 2004-05 SWIO seasons, have very little in common which is true bar for the fact that the tropical waves probably originated very near too or over the SWIO. It is also worth noting that in every basin bar the Atlantic, tropical cyclones have been observed in both the NHEM and SHEM basins at the same time.Jason Rees (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I just mean that it shouldn't be mandatory. If you have the links in there as you do with the SHEM seasons, then it'd be optional, which I think works best and is easiest. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I briefly made an attempt at links in an adjustable navbox form, but I forgot about it relatively quickly. What would be the preferred format? Would you actually be adding this to the main season infobox? Dustin (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to show, my attempt may be seen at User:Dustin V. S./Template sandbox and User:Dustin V. S./sandbox#Template sandbox. I never figured out how I would get this to work for SHem seasons because there are multiple years, so I gave up on it for awhile. Dustin (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with JR that I oppose such removal. Climate patterns apply to the entire globe. For instance, say a WPAC storm sparks a WWB that sparks an El Nino, hence affecting all basins worldwide. As for whether the NHEM seasons get added to the infobox, meh. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying to remove them, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be mandatory. And, if all of the seasons are just added to the template, then any of them could be added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I'd love if we could implement this while the hurricane season is still active, perhaps get some feedback. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try adding it if no one minds... ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tcname unused

Is it time to change the template by getting rid of the coloring change? It came up on the FAC I have right now, and I've never thought of it before. The template mostly just indicates that a storm name wasn't used, both by color and adding (unused), but given the color and access issues we've been having lately, is the color change needed? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Implementation of IBTrACS merged data in the creation of track maps

I have been compiling a large data set using IBTrACS data for the West Pacific, as I am sure most of you are aware. However, I have not really discussed it with the project. The reason I have been using IBTrACS data is to create a more homogeneous and complete collection of tracks, some of which were not included by the JTWC, or that have holes in data that create misleading representation of some storms. Some users in the project feel like this is not what should be used in creating maps.

The process of creating the data is rather simple. Software compiles all available best track data, gives each track the same amount of weight, and produces a single track that follows the consensus of the tracking agencies. This usually creates a smoother and more complete track for each storm. The intensities I use come primarily from the JTWC, however, to fill gaps where their data is missing, the use of other agencies estimates are used. Some downsides in using IBTrACS data is when there are discrepancies in position the software will create a point that may not be in the original data, however, as stated, is a mean of the data. There is usually no wind data for the extra-tropical stage of a cyclone, and it must be found from another source. Winds are not always measured in 1-min sustained. The merged tracks are not official, but the project is endorsed by the WMO.

Here is an example of a track created with JTWC data and one created with IBTrACS data. JTWC IBTrACS

Here is a link to my West Pacific data I have processed thus far. [2]

I need feedback on why we should or shouldn't use IBTrACS to create track maps, or other suggestions to improve data interpretation. Supportstorm (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead with it. Since all of that data was issued by official agencies, there's no reason why we can't include them all in one track. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually not, the only official agencies are the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centers which, in the case of the West Pacific, would be the JMA. IBTrACS incorporates data sets that are not regulated by the WMO. Supportstorm (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Who cares if it is official?" The JTWC is every bit as if not more reliable than the "official" JMA. Dustin (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I enjoy more "complete" track maps, I'm opposed to the usage of IBTrACS track consensus since it takes into account unofficial agencies, which in many cases can lead to the existence of portions of a storm's track which were not officially monitored. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What I don't get is, why is reliability not more important than how "official" something is? What if the JMA stops monitoring some storm, but for some reason, another agency monitors the storm for a while after, why not incorporate that data? That IBTrACS map is a lot more complete than the JTWC-only one. Dustin (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

TAM, define "unofficial" agencies. We already use the JTWC for tracks. I'm not sure what to make of this; although it makes it complete, it is kinda cherry picking. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a page about it here. According to that page, "The World Meteorological Organization Tropical Cyclone Programme has endorsed IBTrACS as an official archiving and distribution resource for tropical cyclone best track data." Thoughts? Dustin (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What makes an agency official is that the WMO appoints it to track and forecast weather for a specific region. The West Pacific is a special case in which upwards of five agencies can be tracking a single storm, including the JMA. Even though the WMO supports the IBTrACS project it is only doing so as an archive. Supportstorm (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Supportstorm: If IBTrACS will be that much more complete, I still think that it makes more sense that it get used; it seems like there is more to gain than there is to lose, I think. Dustin (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. The IBTrACS are more complete and less biased than any standalone track, however, I wanted to hear others opinion on the subject since we all share this wiki. Supportstorm (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the LANCE-MODIS website is not working?

It hasn't been working for days, and I am getting impatient. Dustin (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is down because they are reprocessing images that were lost last year during a major hardware crash. Just going to have to sit this one out :I Supportstorm (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's too bad... =( Dustin (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Future Fa's?

Going off what we've started with the A class reviews, I was wondering if anyone had any articles they intend to take to FAC relatively soon (by the end of the year). If so, I think here could be a good place for discussion. As the member with the most FA's in the project, I'm happy to give input or reviews if anyone is interested. On that note, here are some articles I intend to nominate in the future.

Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Im looking at nominating [{Cyclone Anne]] at some point.Jason Rees (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa vs. Cyclones and Hurricanes !!!

Hello Cyclones and Hurricanes people!

I'm confused and I'm coming to you guys for expert advice.

I offered my opinion at Talk:2014_Ebola_virus_cases_in_the_United_States#RfC on "sub articles" off of Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa but now I'm not so sure I made the right comment there.
There are sub-articles off of that main article Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa for individual locations, including:
2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea

2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia

2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone

2014 Ebola virus case in the United States
But I noticed for Cyclones and Hurricanes, even big ones that impact large areas of the planet, on Wikipedia we don't seem to have "sub articles" for each location.
For example, Hurricane Katrina has the impact stuff in one big article, but Hurricane Irene has "effects" to locations in sub articles.

What do you think is best?

— Cirt (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it only works best to have sub-articles when there is the information to cover it. For example, the media has gone nuts about the effects in the US, even though only one person has been confirmed. Given all of that attention, an article is warranted. Elsewhere, it depends on the information. I think a Katrina scenario would work best, in that if there is too much info for the main article, eventually there should just be an article for 2014 Ebola virus epidemic by country, or something. It's similar to the 2009 flu pandemic by country, IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Australia Tropical Lows and La Reunions Unlabeled Tropical Disturbances

I am having a conflict with an IP user on the 2014–15 Australian region cyclone season article about whether or not the advisories on topical lows posted here are valid. It clearly states that the advisory is posted by the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology, BNOC, however, are these applicable to the season? If not should tropical lows be considered the same as tropical disturbances/ waves in other basins and not counted for? The same goes for the few times La Reunion included tropical disturbances in their daily ITCZ advisories, but, did not counted them in the season. Some examples include the July 8, 2013 tropical disturbance (Discussion about it here) and the July 6, 2014 zone of disturbed weather. Supportstorm (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Put it in the other storms section. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Weather Bureau

I've had an article on the Weather Bureau floating in my userspace for a while and don't expect to be active on WP in the foreseeable future; anyone want to help out? Thanks in advance. Cloudchased (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RFD for Lightning in a tropical cyclone

There is currently an RFD for Lightning in a tropical cyclone, and the nominator has asked for some input from those in the project. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 23, 2014

I did some pretty heavy tweaking on this Main Page summary for 1995 Pacific hurricane season. Suggestions? It's just slightly short for a summary, and could use a few more words. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Karen/archive1

Please see my note at User_talk:Cyclonebiskit#Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Karen/archive1. Ian just left a note at the bottom of the page saying that he's considering closing this in a day or two. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated note ... Hurricanehink hasn't edited since Oct 29, and his FAC, Typhoon Chanchu, was just archived. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

He has made some edits from his mobile account, but not much. He's a bit burnt out/busy IRL AFAIK. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Related note ... Laser has added more comments today, finding problems with accurate representation of the sources. Those comments need dealing with, either in this or a future FAC.

Another related note: I've never been able to win the fight to get rid of constructions like "35 km (22 mi) wide eye", but it feels clunky to me, and Laser is objecting to it. There are two problems: it's better with a hyphen (but you can't put a hyphen after a parenthesis), and prose should sound natural when you read it out loud ... this sounds very unnatural. If you guys are willing to change it, then I'll keep any eye out for it in future articles, and perhaps you could add it to your style guide. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Laser has pointed out that "peak intensity", as the phrase is often used by meteorologists (with multiple peaks as the storm falls apart and strengthens), is jargony, because in everyday speech, one event can have only one "peak intensity". Is there a fix for this? - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

List of named tropical cyclones

A few months ago @Hurricanehink: proposed that List of named tropical cyclones be merged with List of historic tropical cyclone names. As stated at the time i am in agreement with this merge and was going to go ahead and "merge" it this evening. However, i could do with hearing from several more project members because the article is one of our oldest ones and has quite a bit of history associated with it. Any comments are welcome at Talk:List of named tropical cyclones#Merge?.Jason Rees (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple FARs needed

Could active members please review WP:URFA? There are several very old FAs there in need of a Featured article review. If citations can be added and articles brought to standard, FAR can be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)IMO

IMO Most look okay, although some of the older ones need some work, they should not be too hard. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

List of retired Pacific typhoon names (JMA)

I have nominated List of retired Pacific typhoon names (JMA) to be removed from being a Featured List for the time being. My intention is to bring it back up to FL status over the course of the next year along with the 5 others but for the time being it needs removing i think. Please feel to comment here.Jason Rees (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Read-only WebCite

WebCite has been unavailable to archive anything for over ten days, becoming a read-only website. For archiving tropical cyclone warnings from agencies, we may need to use Internet Archive’s “Save Page Now”.I have tried to use Internet Archive in the article of Typhoon Hagupit and those citations work pretty well. -- Meow 17:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Keith Edkins: Are you contact with Webcite and able to shed some light on why its down this time. @Meow: What does the JMA provide in terms of their warnings? As i see it the main advisories we need covering are JTWC, Nadi, BoM and possibly Jakarta. Reunion, PAGASA and IMD archive their warnigns on their own site.Jason Rees (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: I have sent an email to WebCite but I got no response. JMA not only provides their warnings but all other agencies' on their GISC website. -- Meow 03:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Meow: Can you give me a more specific idea of which warning centres are on there - for example i can not find any of Nadis TDS's on there.Jason Rees (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Open Data contains all, including RSMC Nadi’s. -- Meow 15:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Meow: - i notice from a quick look through the site that its only this years warnings they provide from othr agencys which is a shame if true - because i was thinking that we might be able to use it as the original url instead of the actual warning link which is what i put in unless its Reunion or PAGASA.Jason Rees (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I use them and archive them to Internet Archive currently. The only disadvantage may be producing two longer URLs. -- Meow 18:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Winter articles by continent and tropical cyclone season article

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Non-tropical storms#My second attempt at a catch-all winter article: Draft:2014–15 North American winter

So, I thought it might be relevant because I partly based this idea on the formatting used for tropical cyclone season articles, so if any of you master-formatters are interested, just take a look! Dustin (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am also planning on a seasonal article for East Asian storms, including complete track data and more formal formats. -- Meow 17:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

November is not a winter month. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 18:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

But in many areas, it may be considered part of the meteorological winter. That is more of what the article is based on. Some places consider winter to start as early as the first hard freeze. In any case, I want this to also have some degree on predictions, and once the winter is over, the impacts of the season as a whole. Dustin (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

To editors of the typhoon season articles

It seems good that there are so many editors willing to contribute to the typhoon season articles. Unfortunately, most of them do not provide proper information. These people do not understand the RSMC Tokyo, as well as they often provide fake or unclear information without any citation. I do contribute and correct many parts, but I don’t have much time to fix anything there. If you are one of those people, please just stop contributing, or you are making people receive wrong information. Please stop. -- Meow 05:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Rig damage in the Gulf of Mexico

I'm currently reviewing 2004 Atlantic hurricane season for GA status, and when I got to Hurricane Ivan I recalled that it had done some damage to drilling rigs and platforms in the Gulf -- see this article, for example. I didn't see anything about this in the summary section in the season article, nor in the article on Ivan itself. Should this be included in coverage of Gulf hurricanes? I know about it because I used to work in the oil industry, but the sources are general reliable sources and could provide quite a bit of detail, I would think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I'm now co-writing the WP:TFA paragraphs, where this kind of thing is even more of a problem (and to be fair, it can be a problem for any DISASTER-related wikiproject ... it's not a particular problem for TROP ). When someone knowledgeable selects a particular hurricane to read about, they probably want data, but we've got 10 million hits a day on the Main Page ... and casual readers want to see some kind of storyline they can follow ... what it did to people, what the response was. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources allowing us data about impacts to offshore drilling rigs and platforms, then i do not see why it shouldn't be included in the systems main article. I am also looking at Ivan and can see some details on offshore impacts in the US sectionJason Rees (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Instalok's edits to tropical cyclone articles

I mostly agree with User:Meow about User:Instalok's edits to tropical cyclone articles, though of course I'm not taking it that personally. But what I find extremely concerning is Instalok's lack of communication: (s)he has not responded to any of the notes I left on his/her talk page. Somewhat less concerning is the fact that I consider his userspace to be copyright violations of the corresponding season articles because (s)he did not attribute the source articles accordingly. Other less serious concerns include not signing his/her posts in accordance to Wikipedia:Signatures (no links at all to his user page, talk page, or contributions), and his/her addition of unsourced information, such as a Fujiwhara effect between Eunice and Diamandra, which is even refuted by this.

@Typhoon2013: Since you have talked with him/her successfully, I'm wondering if you could offer to serve as his/her mentor. I think (s)he has potential, but first (s)he needs to be able to fit in with our editing community. I believe it is essential that (s)he at the minimum communicates with other editors about concerns with his/her edits, or nothing can be accomplished.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Well, it is a pleasure to help as well. I don't know if you know this but, he is just young! He is (Redacted) and I told him that he's too young but he doesn't care. Even with English, he doesn't care! But yes, not just me but I want others as well to help him with loads of stuff, right? I am so sad that someone from my country is editing Wikipedia with bad grammar, though :(. BTW I left this article link in my user page so anyone can help and contribute. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Well, the bottom line is that regardless of age, competence is required. This includes being able to uphold our community standards, including but not limited to communication. (please keep his age private, the policy on it is strict)--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon2013 as Jasper hinted anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia regardless of how old they are. However, I strongly feel that we have to be careful with how we talk to them and inform them about the rules/challenges of Wiki, especially when it comes to our articles on the TC Seasons which need all the decent help we can get due to them being very active. As a result while i recognise that Typhoon2013 has been the only one who has managed to managed to contact/communicate with Instalok, I do not think he is the best person to mentor Instalok in the rules/challenges of Wiki. I would step up to the plate myself but have enough on my plate at the moment.Jason Rees (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Well, Instalok just told me about his information. That's why I also told him not to reveal his personal information to public for his safety. @Jason Rees: Also yes I agree. I am not the best the person to mentor him and stuff. But guys, what do you still want me to do with him? Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Basically, I want for him to address the concerns I've brought up on his talk page. The communication issue is first and foremost something he has to fix immediately, then we can talk other things; both of you would do well to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors because ages are not something you should be posting even if he told you. @Jason Rees: Just saying, when we're criticizing Instalok for poor grammar, making a comment with similar grammatical mistakes ("i", "Wiki" — Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as "Wiki"!, "Seasons" (common noun, not capital) etc.) does not set a good example. --Jasper Deng (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Just remember that no one is perfect at spelling or grammar and that some of us prefer the research side of things rather than the language side of things. Anyway getting back to the issue in hand, I think the most important thing is to correct all off the false information in the seasonal articles. For example i would love to know how 13.1 S / 62.9 E is to the southeast of Mauritius and why we are suddenly using the SSHWS as the primary scale in that region.Jason Rees (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: If the spelling and grammar of a user is a mess to clean up and the user shows no effort to improve it, then it's disruptive editing, because it wastes others' time. The content of the articles is a matter different from Instalok's edits; we use SSHWS worldwide because it's the one most readers are familiar with and allows easy cross-basin comparison.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: These edits show me that he is trying to improve but i think it will take time and a little bit of guidance.Jason Rees (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Never did I say that he wasn't trying to improve the wiki. But regardless of intentions, if it becomes a mess to clean up after it's a mess to clean up after and not acceptable; in particular Typhoon2013's comment that he "doesn't care" about his grammatical errors justifies my saying that he "shows no effort to improve it". The fundamental problem is that all the guidance I put on his talk page has fallen on deaf ears. Those same grammatical errors I advised him about still show up in that diff, for example. Remember that spelling and grammar isn't his only issue. I'm still awaiting replies concerning his userspace and signature, for example.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is i dont know about the stuff in his userspace - its not fake stuff unlike others who randomly making systems up.Jason Rees (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: which is actually partly the problem: you cannot copy/paste text from Wikipedia articles, as he evidently did, without proper attribution to the source articles.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Being an administrator who works extensively on this project, what do you think should be done?--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I brought it up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Administrator attention requested for User:Instalok's edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's probably the best course of action. It's a difficult situation when someone is trying to help but it's just not... helpful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The person keeps providing fake information and uploading duplicated files. We should not endure anymore. -- Meow 16:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees:, @Hurricanehink:, @Jasper Deng:, @Meow: Ok, guys. Even though I am still thinking what to do with him, I just thought that everyone here who joined in this topic should actually have a live chat with him as well in the Internet Free Relay Chat (I think that's what is called). Does anyone agree? I'll gather my best time since I am busy everyday. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Update - he was blocked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng, Jason Rees, and Typhoon2013: I think Instalok created another account to parody Typhoon2013. This new account has the same broken English and editing style. It even mentions Instalok in the user space. Supportstorm (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Supportstorm: I just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instalok.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Supportstorm: After reading a mention of the NOAA Satellite Services Division on talk page of the user Typhoon2015 (before it was blanked and tagged; see Special:PermaLink/647625725), I remembered seeing a user (User:NOAA Satelite Services Division) having been blocked a few days ago. Could User:NOAA Satelite Services Division be related to what is being discussed here? Dustin (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems likely that it was another puppet. Supportstorm (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 20, 2015

A summary of 2001–02 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work? I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out that you guys would like to see put back in? Btw, I'm getting some pressure to pretty up lead sections when I do these TFA paragraphs, but you guys are diligent, I'll leave that job up to you ... you may or may not be interested in copying some of my verbiage into the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the summary looks great! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hink. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Gabrielle (2013) article under construction

Currently, the Tropical Storm Gabrielle (2013) is under construction at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Tropical cyclones/Sandbox 1, feel free to add any more info if you like. 98.174.223.41 (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does it need an article? What info is there that isn't in the season article section? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind terribly , but I do not want the 2013 AHS GT jeopardized. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think Gabrielle 13 needs an article. When I wrote the season article, there wasn't a whole lot more in the way of impact. The storm was only interesting from a meteorological standpoint, and even at that it's not terribly notable.--12george1 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Same here. I don't think Gabrielle needs an article. But why create it? Is there something odd about this cyclone? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's the end of the world if it gets one (no real harm either way, aside from the fact it jeopardizes the GT), but it's better off without it. I think new users in general see all these knew pages, and feel like if they made a new page, they're contributing something. They go through a bunch of lame ATL seasons and see Gabrielle is articleless and it affected land. Therefore, one is inclined to make one. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I, as well, do not think that an article is necessary. Everything that should be said can easily be said in the section on the season article. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FA tune-up

Hello all,

I have posted a short list of issues at Talk:1928 Okeechobee hurricane#Work needed. This is a featured article that was promoted in 2006. I need some hurricane-savvy folks to make sure the article doesn't make any claims that have become invalid over the intervening 9 years since it was promoted, and to help deal with a couple of citation needed tags. Appreciate if someone would take a look. Thanks, Maralia (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)