Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 → Archive 45

Wind Storm Scale/Color Scheme

As the Non-tropical storm project is inactive, I am bringing this to the most relevant project (which is WPTC). I for one feel that the current scale used on the season timeline image doesn't go high enough since we have numerous storms at 90, 100, 110, and even 120 mph gusts. I hereby propose the scale below which peaks with 160+ mph gusts in order to recognize the truly powerful storm that had a Cat 5 pressure. Since more of these will likely form over time, it makes sense to have a scale to recognize them now. As this is simply a way of showing the gust speed data (certain ranges) in color form, I believe we have the power to alter it as need be. NoahTalk 02:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

@Lacunae and Hurricane Noah: I am not sure it is wise to include such a scale within the season articles and seems to be OR to rate them using wind gusts. As a result, I am very tempted to rip the storm colours out of Template:Storm Colour.Jason Rees (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Hm... I guess I see your point. We basically are making Categories for them (although not directly specifying them as such) by expressing the wind data by color. Go ahead and remove it and I will delete the timeline data. NoahTalk 22:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to hear from @Lacunae: before we rip them out since he has been trying to maintain the articles a bit. I would also support the timeline staying but we should just use one colour or colour them by naming agency ie: NHC, UKMO & Met Eirrean.Jason Rees (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: Well... I already ripped out the wind "scale" part. The timeline and storms remain though. I would like infoboxes to have colors for the agency that named them to make it easier to identify though. NoahTalk 22:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I have anything to add. The only differentiation I could think to add that wouldn't be OR might be whether the warning is red or orange, but as the vast majority are orange I'm not sure how useful that would be.Lacunae (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lacunae: How about we just make the bars the agency that named them and possibly add the same information to the infobox (with a colored bar) to help people out since we have 3 official agencies naming storms (albiet the NHC only names them while tropical). NoahTalk 13:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: We currently have 8 WMO warning centres and the FU Berlin naming systems in Europe and their not all interchangeable.Jason Rees (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox hurricane listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Infobox hurricane to be moved to Template:Infobox tropical cyclone. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Cat 1 list

I'm happy to say I got the EPAC Cat 1 list done and nominated for FLC today. We have made great strides in getting these lists complete. NoahTalk 20:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Barnstar Nomination #1

I would like to officially nominate User:Hurricanehink to be the first recipient of the gold barnstar, "lifetime achievement" award (recently added as a part of the new awards). He has taken more than 75 articles to FA status and 20 articles to FL. On top of that, he has taken many more articles to GA status. Additionally, he has helped to guide and mentor many newer users and project members. Hink's contributions to our project are invaluable. Based on that, I believe he should receive this award. As this is the first such nomination for any kind of award, keep in mind that consensus is reached through discussion. Please feel free to leave your thoughts on the nomination below. NoahTalk 22:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ACE Calculator

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to approach you about this here, but I have written a tool in C# and WPF for calculating accumulated cyclone energy. It can use knots or mph, and I have worked quite hard on it. If any individual here requests a download, I will provide it. (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to advertise it here). Thanks, - Skynorth/Cosmohey 20:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone Bulbul listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cyclone Bulbul to be moved to Cyclone Bulbul–Matmo. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Project Goals

So the project is almost 15 years old. That's pretty old for the internet, so I think it's time to discuss what the goals of the project are, how we can better organize content, and encouraging new editors who are looking for some direction.

  • Putting season effects chart first in every season article, and make sure every season has a chart
  • Add more optional categories in the individual storm infoboxes, such as maximum rainfall, storm surge, number of tornadoes
  • Finishing creating intensity lists for every category for every basin
  • Finish creating effects lists for every location around the world
  • I propose there be an effort to get every storm worldwide by location back to 2000 as a start, and move our way back through time
  • Add a sortable chart to every effects location list (damage, deaths, rainfall, highest recorded wind)
  • Migrate all of the data from Wikipedia onto WP:Wikidata - location (imagine they're hashtags and can be pulled up individually), strength, damage (by location ideally), every landfall

These are just a few ideas, not all of them are mine. The last point I discussed (I believe) with User:TheAustinMan (sorry for pinging if it wasn't you). I believe it could be a good project initiative if we have some goal/direction for handling the entire project, as we enter the 2020s, and approaching the 15 year anniversary of this WikiProject. Please feel free to add your thoughts on how the project can be best effective to the public. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

2002 Featured Topic

To do

Mass list creation needed

Category:Tropical cyclones by year - we currently only have eight proper lists for yearly lists of tropical cyclones by years. There are annual lists for tornadoes back to 1960, and earthquakes go back to 1900. We have good records for tropical cyclones going back to the 1800s. Why not have yearly lists? That could help cross-reference what we have in the season articles. Considering we only have 8, and we could easily go back to 1900, then that means there are 111 yearly articles that need to be created. That's not nothing. For any editors out there who wonder what projects they can do and have a lot of independence in working on an important article, here is your chance. Tropical cyclones in 1939, right before World War II? Sure. Tropical cyclones in 1966, when we finally got satellite imagery around the world? Great idea. Tropical cyclones in 2000, highlighting when the JMA began handling naming responsibility? Great bit of trivia for an article. Tropical cyclones in 2013? That's only six years ago. Most people editing remember that year, it wasn't that long ago (and no offense to any young editors who don't remember it!) But fact is, we have a lot of yearly articles that need to be created. So, lil help? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I could do some of these at some point during December or next year. What would you suggest for the structure of older years since hydrological and atmospheric conditions were not really measured for entire basins? A summary of the deadliest and/or costliest storms around the world? We do need some way of filling up the older years in order to make them worthy of FL Status. NoahTalk 15:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Some of the older years will require some extra research if you want to go for FL. That includes finding the damage and deaths for every storm that year around the world. Currently, only the Atlantic has a lot of good articles on old seasons, with an occasional one in the western Pacific. There is only good yearly coverage around the world going back to 1970. Hopefully people who work on years before 1970 could help with the basin articles at the same time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change to season articles: move effects table to the beginning of the article

Right now, most season articles have a lead, graphic timeline, a general summary, forecasts, and then a list of storms in the season. At the very end of the article is the summary table. I was discussing season articles with a friend, who said that there should be a neat organized table first. I’ve been thinking about it, and I think the season effects table should be one of the first things readers read. The articles need to be convenient and useful for everyone. I believe that having the table first will be a net positive, but it will require some time to move all of those sections. Any thoughts? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Michael (disambiguation) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Michael (disambiguation) to be moved to List of hurricanes named Michael. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Storm set index articles not dab articles

Please see requested move at: Talk:Hurricane Michael (disambiguation)#Requested move 18 December 2019

This issue can be generalized as a question of whether Storm set index articles listed in the Category:Set indices on storms should have titles ending in the (disambiguation) qualifier. I don't believe they should, since they aren't disambiguation pages, but rather set index articles. Relevant policy is at WP:SIANOTDAB and WP:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Storm_set_index_articles

I would have thought this was uncontroversial and settled policy, but a page move I made was reverted as contrary to policy. I want to establish that such moves are in accordance with policy.Coastside (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe all storm set index articles should be merged into naming lists for each letter. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the response. I didn't mean to kick off a discussion of how we might change current policy, as I know there is a lot of prior discussion on that. I want to affirm the current policy (I pointed to the relevant policy sections) and get feedback on whether Storm index articles with titles ending in the (disambiguation) qualifier should be renamed if we follow the currently accepted policy. Coastside (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yearly cyclone articles and the SHem

Noah and I were discussing how the tracks I was creating for the yearly articles were including storms following the season not the yearly start dates. Traditionally for the southern hemisphere, and the reason I created them like this, the storms forming at the start of the season would be counted for the year the season ends on. So say for instance, the 1988-89 season would be considered part of the 1989 year. This is evident when looking through IBTrACS, BoM or even the JTWC track data. So should the yearly articles follow the tracking methodologies of these agencies or to ones the project has already set in place? I can alter the track maps to follow the year dates but it annoys me going against the tracking agencies procedures and including two seasons of cyclones. Supportstorm (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I would personally argue that the yearly articles are talking about tropical cyclones in that year and are strictly cut off in January of the following year once the final system of the year has dissipated (This year we are looking for when Sarai/Calvina dissipate). As a result, I do not see why the track maps would include tropical cyclones of the previous year (eg: Liua for 2019). This is also consistent with the methodologies of the [Fiji Meteorological Service] which in its annual summary gives TC's for the whole year regardless of the cut off.Jason Rees (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Looking at the format of Nadi best track data doesn't side with either year. And looking at Reunion data actually does the opposite, lumping the season's storms with the starting year. I'll fix the yearly tracks when I get a chance. Supportstorm (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

2005 Atlantic hurricane season

I have nominated 2005 Atlantic hurricane season for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. NoahTalk 04:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

In the discussion of 2005 AHS, a few users and I believe that the List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics articles should be merged into a single article, located at Draft:2005 Atlantic hurricane season. As the list article is featured, that necessitates a FLRC, see here- Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

National Academies editathon this Friday/Saturday

Hi everyone. On Feb 21 and 22, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine will be hosting an editathon focusing on climate change. Participants will include scientific experts on the attribution of extreme weather events, including tropical cyclones, to climate change. Please give the new editors a warm welcome, and consider signing up on the event dashboard if you would like to participate remotely in real-time. If you have questions for the experts, please drop a note on the talk page of the relevant article or on this project talk page, and ping me. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "Other systems" section from Australian region article

I would like to comment on why the notion of an "Other systems" section is a flawed concept. The purpose of a season article is to fully document every system which formed or existed during the season, no matter how minor. Its purpose is not to solely document the major systems and forget about the minor ones—that is what individual cyclone articles are for. The "Other systems" section, as it exists in other articles, is almost exclusively a disjointed and poorly written afterthought which provides effectively no useful or contextual information to a reader whatsoever. It breaks the conventions of written paragraphs, which should generally focus on one particular topic, and should not consist of a messy conglomeration of unconnected information with no cohesion or logical flow. The "Other systems" section, by its nature, also prevents the inclusion of satellite imagery and track maps (where available), which provide a large amount of context to the reader graphically. The argument that the "Other systems" section should be used in long articles to save space is also illogical. A long article is perfectly fine as long as it is well written. It does not present any navigation issues to readers because the contents box can be used to find each section, and it does not present editing issues either, as one need only click the edit button in the relevant section. I concede that there is a small argument for the "Other systems" section if no one can be bothered to write more than one sentence for a tropical low in its main section; however, I will always write a suitable piece for systems in the Australian region if no one else does. ChocolateTrain (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The other systems section are not about us being lazy and not being bothered to write more than one sentence about a system, as it isnt always possible to give each system a paragraph bearing in mind Wikipedia's policies on original research and due weight as well as what we get from the Warning centers. There isn't a lot you can say about a tropical depression that is only classified for six hours, without entering the realms of original research - in fact within the Australian region I have just added two new systems to OS in 2003-04 Aus that were briefly monitored by the FMS within the Aus Region.Jason Rees (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:UNDUE, we shouldn't be giving too much focus and attention on the weakest and shortest-lived storms. I find the "Other systems" section very useful for these systems. These weaker systems don't really need an image and a track map, not when they're just a disorganized blob of clouds normally lasting for a short amount of time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Jason and Hink in that the other storms section serves as a place for storms that have very little information on them. This is required to ensure that appropriate coverage is given to them since a section isn't a viable option for every storm. NoahTalk 21:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is not really applicable in this context. WP:UNDUE is a subsection of WP:NPOV that mandates that excessive weight should not be given to minority viewpoints or opinions which contradict the widely accepted norm. I think what you are trying to say is to not get "bogged down" with smaller systems, but this does not fall under WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV—including sections on smaller systems does not lend false authority to, or mislead the reader into accepting, any minority viewpoints or fringe ideas. The only situation I could think of where WP:UNDUE might be called upon is if some celebrity or politician in the media was claiming that climate change had no effect on some particular strong cyclone, despite scientific consensus stating the opposite. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I should also point out that I completely understand Wikipedia's policy on no original research. I always make sure that I provide references for all of the information I add when writing on Wikipedia, and that doesn't change when I'm covering a weak tropical low. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
What I very much would support, regarding the "Other systems" section, is its use as a place to document unofficial tropical systems within the region. For example, If the BOM was to identify the existence of a tropical low at, say, 15°S 162°E, but the FMS had not yet recognised the system, then this tropical low should be placed in the SPac article's "Other systems" section. The text could read something like, "On 17 March, the Bureau of Meteorology noted that a weak tropical low had formed within a monsoon trough between Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. The system remained slow-moving and exhibited only limited signs of development, before eventually dissipating on 21 March. The FMS did not classify the system as a tropical disturbance during its lifetime." Occasionally, the JTWC's tracking data also indicates that a system has passed into the neighbouring basin, despite the official data showing otherwise. An example of this would be Tropical Cyclone Lorna from the 2018–19 SWIO season. From memory, the official tracking data indicated that Lorna reached 89.7°E (which I must admit made me pretty disappointed, given that this is only 30 km from the Australian region) before heading back westwards; however, the JTWC analysed the system at 90.0°E for a twelve-hour period on 28 April. Thus, Lorna was unofficially considered to have entered the Australian region, and this could be noted in an "Other systems" section in the relevant Australian article. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE doesnt apply in the traditional sense for TCs since there are rarely "minority viewpoints". This instead is translated as minor systems shouldn't receive the same coverage as named and major storms. Bloating out the page in coverage of these systems also poses other issues. It makes the work look quite unprofessional with all that white space. Also, do those storms really warrant having their own sections? We don't create sections on pages for aspects of the subject that have little information so these storms should not have their own sections if all we can amass is a sentence or two. If there is enough information out there, create a section for the storm. Keep in mind if we remove this for AUS, it has to be done everywhere to keep it consistent. Imagine being forced to have 50-60 storm sections on WPAC articles since every minor TD would get one. NoahTalk 13:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think each basin necessarily needs to have an identical season article structure. Some individual tweaking could definitely be justifiable to tailor the article to each basin. For example, the Atlantic and Pacific hurricane season articles have the intensity of each storm written in the timeline, whereas the other basins don't. Those articles also use the Imperial system as their primary measurement unit (I get that the US is the largest country in each of the basins, but it is still the only one that uses Imperial measurements officially) whereas the rest of the articles use Metric. Some basins fill out the season summary section with actual paragraphs, whereas some only have the timeline. I think the western Pacific could definitely use an "Other systems" section due to the always-high number of systems, but I wouldn't say that would need to be translated into all of the other basins as well, because different basins have different situations and circumstances. I still contend that where practical, each system still deserves its own section, even if just a tropical low. If we were really giving due weight to each system, then we should actually be putting an entire article's worth of information for major systems rather than just two paragraphs. However, that is of course not practical on a season article because it would be enormous, so we use individual cyclone articles. The season article's purpose, then, is to give a well-rounded summary of every system that formed, including the small ones, because significant weight no longer needs to be dedicated to the larger cyclones given that they already have their own articles. ChocolateTrain (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You're right. If every storm affected land and was named, we wouldn't need to have an other storms section. It's useful for any article that has a large number of weak or short-lived storms. You mentioned that you could write lengthy sections for each "other storms" section. Weak/short-lived storms don't need a lot of words written about them. You can be brief in discussing unimportant systems. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
If that's the case, then I don't really understand what the point of a season article is. It is effectively redundant if its primary purpose is to provide significant detail only on systems that already have their own articles. Major systems already have their own article, so why do they need their own section when systems which don't have their own article are denied a small section in the only place where they can actually be documented? It is illogical. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, I should point out that I am certainly not advocating for giving minor tropical lows lengthy or highly detailed sections. I understand that that is not necessary. What should be included, however, is: a sentence on the system's formation date and location; a sentence on the weather patterns and climate drivers which contributed to the system's development, if the information is available; a sentence on the system's movement and intensification/development, if applicable; and a sentence on the dissipation. That level of information is certainly not excessive or unnecessary, but should be sufficient to justify the inclusion of an individual section. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
^We can include all that in a OS perfectly fine, depending the circumstances. However, I agree there needs to be flexibility with this sort of thing. If a couple hundred words can be written on a tropical low, giving it an individual section has merit. Or if only one or two systems in a season do not warrant a full blown section, said information can be shoved in the seasonal summary. But at the same time, we can't have whitespace in seasonal sections, hence the needed for OS sections in the first place. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan, Hurricanehink, and Hurricane Noah: I feel that the last few days in the SPAC should have shown @ChocolateTrain: why it is better to combine and present the information regarding certain disturbances in one section rather than two or three. However, I feel that ChocolateTrain was right to challenge the status quo and that we use this opportunity to look at how we develop the season articles within each basin. The current and most popular layout is Seasonal forecasts, seasonal summary, storms, seasonal effects, see also, references, external links to the forecasting agencies of that basin. The seasonal forecast section speaks for itself, while it has long been my view that the seasonal summary should contain a brief summary of the systems as well as any major climate drivers such as the ENSO, IOD etc. However, I recognise that it is hard to do this at times. Storms speaks for itself while it has been mooted that seasonal effects be combined with Seasonal Summary.Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Well said, agreed with the previous two users! *insert gif of Pelosi clapping* ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage of hurricanes is great, but our coverage of floods is abysmal

In case anyone here is interested, it seems English Wikipedia has a large blind spot when it comes to coverage of floods: "fewer than 20 percent of major floods in low-income countries have Wikipedia pages in English."[1][2] If any of y'all are getting bored of writing about hurricanes, there's plenty of space over at WikiProject Floods ;) I'm starting with 2018 floods in Sudan in case anyone wants to help. Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Paleotempestology/GA1

Greetings,

there has been a request for a second opinion on Talk:Paleotempestology/GA1 that needs input. Note that I am the GA nominator of that article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A-class reviews

(brought back out of the archive from last year) List the article below for requests for a peer review. These should be articles held to the same standards as featured articles.

  1. Typhoon Ike. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC) - (review in process)
  2. Typhoon Mireille ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - (discussion)
  3. Cyclone Leon-Eline ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC) - review
  4. Effects of Hurricane Wilma in Mexico ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  5. Hurricane Gordon (1994) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  6. Tropical Storm Fern (1996) Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Vicente (2018)

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 18:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Asking for an A-class review for this article. I would like to eventually take this to FAC. NoahTalk 18:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  • "was an unusually small tropical cyclone" - you never mention the storm size directly, so how do we know what's usual for a TC size?
  • Mentioned size with the extent of peak winds in the met. NoahTalk 15:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "The twenty-first named storm" - why not write it as a number?
  • Eh... I think it looks more professional when written out this way rather than 21st. NoahTalk 15:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "A brief break from the dry air during the next day allowed the storm to recuperate and slightly strengthen before outflow from the nearby Hurricane Willa caused further weakening. " - that's a lot
  • Split. NoahTalk 15:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • What was the peak rainfall?
  • Added that. NoahTalk 15:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "The heavy rainfall caused numerous rivers to spill their banks, dozens of landslides to occur, and severe flooding to ensue elsewhere." - grammar is off
  • Im not seeing what's wrong with it. NoahTalk 15:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Plan DN-III-E was activated in multiple states to provide aid to a large number of affected individuals" - why not write in the lead how many people were affected
  • Cut the mention of number since I have no idea how many in total were affected by the storm or how much the aid would cover. NoahTalk 19:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe mention somewhere that convection = thunderstorms?
  • Mentioned. NoahTalk 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe mention that the NHC didn't anticipate development due to the system's small size and nearby presence of Willa?
  • Mentioned it right after formation and before mention of the environment. NoahTalk 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "The depression was upgraded into Tropical Storm Vicente around 18:00 UTC" - that's the first time reference this paragraph
  • Dont think this applies anymore given the reorganization of the met. NoahTalk 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Throughout the majority of the day, October 19, the system was less than 115 mi (185 km) off the coast of Guatemala while it inched towards the northwest." - that's kinda weird (bold part). It'd be more useful to know how close it was, not just "less than 115 mi"
  • Cut the of the day part. I think the fact that it was so close for so long is more important than a slightly closer point. Keep in mind that I do mention it being only 90 mi away when it formed into a TD. I dont see the need to mention anything closer than that when it was very close to the coast for the entire day. NoahTalk 19:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "was located less than 115 mi (185 km) off the coast of Chiapas and Oaxaca, Mexico" - was located less than 115 mi off the Mexican coast, off the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca" - just a suggested rewording
  • That wording seems a bit odd to me. NoahTalk 19:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "An overall green alert" - is "overall" redundant?
  • Im not the one that came up with the warning system. They refer to it in that manner. NoahTalk 19:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Rainfall totals of 6.21 in (157.7 mm) and 5.31 in (134.8 mm) were recorded in Zihuatanejo, Guerrero" - two rainfall totals for the same location?
  • I believe they were recorded by different companies/organizations. I felt it useful to list both since there were few rainfall totals given. NoahTalk 19:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Residents were evacuated from the Jacarandas neighborhood by state officials and police officers after a gasoline leak occurred." - was the leak related to the storm?
  • clarified that. NoahTalk 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Rio Grande river overflowed and drainage systems were completely filled throughout the Morelia municipality." - Rio Grande = Big River in Spanish, so that reads "The Big River River". Also, add a comma
  • Done. NoahTalk 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Ventura Puente, Carlos Salazar, Jacarandas, Los Manantiales, and Industrial experienced flooding up to 1 m (3.3 ft) deep"- are these neighborhoods of Morelia? If so, add that to the earlier bit when you mention the 27 neighborhoods being flooded
  • fixed that. NoahTalk 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "The heavy rainfall also caused the ground to give way near Atapaneo" - so a landslide?
  • Yeah, but the phrase clearly means collapse and I don't want to include another instance of landslide given its usage later on. From pictures, it didn't look like it was that much anyways. It seemed to be just enough to break the track and cause the train to derail. NoahTalk 20:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "A storm drainage ditch that empties into the Chahué Bay overflowed" - wording could be stronger
  • Fixed? NoahTalk 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Part of the drainage ditch collapsed and a sinkhole developed on a bridge." - the drainage part should be in the previous sentence. Also, if a bridge is over water, how can a sinkhole occur on a bridge?
  • Added via semicolon. I dont know whether the collapse caused flooding so I cant use "and" to connect the two. Don't ask how sinkholes can occur on bridges. I really don't know how they do and numerous English sources have reported sinkholes on bridges. NoahTalk 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Twenty-one communities were left without any outside communication as a result of severe floods" - are these the same 21 you mentioned being isolated earlier?
  • Cut the first mention and left the more detailed one. NoahTalk 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "In the Santa Cruz de Tuxtepec neighborhood, affected individuals were removing mud from their homes after river flooding decreased." - wouldn't residents affected by floods be doing the same elsewhere in the state?
  • Removed that. NoahTalk 21:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "A fence collapsed in Santiago Jamiltepec, resulting in several homes being inundated by floodwaters." - how does a fence collapsing = flooding?
  • Translation error. NoahTalk 21:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Fringe effects from the storm triggered flooding in Veracruz, leaving three people dead." - can you be clearer what these fringe effects are? Like, did it rain in the state?
  • Changed to rainfall NoahTalk 21:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • " In the Álamo-temapache municipality, the Green stream " - I'm guessing this is because of translation, but for water and land features, we should use the original language
  • Fixed. NoahTalk 21:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

All in all a pretty good article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Everything should be addressed. NoahTalk 21:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to support for A-class! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
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.

Cyclone Leon–Eline

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the article is in decent shape for FAC, or if I should focus on the sub-articles for Madagascar and Mozambique floods. If the latter is needed, then I'll archive this ACR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hurricanehink, I think you should go for the sub-articles. I'm also closing this ACR by myself. SMB99thx my edits! 06:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink and SMB99thx: where are your "more than one reviewer" per WP:ACLASS? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @MarioJump83 – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. MarioJump83! 00:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Support from MarioJump83

I'll formally reviewing this. Based on my quick review, I got this:

These articles are not WP:CFORK and I do not believe merging these articles into Cyclone Leon–Eline is appropriate. Overall, I do believe that this article is more than enough to make Leon–Eline FAC based on the size of 2018 Global FT Pacific hurricane articles and add 2000 Mozambique flood & Early 2000 Madagascar floods into 1999–2000 SWIO GT. MarioJump83! 01:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: I would like you to close this ACR, per WP:ACLASS. MarioJump83! 10:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Support from LightandDark2000

Reading through the article, I only found a few issues that needed to be addressed:

  • The usage of "Category" as a noun. "Category" is not a noun, but it was used as such in several instances. I went through the article and wrote out the storm's full status in each of those cases.
  • Eline had re-attained tropical cyclone at 12:00 UTC There was an grammatical error here in which the storm's status was not properly written out when the sentence was referring to it. I fixed that as well.
  • stating they flood refugees from Mozambique would be deported if they entered illegally. There was a grammatical error here in which "they" was incorrectly used instead of "that". I also fixed this as well.

The article is very comprehensive and very well-written. As such, after making the necessary corrections, I feel that this article meets the A-Class requirements, and as such, I agree with MarioJump83's decision to promote this article to A-Class. As such, I am passing this A-Class review. Congratulations! LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Effects of Hurricane Wilma in Mexico

Archived per the FAC nomination. NoahTalk 19:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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.


Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope to get Wilma to be a featured topic by its 15 year anniversary. I recently finished this article, so I think it is pretty polished, and would like a fresh set of eyes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Since you are taking this to FAC, do you want to close this review for now? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:40, 21 April 2020 (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.

Hurricane Gordon

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a shame I didn't do this last year for its 25 year anniversary, oh well. It's still a significant storm, and I put a lot of work into this article. There's probably some dumb fixes I need to do, since it's on the older side, so I'd appreciate a fresh set of eyes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there anyone willing to review this for A-class? I'm not going to promote this for A-class (unlike Typhoon Ike) because I think there is a lot of fixes to do. MarioJump83! 05:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I am probably going to review this with the recent series of disputes on WPTC. It will be a major challenge for me. MarioJump83! 23:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from MarioJump83

I'll stream my review live in Discord. MarioJump83! 23:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirect-quality and List-class

There are only 70-something redirect quality tropical cyclone articles, and there are probably 10,000+ tropical cyclone redirects that either don't have talk pages at all or have redirect talk pages. I personally think that that defeats the purpose of Redirect quality. I haven't been going around creating talk pages for redirects saying Redirect quality, NA importance since it's not even true (yet), but maybe this will cause you to start doing that. Additionally, I don't know how to become a member of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones and want to become one. Can someone show me? Chicdat (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Not every redirect needs to have a talk page. It doesn't really help or add anything to the project. Most of the talk pages with redirect class can probably be deleted, unless there's some discussion going on. As for joining, all you have to do is add your name here! Welcome to the project, and good luck with your sandbox on List of Alabama hurricanes! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see the support of redirect class. Or even stuff like list class if I'm being real. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Would you propose using the assessment scale (Stub to B) instead of List class? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I like that idea. (Stub-B.) Chicdat (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
That's more useful calculating the Wikiwork. Of course, what if we have an otherwise perfect list, but one storm is missing. Is it really stub-class? Is it only B-class if it has the entire historical record covered, with everything referenced? What makes a list a Start class vs stub? (references?) What about C-class? (largely comprehensive/referenced) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I object to the rule whereby we say that all season are stub class if they are missing a system, as I know that the RSMCs have not always been brilliant at record keeping in public.Jason Rees (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's see... maybe we can just split list class into Featured, A, "Good List" or something like that, B, C, Start and Stub. Stub would be things like a disorganized list with huge grammatical errors.Chicdat (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The redirect class doesn't affect much in the long wrong. Classifying list-class as actual articles would affect the Wikiwork, or overall quality, so that should be discussed further. What if a list isn't disorganized or written poorly, but it's only a few items on what should be a much longer list? For example, you have 10 items listed in a list article, but it should be more like 50 or 100. Would that be stub if it's written well and is cited? What would a Start or C or A class list even look like? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Two days ago I went around redirecting redirect-class tropical cyclone talks to the talks of the articles the redirects redirect to. (I'm sorry if that doesn't make any sense.) I personally think, that in the matter of redirect-quality, unlike the other qualities (except List), it doesn't say anything about the reason why we even have talks on Wikipedia in the first place: for the people on Wikipedia to see what's fine in the article, what needs improvement, how it can be improved, and how important the topic is. In redirects, the only thing it says is: #Redirect Some other article. What is fine in it? Ummm... it's hard to tell. What needs improvement? Ummm... it's also hard to tell. How can it be improved? Ummm... that's a hard one. And finally, how important is the topic? It isn't. Redirect quality is totally un-necessary! Chicdat (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm glad you went around and removed them/redirected them to other talk pages. For the talk pages of merged articles, you shouldn't redirect the talk pages, as we need to have the discussion for the merger; even those talk pages don't need the redirect class. It doesn't add anything for the assessment scale. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, go back to stub-A for list articles for WW purposes. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

And, about my article, List of Alabama hurricanes... I'm glad whoever put it at C-class instead of List-class did so. 🐔Chicdat (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are we redirecting talk pages? YE Pacific Hurricane 19:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Read the rest of the discussion. 🐔Chicdat (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I did but that doesn't answer my question. What is wrong with this? YE Pacific Hurricane 16:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This is why (from Hurricanehink): Redirect-quality doesn't add anything for the assessment. And he's right: it doesn't! 🐔Chicdat (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree but why are we redirecting talk pages and in some cases explicitly removing discussion? The removal of redirect class has nothing to do with this. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually nvm, you are getting it. Yeah just do not blank any talk pages and instead remove the WPTC project banner when there is a redirect. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, Yellow Evan, that's what I'm going to do. Now do you get it? 🐔Chicdat (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)



User:FleurDeOdile

Extended content

Okay, I really much DISLIKE this user. He keeps reverts my uploads in tracks, and I can see that @Hurricanehink:, @ChocolateTrain:, @TheAustinMan: are starting to be annoyed to him. I just get really irritated at how vague his explanation, and the "image war" situation. I really regret defending his image on File:Fani 2019-05-02 0732Z.jpg if this is the result. There is Polar2Grid if you want to use the software to create science-quality images, but I can understand why he use GIMP for correction of radiance. All I can really say is the I want a temporary block on this user. Maybe related to my case (Instalok puppetry)? Regards, 👦 06:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nino Marakot: I have collapsed your comment as this is the wrong venue for such a discussion. If you feel so strongly about this, there are several pages on WP that you can comment on to try and resolve the issue. Perhaps check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Best wishes, NoahTalk 20:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: Okay, thanks for the advice. But how do I say this to him when he didn't even response to my messages? Regards, 👦 03:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Formal discussion on A-class reviews and procedures

There has been an influx in A-class reviews here lately and I would like to bring up some proposals I have for this aspect of the project.

  1. Per Wikipedia:Content assessment/A-Class criteria, we have at least two reviewers for each article
  2. Everyone adds 'A-Class=current' to the WPTC line of the talk page so the reviews get added to article alerts.
  3. We follow a procedure similar to what I did for Vicente above so each article has its own review page and is transcluded. We would also need to update the article history afterward.
  4. Any uninvolved project member may close and archive the nomination if consensus has been reached. Involved members include the nominator, anyone with substantial edits to the article, and the reviewers.
  5. All past articles set at A-class remain there unless consensus is reached to remove that status.
  6. The process is to help articles improve to a quality that is ready for FAC in a more incubative environment rather than a stressful, combative one. The A-class process would be more along the lines of a peer review, except we are assessing at FA quality with multiple reviewers.
  7. All articles are encouraged to go through the A-class process (not required) to get feedback for improvement before FAC.
  8. The reviewer of the GAN may not review for A-class. NoahTalk 13:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Having a more formal and transparent process would make us look like a much more reliable and trustworthy project to outsiders. I think having a formal set-up for A-class would help bridge the gap between GA and FA. It would be a way to also help newer users who haven't written at that caliber to improve and get helpful feedback on their articles in a nurturing environment. That being said, A-class won't be freely and easily given out. Content not near or at the GA writing level should be instantly failed, but feedback should still be given. I want us to do anything we can to try and encourage new users to join and stay in our project. Having been a new user myself once, I really appreciated all the mentorship that occurred. Please leave thoughts and suggestions below. NoahTalk 21:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds great. ~ AC5230 talk 22:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if we need two reviewers for each article, that might slow down the whole process, nor that we need two coordinators. I think it could be one and one. The problem is usually a lack of reviews on FAC, not that articles aren't ready when they go up for FAC. Could you go a bit further into your thought process, Noah? I'd also add a requirement that the person who reviewed the GAN can't review for ACR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Well.. for the reviews part, I stated two reviewers since that is what the content assessment page says. I quote "Assessing an article as A-Class requires more than one reviewer". For the coordinators, what if someone needs to take a vacation or something happens? The issue we have with FAC is that experienced editors have been the ones getting the FAs as of late. There really hasn't been anyone new stepping up to the plate. I figured that an extra review process to encourage new users to keep going is what we need. NoahTalk 13:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Yea, that works, I'm cool with that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I broadly agree with this plan. I've tried to establish/revive an A-Class review system at least twice over the years, but people would invariably get bored after the first few submissions and revert back to their nominal Start-Class → GA → FA workflow. Hopefully, with enough interest and dedication, we can avoid that this time. My two cents: I'm not convinced we need a coordinator, let alone two (let alone with terms!). That sort of bureaucracy works for precisely one WikiProject, and it isn't this one. Nominations should be closed by any uninvolved project member – ie. somebody who hasn't contributed significantly to the article or the review. This worked for WP:USRD/ACR in its heyday, which saw more activity than would-be WPTC/ACR could ever pray to attract. Despite the entrance of a few new players recently, this is still a small, tight-knit project; unfortunately, it's likely that we're still going to have to twist some arms and pull some teeth just to get the prerequisite two reviews on each article. Taking two editors out of the equation by making them coordinators is a good way to kill this endeavor before it even starts. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Digital outreach for the projects

There are a lot of editors here, a lot more than usual, which is great. I wonder how we can cultivate that interest. I'm not the only one who's stuck inside lately. (future humans, hope things work out OK!) So a lot of people here are also active on Storm2k, or Facebook groups dedicated to hurricanes, or Reddit, and other online platforms. I'm no expert in any of that, but it got me hoping there might be someone here who is. We're all connected in different ways on here, and I think we could exploit those connections more. I've been blogging about the project on Storm2k, but I think we could do more to foster that general tropical cyclone interest online. Anyone have any thoughts on that? I'd love to explore that more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hurricanehink, I do know a large weather server on Discord, but I don't think I am qualified to promote the WikiProject there; in fact, most of our heavyweights prefer IRC to Discord. I'd be happy to discuss this further on Discord, though I am currently on a break. When can we discuss this? JavaHurricane 04:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
We can discuss it here, whenever you see this message JavaHurricane. Yea, Discord, IRC, Facebook, Storm2k, anywhere online there is a weather community, we should have a simple way of engaging and encouraging users. Maybe even have a new editor training ground. We have a Welcome page, which we should send out to new users, but I want to go a step further. Like, I often see on Facebook someone sharing a link about a recent storm, but recent storms are often some of our worst articles. It would be nice to have a way of encouraging people to edit recent storms, while still making it clear how to do it. I'm not exactly sure the best way, but I've been doing it for so long that I forget what it's like to be new. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Signpost interview for WPTC 15 year anniversary

Is anyone interested in participating in an interview with the Signpost for the project 15 year anniversary this fall? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Improving tropical cyclones by area

Africa

edit | discuss
Tropical cyclones in the Horn of Africa
5 articles
Cyclone Chapala
Cyclone Megh
2013 Somalia cyclone
Cyclone Sagar
Location effects articles for

Asia

view | edit | discuss
Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones
14 articles
1977 Oman cyclone
1996 Oman cyclone
2002 Oman cyclone
Cyclone Gonu
2008 Yemen cyclone
Cyclone Phet
Cyclone Keila
Cyclone Nilofar
Cyclone Chapala
Cyclone Megh
Cyclone Sagar
Cyclone Mekunu
Cyclone Luban
edit | discuss
Tropical cyclones in Indonesia
7 articles
Cyclone Cempaka
Cyclone Gillian
Cyclone Inigo
Cyclone Lili (2019)
Cyclone Narelle
Cyclone Savannah
Tropical Storm Vamei
Cyclone Viyaru
Location effects articles for
  • Arabian Peninsula
  • Bangladesh
  • China (a parent article for all known tropical cyclones affecting the country, with sub-articles for each coastal province given the country's population/history)
  • India (parent article for cyclone articles in each major coastal state)
  • Indonesia
  • Japan (a parent article for all known tropical cyclones affecting the country, with sub-articles for each coastal province given the country's population/history)

Europe

Oceania

Location effects articles for

North America

South America

Debate

  • I am opposed to combining Niue and the Cook Islands with New Zealand, as both island nations have a rich cyclone history that's worth exploring. The cyclone histories of the Solomon Islands, Tokelau and Tuvalu should also be explored.Jason Rees (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Mexico could probably merit sub-articles for Veracruz, and the Yuacatan. Also I have no idea on how to tackle the Philippines (or if it's even worth doing seeing how redundant it'd be to WPAC season articles). YE Pacific Hurricane 01:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
      • If the Philippines was done properly then I do not see how it is redundant to the WPAC season articles, since not every system that enters PAR impacts the Philippines. I also note that only about 20 tropical cyclones enter the PAR which roughly half the systems per year.Jason Rees (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Article Back-up Work

Phase I: Fix Broken Links & Tag Dead URLs

I ran the archive bot a few times on our work. Here are the results:

@Hurricanehink: I hope this was useful. NoahTalk 01:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah: Yeah at the cost of everyone's watchlist.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I can't view the results, but I saw the changes on the watchlist. It appears that all of the links were archived? If so, thank you for doing that! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: The bot only fixed dead links. Sorry about blowing up all the watchlists, but I fixed thousands of links. I can archive every link for FA, FL, and A class if you want me to. NoahTalk 14:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, deadlinks have become a problem for some of our older articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Here are the stats for the fixes on every article in the project:

Links Fixed: 1,382 URLs Tagged as Dead: 507

Phase II: Archive Links for FA, FL, A & GA

This portion will be gradually implemented over time. Below is a preliminary schedule that I plan to follow. I will do anywhere between 10-20 pages per day as to not flood any watchlists or prevent myself from working on articles. NoahTalk 21:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: tagging you so you are aware of this. I have 20 FAs done now. Maybe takes me 20 minutes per day to do all of this. NoahTalk 22:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
You rock Hurricane Noah! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
April 13–18: FAs
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
N/A FAs 1-20 None None FAs 21-45
  • Week 2: FA/FL
April 19–25
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
  • Week 3: A
  • Week 4: A

First sentence in lead

I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but I have a question for y'all. I was about to review Hurricane Lane (2018), which is at FAC, and was surprised by the very first sentence. Here's the opening of the lead:

Hurricane Lane was the wettest tropical cyclone on record in Hawaii, with rainfall accumulations of 58 in (1,500 mm) at Kahūnā Falls. Lane was the twelfth named storm, sixth hurricane, fourth major hurricane, and the first of three Category 5 hurricanes of the record-breaking 2018 Pacific hurricane season.

What surprised me was that the first sentence doesn't give the month and year. It describes some attributes of the storm, rather than defining it. I looked at a handful of other featured storm articles and found something similar in all of them. I had a look in the project archives here and found this discussion, from 2006; I agree with Golbez's comment there that Cyclone Tracy is easily the best first sentence:

Cyclone Tracy was a tropical cyclone that devastated Darwin, Australia, from December 24 to December 25, 1974.

Do others agree that something like this should be standard? Has there been other discussion of this since 2006? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I don't think there has been any discussion since. I wouldn't mind adding something like this to articles, but I think some people might be concerned about repeating things in the lead. Just did something here to expand the first sentence. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: It would appear that the editor in question is trying to define why the system is notable in the first paragraph before defining when the system took place which is fine in my book. Especially whe you consider that some TCs exist in two calendar months, while I'm sure I could probably find a system that existed in 3 calendar months (EG: Developed: Jan 30 - Dissipated: Mar 3). Jason Rees (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree – the first sentence should introduce the topic at the most fundamental level before describing superlatives and attributes. We need to assume that the reader has no idea what a "hurricane lane" is. This is something I've been trying to bear in mind while writing storm articles (see 1893 Hurricane San Roque, Racer's hurricane, Hurricane Humberto (2019) for recent examples). It doesn't need to follow a rigid formula, but at the very least, we need to answer what and when in the opening hook. To address Jason's comment above, it isn't necessary to explicitly assert notability in the opening line – that's what the body of reference works is for, per WP:GNG. Real-world significance and historical context can all be established in the first paragraph while still allowing for a traditional encyclopedic introduction. – Juliancolton | Talk 05:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
While I don't disagree that we have to tell the reader that a hurricane is a tropical cyclone, however, that approach leads to redundancy within the Southern Hemisphere at times. For example, Tropical cyclone x was a tropical cyclone or my favourite Severe Tropical Cyclone Y was a tropical cyclone.Jason Rees (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
That last example should be written as Cyclone Y was a severe tropical cyclone that affected X in Z year." It's not hard to squeeze in the year, the area, and the classification in the first sentence, and I think we should aim to do that whenever possible. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Definitely agree with making explicit both what the storm is (a tropical cyclone) and when it occurred. To this end, MOS:FIRST offers the relevant guidance: "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialized term, provide the context as early as possible." MOS:CONTEXTLINK also notes the necessity for links to the broader or more elementary topics. This has come up in a few tropical cyclone FACs, so it might be a good idea to make that clear in the project's style guidelines. Even World War II notes that it was a global war in its opening sentence. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 15:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Writing down "unwritten" guidelines

I think it's about time we codified more explicitly some of our practices, such as notability. From what I can tell, storms are notable if:

  • They are Category 5 hurricanes (not just anywhere, only in the eastern Pacific, and to a lesser extent, the Atlantic), and/or;
  • They result in at least ~5 deaths or so and/or result in substantial (>$100 million has often proven sufficient depending on basin) damage, and/or;
  • They result in highly remarkable records (examples: fastest intensification rate globally (by some measure), longest duration globally; non-examples: records qualified by more than two qualifiers ("strongest east of X degrees W south of Y degrees N after September), or;
  • It does not meet any of the above, but nonetheless, its impacts are too much to fit into the season article

Other things are:

  • Images: This is a hotly debated one, but TheAustinMan (talk · contribs)'s previous proposal looked quite good.
  • Layout: The only thing that seems to have disagreement is where and when a "Records" section is appropriate. In my opinion, records with more than two qualifiers should not be mentioned at all unless they receive substantial secondary coverage (so if it's just Phil Klotzbach's tweet, and no one else remarks it, it's not suitable in most cases)

The list goes on and on. Once we affirm that these have (or don't have) consensus, we should codify them on-wiki.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for the project being more active, and discussing improvements, but I've always been leery about notability practices. Every storm is notable enough to appear in a season article by nature of it being a tropical cyclone (or TD, TS, TY, Hurricane, etc). The question then lies at what point it's appropriate to split off a storm into its own article. That might not always be so clear cut regarding the time period. For instance, the Cat 5's, or the remarkable records. So that's my quibble on that. Also, if we're gonna talk layout, should it be the "Effects" section or "Impact"? Is one more clear to outsiders than the other? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with @Hurricanehink that notability guidelines are not clear-cut. I don't think it's reasonable to apply blanket guidelines to all tropical cyclones, given each basin is characterised by differing cyclone frequencies, death tolls, damage totals, and so on. I think a degree of common sense is required when deciding upon whether or not to write an individual article. As to some of @Jasper Deng's suggestions above, here are my thoughts:
  • Most, if not all, tropical cyclones that reach Category 5 on the basin's official scale should be worthy of their own article, because C5 systems are relatively rare (again, each basin has its own frequency which is why blanket guidelines are inappropriate), they constitute the most powerful and energetic weather systems on our planet, and they are often the systems that the public (and therefore the readers) will be most interested in.
  • The damage total is a very crude indicator of societal impact, and is extremely variable across the world (the same objection on the grounds of basin variability once again applies). Strong tropical cyclones making landfall in Florida and the Kimberley will have vastly different damage totals simply due to the difference in population density and urbanisation in those areas. The Florida system will likely produce billions in damages, whereas the Western Australia system might only amount to a few million, or even none at all. If a system were to make landfall in the Philippines or somewhere else in South East Asia, the damage total would again be different due to lesser building standards and various other factors. Furthermore, the monetary damage does not necessarily correlate with the level of societal impact that a system has. This should also be taken into account.
  • Akin to the damage total, the death toll is also extremely dependent on the location of the tropical cyclone. Unfortunately, a ten-fatality system in the Philippines is quite common; whereas, that many deaths from a tropical cyclone landfall in Australia is virtually unprecedented and would represent a major natural disaster of national proportion. The deaths resulting from a cyclone depend once again on the living standards in the impacted areas, as well as the availability of government aid, medical supplies, sanitation facilities and other such infrastructure.
  • I mostly agree with your comment about records. As long as the record is not too contrived, the system can be considered notable. I don't believe the system has to be the #1 record-holder, though; rather, just a very significant, extreme or rare example of a particular attribute.
  • I agree with your next point as well. If the level of impacts (and preparations, if relevant) is sufficient that the season article section becomes bloated, then an individual article is warranted.
These are just my thoughts. I suppose I am less restrictive with my opinion on notability. I believe that more articles is a good thing, because it provides more free and easily accessible information to the public. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Talking of unwritten rules, I sometimes think it is better to take information for an MH, from a neighbouring warning centre than the warning centre who is in charge of a system. For example, IBTRACS has more information about a TC in SPAC from the BoM or Wellington then Nadi or off course JMA/JTWC rather than CPHC. I also note the seasonal summaries published by the BoM cover the whole of Aus/SPAC and sometimes add in SWIO.Jason Rees (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested articles section???

I've been mulling this over for a while, and I'm wondering, what if we had a subpage of the project called Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Requested articles. Yes, I know there's an old one, but it's defunct. Anyway, the requested articles subpage could include pages like List of supertyphoons, Tropical cyclones in India, 1965-1975 North Indian Ocean cyclone season articles, etc. Stay safe and healthy and COVID free, 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 11:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

We do have one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Article requests. It's just that no one uses it. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Talking of requests, there was a major typhoon at Calcutta, India on 5 October 1864 which killed 70,000 people. Surely this deserves an article? Plenty of contemporary newspaper coverage. Mjroots (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Mjroots - that storm is actually listed on the article request page. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
We still haven't split up the NIO back to 1960 yet? It's 2020 folks. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Chicdat, Mjroots, and Yellow Evan, I added your requests to the page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Feel free to contribute if you wish but one thing i have learned from the SHEM is that we have to be very careful with the intensity estimates. As a result, it would be better if we took our time and split them gradually with or without the infoboxes for each system.Jason Rees (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Hurricanehink. I note a supposed lack of sources is cited as a reason why the article hasn't yet been created. There are plenty of free newpaper archives online, such as the California Digital Newspaper Collection which covers 1849-1920, the Library of Congress which covers 1836-1922, Papers Past which covers 1839-1945, Trove which covers 1803-1954. Also the Dutch language Delpher Kranten which covers 1618-1995! Other newspaper archives are available on subsciption, such as the Gale News Vault. I get free online access via my library's website. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Mjroots, I added your comment to the article request page. My comment about lack of sourcing was from 14 years ago, I agree that a decent article could probably be made now. For any users who want to see an important storm get an article, feel free to list it here, or add it to the requests page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Records in infobox shouldn't contain <small>

Per MOS:SMALLFONT, Avoid using smaller font sizes within elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections. We haven't been doing that, so we should remove the small size for the records in season infoboxes. I don't know how many articles that affects, but if anyone comes across it, please remove it. Thanks. This came up in the FARC for 2005 AHS. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft article for Cyclone Amphan - help requested

Can anyone help put together an article for Cyclone Amphan? Given its track and current rate of intensity, I worry an article will be required sooner than later. I imagine there will be lots of preparations in the coming days. If those preparations work, then us Earthicans can avert another tragedy in a year dominated by Covid. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_40&oldid=1005707000"