Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 41

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 35

←

Archive 39

→

Track map overhauls

Based on an off-wiki discussion (with @AC5230, Cyclonebiskit, TheAustinMan, Juliancolton, Hurricanehink, TropicalAnalystwx13, and Nova Crystallis:), it seems like the following points have been raised about our current system of track maps (e.g. File:Dorian 2019 track.png).

This is the 21st century, an interactive map system would be great. Users could hover over different parts of the track and get the storm's position, intensity, movement, and other information at that moment, while this solves the problem of long-tracked storms having important parts of their tracks "diluted".
- To implement this, we likely should look into importing all track data into Wikidata where it can be easily accessed.
- Not everyone can use interactivity, such as those who need to print our articles, so we should keep maintaining our static images.
Our static images suffer from the following issues:
- The colors (particularly the first three SSHWS categories) can be hard to distinguish
- There is no provision for important asynoptic intensity points, such as Hurricane Patricia's landfall (Category 4, not 3 or 5 as the surrounding points are), Hurricane Michael's landfall (peak intensity), and Hurricane Lorenzo (2019)'s peak intensity.
- The map does not distinguish between extratropical cyclones and tropical disturbances. One proposal is to change the notation so that extratropical is instead indicated by a hollow shape, with the border's color still indicating intensity.
- The map provides no direction information; there isn't always enough context to infer which direction the storm moved in. Arrowing the line segments is a possibility.
- The scheme deals poorly with high areal densities of track map points, such as Cyclone Fantala.

I think, and the others have thought, that we should consider overhauling our maps for these reasons.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

As a discussee of this topic, I will confirm at this time we have not yet figured out how we'll display these interactive maps, but we are actively figuring out.

EDIT: apparently JD has presented a very nice idea. interesting... but how do we display interactive maps with WD data?

~ AC5230 talk 04:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's another issue, the current maps can't go much smaller without sacrificing location. I suggest we use something like {{maplink}} for interactive maps. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, y'all, would it be okay if I uploaded my proof of concept to amend and improve the current static images? ~ AC5230 talk 05:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems fine by me. Master of Time (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Meow: Thoughts? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I can’t give opinions until there is really some developer who can realise any of those ideas. 🐱💬 02:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I love the idea of the interactive map that you can zoom in and out, hover your mouse over for intensity information. I agree that we need to change the colors for tropical disturbance and extratropical cyclone. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible to start using RSMC data for such trackmaps, bearing in mind we now have IBTRACS and data in all basins since 1982.Jason Rees (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

With such a map where hovering your mouse over a point causes a popup with intensity information to appear, it could be possible to list multiple data sets for each storm (generally with the RSMC taking precedence). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Conveniently, IBTRACS already lists JTWC data alongside the RSMCs (plus other tracks). Would that help automate the process a bit? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually all for development of an interactive map for Wikipedia articles. Many of the issues JD listed, and what I'm about to talk about, would be fixed or handled more gracefully than what static track maps can convey. Another wikiproject that could benefit from the maps development would be for tornado articles. Here are my opinion on changes to the static maps, going down the list JD provides.

We had an extensive discussion about this topic in 2014 when unilateral edits where being enforced dealing with the color compliance of WP:ACCESS. The colors were found to comply with it to a reasonable extent. The colors of the first three categories are different enough to distinguish on most maps, especially when most of the points occur over open water and the contrast of the deep blue makes it easy to differentiate. This is true given the screen the maps are viewed on is calibrated correctly.
This is an issue with storms that had peak intensities outside of synoptic times. Most track data is given in 6-hour intervals. Legacy of this practice means that instances of asynoptic data having the peak intensity are rare, but becoming more common for recent storms. One minor issue with adding this data is it may disrupt the flow of the other points, making it look like the system stalled or slowed over an area artificially. Also for consistency with other maps. Interactive maps would fix this.
This change I can agree with. The shape should be simple. Too complex of a shape could add clutter and could make the shape hard to distinguish with longer tracks. One shape I propose is a simple diamond. I think it fits perfectly with the circle, square, and triangle dots.
This problem is minor for most tracks. Adding an arrow or other indicator is not possible without adding clutter and can make tracks harder to read. Interactive maps would fix this.
This cannot be fixed on a static map. Data that overlaps other data is going to be hard to read regardless. Interactive maps may help but won't easily remove this issue.

I also want to remind others that we have several thousands of track maps. With potential max track counts around 13,000 in total or however many are in IBTrACS/operational tracked. Change is going to be long and tedious, and any change must improve the track maps enough to warrant uploading the new versions. Supportstorm (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"is minor for most tracks" @Supportstorm: It is the pathological cases precisely which could benefit the most from these changes. Many of these pathological cases (Dorian and Fantala for example) are among the most interesting for readers. I disagree that we cannot fix the areal density problem on static maps; for example, varying the size of the dots can help a little, and the arrows in the proof of concept add basically no clutter. After all, a vector is an oriented quantity and the lines are essentially displacement vectors.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I abhor the idea of varying the dot sizes for those cases. The arrows could be fine for normal to fast moving systems but rendered useless and clutter for slower moving systems since the dots would be in the top layer. Supportstorm (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

But why? The fundamental reason why slow tracks produce this mashup of dots is that the dots are too big. And even if arrows don't prove useful in all cases, quite a number of pathological cases would be solved easily by them. For example, can you tell me, just from reading the track, and without referring to any of the actual meteorological history, which of the three paths it took, and in which direction? The Category 5 intensity is also obscured there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The dot sizes are large so they can be seen easily in most cases. I get what you are saying, there are instances of overlapping dots that don't work as well, but also you maybe focusing too much on outliers like Fantala. I've seen others in IRC say the overlapping data problem is inherent with static maps and I agree. For now I don't see the need to put energy into changing the track generator. It has been largely successful in it's purpose. Take these opinions as consideration on what to fix with an interactive map to succeed it. That was the point of this discussion, no? Supportstorm (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, interactivity is not a full replacement for all use cases of static images, so we ought to overhaul those as well. In computer software design, the edge cases are always of disproportionately big concern to programmers. The same applies here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't change my opinion. I oppose the overhaul the program to accommodate outliers. If you can present examples that don't change the maps drastically and implement your ideas tastefully I'll reconsider. Supportstorm (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The changes I'm arguing for are pretty cosmetic in nature. These "outlier" storms also occur rather frequently (name me a year without at least a couple). This seems to be more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything. Fortunately, you don't have a veto over this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No, but those concerns I had at the beginning are as valid as yours. I can create several concepts that might work if you are interested. At the end of the day you need feed back and a consensus for implementation and that may be easier to achieve with less drastic changes. Supportstorm (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of moving the trackmaps to an interactive format as that would help alleviate a lot of the issues we've gathered from static images. I agree with basing the maps on RSMC data for modern cases since that's what we structure our articles around, anyways. We can probably make it quite flexible once we figure out how to integrate the maps with Wikidata loaded up with IBTrACS data. In that case, appearance-wise we may have to sacrifice the current SSHWS color scheme in other basins in favor of those basins' scales, but if it's possible to allow the reader to switch to different datasets when viewing the interactive maps, that'd be great. Indicating direction is also something I'm in favor of. If we're thinking of using filled arrowheads for those, we'd probably need to reconsider the triangles we use for remnant/extratropical lows. I see AC5230 uses an ❌ which could be a good alternative. –TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 19:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Interactive tool

I was pinged here from off-wiki. There is a tool on French Wikipedia that you can all use to create interactive maps on Commons. Go to c:Special:mypage/common.js and add the code mw.loader.load('//fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mediawiki:Gadget-KartoEditor.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); . Afterward, you can create maps in Commons' Data: namespace (for example c:Data:Somehurricane.map). epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

There might be a need of a program to parse IBTRACS data to GeoJSON... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Update Statement

I am happy to announce the first tropical cyclone track has been successfully replicated in some form with an interactive map: Subtropical Storm ANDREA (2019) AC5230 talk 00:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: well, not the very first, but with categories/stages and all in colors instead of just one color. Someone did a track of Pabuk for testing first. AC5230 talk 00:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I made an interactive map here based off the existing track map style, feel free to mess around with it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I particularly like the map KN2731 has made for Barry with the synoptic intensity markers, though I did prefer the modifications on AC5230 had made with the SSHWS category markers. — Iune talk 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I just went ahead to replace one of them. The data is located here. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Subtropical & Extratropical

@Hurricanehink: I think we should talk about revamping how subtropicals and extratropicals are treated. I think we should set up two color scales for them. The first scale (just two items) should color subtropical depressions and subtropical storms. This will fix the issue of having intensity/color arguments between tracks and infoboxes for storms over 63 knots. For the ETs, we need another scale set up. I hate to say this, but the current practice of coloring ETs according to the tropical cyclone saffir-simpson scale is clear cut WP:OR. No government agencies I have seen use the scale for ETs. Perhaps it would be better to use the classifications that the OPC uses in its operations. Developing gale, gale, storm, and HU force for the ETs. Noah^Talk 17:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have also (partially ~ AC5230 talk 17:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)) brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks#Subtropical colors. AC5230 talk 17:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the OR part can be fixed by an edit to the track description stating that the ET winds are Cat X-equivalent. To clarify, we should have different color schemes for interactive tracks. Noah^Talk 21:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer that the infoboxes be updated to give the appropriate storm category color for subtropical storms with hurricane force winds rather than changing the track map color to a different color specific for subtropical storms. — Iune talk 21:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The proposed colors will just be for new interactive maps. Noah^Talk 15:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeing the interactive maps, and the limitations for the one character marker icons (ex: only 'S' vs 'TS'), I now see what you were saying. Not too sure what colors we could use, but I do understand the need for why we might want to color subtropical systems separately. — Iune talk 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Example maps and discussion

Map plotting the track and the intensity of the storm, according to the Saffir–Simpson scale

Map plotting the track and the intensity of the storm, according to the Saffir–Simpson scale

Trackmap Overhauls discussion

@Hurricanehink: Here is an almost finished example of an interactive track (does not have 10 min winds). I added subtropical points with different colors. Please let me know how that looks. We are limited in what can be done with these. Noah^Talk 04:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Now thinking about it, maybe using letters and numbers instead of symbols might be a better idea. We just need more colors (that are WP:ACCESS friendly) for the different types of cyclones. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Meow, Supportstorm, Keith Edkins, and Cyclonebiskit: Pinging track makers for feedback. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Definitely making huge strides with these changes, good work so far. Bit sad to see an era of maps pass, but we really do need to update and provide MOS adherent maps that are also sufficiently informative. I'm on board with adding two new colors for subtropical depression/storm if we're limited to one letter per peg. Having only gray for ET fits with how RSMCs handle ET phases. If we really want to stretch to the OPC categories, we can just go with gray (sub-gale), dark gray (gale/storm), and black (hurricane). Next big hurdle will be working out how to handle RSMC data properly. We've kept JTWC/NHC worldwide to create a consistent and coherent dataset up until now, but these versatile maps provide an avenue to put the official data at the forefront. However, that leads to issues with multiple scales and colors on top of whatever mess cross-basin systems would create. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Not a bad idea but there should be a method of converting data to that map first. Now all recommendations are lacking comprehensive details. 🐱💬 07:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: I added part of Leslie '18's track as an example for that scale. It uses LG, MG, DG, and B. Noah^Talk 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The system Wiki has setup for maps is lacking many of the features we were looking for. Regardless, I think we can make it work. If we do go the route of using RSMC data we need to be mindful of each of their respective scales. Which is a concern I have about using too many scales. Limited with symbols, if we use different colors they need to be well documented and accessible to readers. Having too many scales might lead to confusion. I think most readers are familiar with the Saffir-Simpson scale especially if they are familiar with the track maps we've displayed here for the last 15 years. There also needs to be a way for the data to be converted to json/html, which is being worked on by a user or two to my understanding. Supportstorm (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't make extratropical points too complex, since almost every RSMC only has one category for extratropical cyclones. I feel like wind speeds in description is sufficient for that. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I like the maps! I think extratropical should just be the one color. I agree that subtropical should be its own color (like how the NHC does). I appreciate being able to zoom in, and having the landfall location. Most scales have similar dividing lines, with a certain category for hurricane/typhoon equivalent. I suggest we avoid multiple colors for Depression/Deep Depression in the NIO, Cyclonic Storm/Severe Cyclonic Storm in the NIO, and Tropical Storm/Severe Tropical Storm in WPAC/SWIO. That will help with colors and accessibility, I believe. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink:@Nova Crystallis: Let's be better than the RSMCs. Since the grey to black clearly follows a progression, it would be easier to understand. We need to think about windstorm seasons too which could use the grayscale for interactive maps. This is based upon sub-gale, gale-force, storm-force, and hurricane-force from the OPC. We just need to keep all this in perspective since the nontropical project is basically defunct. In regards to other scales, I say we don't add them because we can only use one letter/number/shape for them. We can include the RSMC, its status, and the 10/3 minute winds in the information for the storm, but adding all these scales to maps will overwhelm readers. Noah^Talk 00:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Either way, we should consider what we need to add to commons:Template:WPTC track map/Table. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

These maps would get their own legend. Noah^Talk 04:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of grayscale for extratropical, with shading indicating intensity. Also, I don't think indicating the scales will overwhelm readers, not if it can be a single line added. We already have the "4" icon to indicate Category 4 for Hector's map. That should be indicated in text IMO (and likewise, if it was a Super Cyclonic Storm, or whatnot). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I was saying that it wouldn't be possible to display all these scales on the map itself. They would need to be included as text information on the points. Noah^Talk 16:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yea, I meant using the scales in text, that would be useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: How does this first point look here? I need to fix it up a bit still. Noah^Talk 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Decent, but it looks like the TD column is one column off from the rest of the info on the right. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The only problem is for other basins, where the RSMC has a different wind speed/designation than JTWC. Which center would we go with? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should use JTWC data. We use the RSMCs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

How would that work for pre-2000 WPAC? Just use JMA's through 1976? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The same way we consider other RSMC's. Because they're official now, they're also official retroactive to the beginning of the basin's best track. For WPAC, that would be 1951. Before that, I think we should use IBTRACS. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Before we start to rework the track maps I think we need to take a step back and consider a few other things that have been overlooked. Are these maps designed to fully replace the maps that we already have - if so would we be able to scale them down to be used in the infobox hurricane small? How would we sort out track maps for the season without having so much code? Where would we store the coding? Jason Rees (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Jason makes a good point. Is the data for the map going to be somewhere other than the article? (perhaps WikiData?) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: It should be stored under the Data namespace in Commons. With the namespace, it already shows the map, the license, and the description. Commons:Data:Zelda 1991 track.map is what I did for my track. The editor is already programmed for use with GeoJSON too. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis: Sorry for butting in. Yes, we have that, but it's from IBTrACS. Track coders uses JTWC tracks as a primary base of track and JMA best tracks for extra points. So what happens then? I just want to propose that your proposal should be used on the said tracks (Fantala, Patricia, Patty (example), etc.) since I have read your proposal and interpreted it as "The storm is very slow to move so we should highlight their tracking".

Since this involves the track makers such as myself, I am (slightly) opposing this proposal to change the tracks completely. I have seen tracks that are good for use but your proposal highlights of slow storms. Who can blame them? The environment? The HURDAT2 or IBTrACS? Nope. You can use them on those that need highlighting. Because why?

Like you said, it involves intermediate advisories and/or asynoptic landfall points: Just like it is. You proposed this for the purpose of involving asynoptic landfall points that are usually not in the current track maps. And intermediate advisories is good for a non-best track of a system. But what about if the NHC had updated their database? The advisories will go to waste, but will be a great reference.
It highlights the slow-moving storms: Storms tend to move slow and that is also the objective of your proposal.
It can highlight the most confusing cyclones: Yes, I'm aware about 2016's Winston track. But it's the environment that we are talking about, so Winston moved south, re-intensified and moved west again. 2014's Hanna track is also one of them.

So why propose to change all tracks completely? You can just make them for the important systems. Hope you respect this opinion of mine. Regards, 👦 08:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

But what about if the NHC had updated their database? The same way we do things now: Update when the report/best track comes out.
Storms tend to move slow and that is also the objective of your proposal. Yes, that's why we're here.
Yes, I'm aware about 2016's Winston track. But it's the environment that we are talking about, so Winston moved south, re-intensified and moved west again. 2014's Hanna track is also one of them. We shouldn't have this attitude of "This storm is moving slow, deal with it". We should always try to find ways that would make the data look useful as possible to the reader in mind.

I've seen most static track maps use RSMC data for disturbance part of the track, JTWC for the tropical part, and then RSMC again for the remnant/extratropical part. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis: The point of my third question is "How would you highlight the most confusing cyclones?". And you didn't answer my whole question all of this time: "So why propose to change all tracks completely, when you can just make them for the important systems?"

I'm very impressed by how you answered mine, but it doesn't change my opinion completely. Storms that are unimportant and/or important should be created by your proposal, but with an history of slow-moving or confusing tracks. But what I'm saying that there are good tracks of storms per se (or in itself is maybe a good translation of it). Hope you respect this opinion of mine. Regards, 👦 05:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

With the ability to add text, we should be able to timestamp each point and add more details, therefore it can show the chronological order with or without using vectors. Ideally, we should not discriminate the tracks of each storm, they are all equally important. Long tracks, short tracks, confusing tracks, straightforward tracks, all the same. This doesn't mean we should completely stop creating static track maps, just in case Wikimedia fails with fixing several bugs in the system. I know there are good tracks, it's just that we can do better than what we did before. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware that the track maps are used in each Wikipedia language version? I think this is nothing to be decided here in this project alone, and IMHO, the proposed track maps are terrible. That's OR pure since they implicate a precision which is not true. Sorry. Strongly oppose. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, did you try it how this works out and looks when saving as a PDF? How it'd look like with print-outs? --Matthiasb (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it's their responsibility to create a discussion for their hurricane articles to use these type of maps or not. This consensus is meant for articles that are written in on English Wikipedia, feel free to do whatever what you want at German Wikipedia.Besides, the track map generator was creaed by the project first. These maps are no worse with false precision than the ones right now, since they use the same data.

It prints out like other track maps if you use the export to PDF option on Commons. The code would take a while to print with ~1000 lines for Zelda. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

First: It are users creating those maps on Commons, not here in the English WP for the English WP. Actually we're writing one encyclopedia in many languages and not many enzyclopediae in different languages.

Second: True, you can zoom-in in those maps, far more than the BT coordinates suggest. HURDAT2 gives coordinates in degrees and tenth degrees. That mean's that a best track position of a storm is maximal precise about 11 km in direction North-South. Where is the point to have a map which you can zoom-in to look up wether the storm hit your house or missed it on the weaker side but hit your garage? Also BT delivers one point every six hours wether the black line suggests a continuing course. Though the storm moves from one point to the next it actually does not move along the black line. Sometimes it even jumps when the RSMC says "it relocated".

Third: If you're printing an article or just this page, the map shows just like here. A black line, mostly covered by a thick bunch of symmbols where one is covering most of the former in line and itself is covered by the next symbol to come. You can only discriminate them if you're zooming in, what is not available offline or printed out. (Think on usage in education, f. ex.)

Forth: The contrast between the different category colours is poor. That is an old problem. We even made the timeline graphics "grey" darker some ten year ago for that reason. With the NASA background that problem was lesser since the dark blue and the brownishh/greenish land contrasts well to the intensity colors, compare first point in a eit of User:Supportstorm about five weeks ago. In the contrary with the proposed mapping I see problems with depressions over water similarily with cat 1 over land.

All this together breaks almost every rule of mapping I am aware of. Sorry for my harsh words.

Fifth: I don't understand the problem. Patty 2012 is not the problem. When a storm does not move, it doesn't move. The concept solution above is the problem since most people cannot locate where this example storm moved. Most people won't recognize the Eastern Caribbean by only Hispaniola and the Lesser Antilles. Because that is the purpose of the track maps: to show where a storm has formed, where it moved and where it ended. The Patty map does this. Mission accomplished.

Sixth: Aside of all this: in advance of proceeding we should test if the extension would parse in the biggest Western typhoon season articles where we have in exceed of 35 storms per season. I can imagine hitting some borders.

Last but not least: If it ain't no broken don't fix it. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Matthiasb: Now that is what I like to relay! Now, with your point, I also oppose, strongly. Regards, 👦 10:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see the numerous problems here. I see why crowding could become an issue in regards to high active/high density seasons but this certainty isn't OR to plot points to the nearest relevant precision. The status quo isn't "broken" per se but it is a bit old school for lack of a more serious phrase. The colors being ugly is merely WP:ILIKEIT. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

At no point I talked about "uglyness" of the colors. Instead I talked about the lack of contrast of the "hurricane colors" against the map setting within the extension. That is a question of WP:ACCESSIBILITY, not of disliking something. --Matthiasb (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces! Quick!

It's almost June 1, the "start" (why I put it in quotes) of hurricane season. It's also almost when WP:WPTC/NEWS/41 comes out. Since Hurricanehink went on a week-long break, a couple of things were missed, and I helped the newsletter catch up. Anyway, the newsletter needs a member of the month and 2 opinion pieces ASAP! Help requested! 🐔Chic dat ^ChickenDatabase 10:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

æügh— can I nominate @Hurricane Noah: for MotM? ~ AC5230 talk 04:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. 🐔 Chic dat ^ChickenDatabase 11:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Dorian's Met

I have renominated Dorian's Met per the request of a few people. The first FAC failed solely because nobody reviewed it (other than the IR). If anyone would like to review it, the page may be found here. This is an important storm so I think we should strive to improve its articles as much as possible. Noah^Talk 22:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Track map overhaul (new discussion, now that old one is archived)

So I guess we're not changing the track maps? We're in the heat of the hurricane season now, so it's kinda late for it. Perhaps the special zoomable track map should be made for storms with meteorological histories? Or just keep to the standard blue marble like we have for... 15 years now? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the standard blue marble, since it has been used for years. Yeah you have accessibility problems but by moving to interactive maps, the problem becomes how deep do you go bearing in mind that a TC isnt a point. Especially when most of the BT has been done by collating all of the fixes and plotting them on pen and paper. I also note that the proposal was only for the storm articles, which would mean that we would still need the blue marble maps to be produced or find some workable alternative. Jason Rees (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join Hurricanes Wiki

Dear fellow members of WikiProject Tropical cyclones,

I am not sure where to put this. However, I am writing to invite you all to join Hurricanes Wiki (where I am Andrew444). Activity on the forums has notably decreased in the past year, and we would certainly love to see more participation! If you become tired of editing articles on Wikipedia and/or want to discuss active systems, you are simply a click away!

Please inform the administrators on Hurricanes Wiki about any questions you have:

Isaac829: https://hurricanes.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Isaac829

StevDev: https://hurricanes.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:StevDev

Ryan1000: https://hurricanes.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Ryan1000

Sincerely,

Hurricane Andrew (444) 23:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI, Isaac829 is me. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've joined long ago. Java Hurricane 03:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Also Ryan1000 = User:Rye998. Java Hurricane 03:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If I may, can I ask anyone who is interested in the Hurricane Wiki, or writing hypothetical storms, is there any chance you could put those article writing skills to good use for this Wikipedia? There are hundreds of articles we need, such as Tropical cyclones in 1917, or Typhoons in Vietnam or List of Category 1 Atlantic hurricanes. I'm all for talking about tropical cyclones, but maybe let's focus on the ones that actually existed? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, any articles that might fill in User:Chicdat/sandbox2? 🐔 Chic dat ^ChickenDatabase 10:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

ending the DT imagery debate?

imagery from digital-typhoon is probably one of the most confusing debates in here since they technically are JMA images, but hosted elsewhere. i've seen weather maps from tha t site uploaded here with no issue, but other imagery such as satellite pictures (including this great image viewer that makes me think that we're missing out on a great image source) are not allowed because of "copyright" because of their source.

what should we do with this?

A. they are JMA images, and we have them on the wiki normally.

B. keep the delete anything on sight of any DT images protocol

C. unsure

Fleur De Odile 03:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A: it's JMA, DT has no right to claim them. ~ AC5230 talk 08:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

PTS and NIO timelines

Proposal

I'm not sure if you remember that in the two weeks before I created an account, I edited as an IP address, and I tried to create the article Timeline of the 2019 Pacific typhoon season here and here, the latter trying to bring back another old revision. I also tried to create the Timeline of the 2019 North Indian Ocean cyclone season. As we know, I decided to create an account on February 15 because of a not-vandalism reversion and an edit war on a deleted page and a warning that I wish was deleted by our good friend Florida339!

Anyway, those reverters had their summaries, and one, Pichpich, had the following edit summary: This is the standard setup–Timeline of the XXXX Pacific typhoon season redirects to XXXX Pacific typhoon season. So here I am, requesting a change of the standard setup.

Thanks, 🐔 Chic dat ^ChickenDatabase 10:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Im sorry but why do we need to timelines for the PTS and NIO? It gets a bit annoying having to type out every single change that the JMA, JTWC, NWS Guam, CMA, HKO, Macau, Vietnam etc make.Jason Rees (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There really isn't a reason not to have timelines for recent WPAC years. The level of activity warrants it as you have multiple storms active at the same time. Just because it would take time and effort to do doesnt mean it isnt worth doing. 2018 had like 7 named storms active at the same time. I think it would be worthwhile having them in WPAC. I don't think NIO has enough activity to warrant timelines very often... that being said 2019 is an exception due to the off the charts activity throughout the year. If someone wants to make a timeline for an active season, let them do it. I don't see the harm in someone making the timeline if they want to. Noah^Talk 20:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not a super big fan of huge enormous* articles, so maybe we could all work at Timeline of the 2019 Pacific typhoon season together? 🐔 Chic dat ^ChickenDatabase 11:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

*List of extremely severe cyclonic storms isn't super enormous, but still...

Is it necessary to have all those agencies' changes included? Wouldn't JMA and JTWC suffice, being that those are the two agencies generally discussed on the season articles? We don't list CMA, HKO, KMA, etc., intensities for every storm they monitor. atomic 7732 20:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I would take one more step of only using RSMCs, since JTWC isn't official. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

For the purposes of a timeline in the WPAC, I would personally want to see at a minimum BT data from the CMA, HKO, JTWC and JMA included as well as various bits of information from the NMHSS and the Typhoon Committee including PAGASA names used. Jason Rees (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

One obstacle going forward is that it's impossible to document JMA TDs for late 2018 and 2019 since the weather maps and discussions weren't archived and there's no best track data for them. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Have a look through the MT Archive for the text of JMA WWJP25's (link here or on my user page.Jason Rees (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Please see and comment on this merger Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Meteorology#Proposal that impacts this project.Jason Rees (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of HELPS Hurricane Expo

The article HELPS Hurricane Expo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Minor and defunct events that do not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WPTC and WP:ITN

@Destroyeraa: Where do you think we should draw the line as to what to post on WP:ITN from the hurricane project? Do you think that every hurricane that impacts land should go up? Should every hurricane that causes a death go up? Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: No, of course I don't think every hurricane or TC with land impacts should go up. Take Bertha for example, no one in their right mind would nominate it, bc it caused so little damage and only affected SC. IMO, not every hurricane needs to cause 40 deaths to be significant and notable enough for ITN. Isaias affected a swath of areas from PR to Canada, causing 13+ deaths and an estimated billions of dollars in damage. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 12:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Most TC's that impact land affect a wide swath of area. For example in the WPAC, we look at systems forming in Micronesia impacting the Phillippines or Taiwan and then potentially going on to impact a combination of China, Hong Kong, Macau, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Myanmar before emerging in the Indian Ocean or a combination of China, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia, and Alaska. Jason Rees (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yea, it was bad, but just imagine how much it would've been if it was a major hurricane. That's the kind of major storm that belongs on ITN. Isaias, while a decently bad storm, wasn't like Cyclones Amphan or Harold earlier this year, which were truly epic/borderline legendary storms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Amphan was the costliest tropical cyclone in the whole basin. Harold was an unusual late season Category 5. Earliest ninth named storm isn't really a ITN-worthy record. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: It wasn't nominated at ITN because it was the earliest ninth named storm. It was nominated because of its widespread damage, 18 deaths, and legendary tornado outbreak. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 12:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Most TCs have widespread damage though, especially in the states - should we nominate each of those @Destroyeraa:. Ideally we shouldn't be nominating more than a few each year. Jason Rees (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: No, most TCs do not cause widespread and extensive damage in the states, you don't know because you don't live in the US. Isaias was nominated because it caused 18 deaths and 1 billion in damage. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 17:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Destroyeraa: It only caused 18 deaths and $1 billion in damage. There's a higher bar than that for ITN. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Nova Crystallis How many deaths do you think a storm needs to have to be on ITN? How much damage do you think a storm needs to cause to be on ITN? ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 17:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Destroyeraa, the last time we had an ITN up for an Atlantic storm was for Dorian. For WPAC, Hagibis was also nominated, but the article was in no shape to be there. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Just jumping in, we don't often know the full scale of the tragedy. For example, in the ITN, someone mentioned that Cristobal ended up causing more deaths than we realized operationally. Sometimes it takes several days for the reports to come in. For Isaias, it was pretty evident early on that there was a lot of widespread damage, but that's partly due to the large population of the area affected. I haven't read any damage totals yet, maybe over $1 billion, which is fairly common for landfalling US storms. As bad as Isaias was, it's no comparison to truly epic storms like Harvey, Matthew, or Dorian (to use three examples from the last three years). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Im not sure how you know that I dont live in the United States, but that doesnt mean that I am not allowed to comment on tropical cyclones or any topic for that matter. Anyway let's look at the 2019 season together and see that 13 tropical cyclones impacted the United States of which at least 7 caused widespread and extensive damage. Lets then take the 2018 season and see that 7 tropical cyclones impacted the United States and see that 5 caused widespread and extensive damage.Jason Rees (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: It says on your talk page that you live in Britain. Cool. For 2019, I only count 5 TCs that caused widespread and extensive damage in the US- Barry, Dorian, Imelda, Nestor, and Olga. The others didn't. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

An archiver bot for the WPAC?

So, @Meow: and I was talking for an archiver bot for the West Pacific, because the former said that "archiving manually is very exhausting and there should be more people to do it, or provide a bot to archive. The current task is almost my limit." We can gladly use it for invests, if it will be approved. Regards, 👦 03:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Meow and Nino Marakot: The project is not able to provide a bot to archive warnings from the WPAC, I wish we could as I know its a pain in the butt archiving them. @Keith Edkins: used to run a bot on his own website and store them to archive them, however, his website and webcite had various problems and has generally stopped editing.Jason Rees (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Or is it possible to host it by ourselves and archive them to archive.today? 🐱💬 13:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I dont know enough about computer programming and Wikipedia's software to feel confident to answer that one, however, we have someone who I strongly suspect will know @Jasper Deng:. However, I have certain warnings from the JMA, JTWC, FMS, Reunion, BoM and IMD sent to me via email from WX:Trop.Jason Rees (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sidow...........

@Chicdat: WP:DENY, WP:RBI; please just take any additional socks to WP:SPI. Nothing to panic about.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

By October, the sockpuppets of Sidow...... are going to destroy the project. SMB99thx and Destroyeraa did the right thing when they requested a global ban, but will that really stop Sidow.... from creating new accounts and destroying every single typhoon redirect? Proposal: ECO-protect all typhoon redirects, which would deter Sidow.... sockpuppets for 30/500. (As far as we know, the only Sidow.... sockpuppet that reached 30/500 was Typhoon No. 14) What can we do to prevent an infestation of ~~locusts~~ Sidow.... sockpuppets? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If a sock makes an article for a storm, but it otherwise meets the general notability guidelines, and there are likely to be more than 2-3 paragraphs of info when it’s done, then I say keep it. Most of the articles made were on decently notable storms. If not, then they can be merged. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink mobile, Hurricanehink, Chicdat, and SMB99thx: Yeah. But sockpuppetry is still a WikiCrime and should be punished. Sidow was blocked for failure to comply to Wikipedia policies (for example, gaining consensus before splitting, not listening to warnings, etc.). Then, Sidow decided to make sockpuppets, and most of his socks are blocked. Instead of stopping like a good-faith editor, Sidow continued being a sockpuppeteer, creating one of his most famous socks - Typhoon No. 14. To be honest, Sidow socks are pretty easy to find - their behavior is the same and most are named Typhoon Number xx. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Good thing we weren't that concerned about WPAC WikiWork to begin with. Might as well keep the pages since they are a good starting point. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 14:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Lili (disambiguation) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Lili (disambiguation) to be moved to Hurricane Lili. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Tropical cyclone: featured article review

Hello there,

I've just had a look over the tropical cyclones article. I don't think it meets the featured article criteria anymore. Details on talk page. Any volunteers to bring it up to standards again? Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical cyclone/archive1, right? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Not yet - @Femkemilene: is expressing her concerns on the talkpage first before it goes to FAR, which i will try and help deal with as a time allows. Jason Rees (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Headers for atlantic hurricanes

It seems that the WMO/NWS has prepared headers for four active storm systems. As it appearss tonight, the Atlantic could have five active systems at the same time mid of next week. Any clue how the NHC will deal with that? (BTW: I hoped to ask Thegreatdr for this but saw his last edit was back in February. What happened with him?) --Matthiasb (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Matthiasb: NHC has five so-called bins/headers for tropical cyclone advisories and rotate them throughout the season, WTNT25, for instance, was last used for Omar. On a side note Thegreatdr has to be careful with what edits publically and has got various other research projects, however, he remains in touch with the project through social media.Jason Rees (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic hurricane season GT

Here we go. Now that 2019 is a GA, we have seventy years of FA, A, and GA. We've almost made it to all ≥GA, with a few scattered exceptions. They are pre-1850 (with the exception of 1842), 1867, 1870–74, 1876–83, 1885–89, 1891–95, 1898, 1908, 1915, 1916, 1931, 1932, and 1944. I'll try to do a good topic table (see it in progress at User:Chicdat/sandbox and transclude it here. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic hurricane season

183 articles

Pre-1600 Atlantic hurricane seasons

List of Atlantic hurricanes in the 17th century

List of Atlantic hurricanes in the 18th century

1780 Atlantic hurricane season

1800s Atlantic hurricane seasons

1810s Atlantic hurricane seasons

1820s Atlantic hurricane seasons

1830s Atlantic hurricane seasons

1840s Atlantic hurricane seasons

1842 Atlantic hurricane season

1850 Atlantic hurricane season

1851 Atlantic hurricane season

1852 Atlantic hurricane season

1853 Atlantic hurricane season

1854 Atlantic hurricane season

1855 Atlantic hurricane season

1856 Atlantic hurricane season

1857 Atlantic hurricane season

1858 Atlantic hurricane season

1859 Atlantic hurricane season

1860 Atlantic hurricane season

1861 Atlantic hurricane season

1862 Atlantic hurricane season

1863 Atlantic hurricane season

1864 Atlantic hurricane season

1865 Atlantic hurricane season

1866 Atlantic hurricane season

1867 Atlantic hurricane season

1868 Atlantic hurricane season

1869 Atlantic hurricane season

1870 Atlantic hurricane season

1871 Atlantic hurricane season

1872 Atlantic hurricane season

1873 Atlantic hurricane season

1874 Atlantic hurricane season

1875 Atlantic hurricane season

1876 Atlantic hurricane season

1877 Atlantic hurricane season

1878 Atlantic hurricane season

1879 Atlantic hurricane season

1880 Atlantic hurricane season

1881 Atlantic hurricane season

1882 Atlantic hurricane season

1883 Atlantic hurricane season

1884 Atlantic hurricane season

1885 Atlantic hurricane season

1886 Atlantic hurricane season

1887 Atlantic hurricane season

1888 Atlantic hurricane season

1889 Atlantic hurricane season

1890 Atlantic hurricane season

1891 Atlantic hurricane season

1892 Atlantic hurricane season

1893 Atlantic hurricane season

1894 Atlantic hurricane season

1895 Atlantic hurricane season

1896 Atlantic hurricane season

1897 Atlantic hurricane season

1898 Atlantic hurricane season

1899 Atlantic hurricane season

1900 Atlantic hurricane season

1901 Atlantic hurricane season

1902 Atlantic hurricane season

1903 Atlantic hurricane season

1904 Atlantic hurricane season

1905 Atlantic hurricane season

1906 Atlantic hurricane season

1907 Atlantic hurricane season

1908 Atlantic hurricane season

1909 Atlantic hurricane season

1910 Atlantic hurricane season

1911 Atlantic hurricane season

1912 Atlantic hurricane season

1913 Atlantic hurricane season

1914 Atlantic hurricane season

1915 Atlantic hurricane season

1916 Atlantic hurricane season

1917 Atlantic hurricane season

1918 Atlantic hurricane season

1919 Atlantic hurricane season

1920 Atlantic hurricane season

1921 Atlantic hurricane season

1922 Atlantic hurricane season

1923 Atlantic hurricane season

1924 Atlantic hurricane season

1925 Atlantic hurricane season

1926 Atlantic hurricane season

1927 Atlantic hurricane season

1928 Atlantic hurricane season

1929 Atlantic hurricane season

1930 Atlantic hurricane season

1931 Atlantic hurricane season

1932 Atlantic hurricane season

1933 Atlantic hurricane season

1934 Atlantic hurricane season

1935 Atlantic hurricane season

1936 Atlantic hurricane season

1937 Atlantic hurricane season

1938 Atlantic hurricane season

1939 Atlantic hurricane season

1940 Atlantic hurricane season

1941 Atlantic hurricane season

1942 Atlantic hurricane season

1943 Atlantic hurricane season

1944 Atlantic hurricane season

1945 Atlantic hurricane season

1946 Atlantic hurricane season

1947 Atlantic hurricane season

1948 Atlantic hurricane season

1949 Atlantic hurricane season

1950 Atlantic hurricane season

1951 Atlantic hurricane season

1952 Atlantic hurricane season

1953 Atlantic hurricane season

1954 Atlantic hurricane season

1955 Atlantic hurricane season

1956 Atlantic hurricane season

1957 Atlantic hurricane season

1958 Atlantic hurricane season

1959 Atlantic hurricane season

1960 Atlantic hurricane season

1961 Atlantic hurricane season

1962 Atlantic hurricane season

1963 Atlantic hurricane season

1964 Atlantic hurricane season

1965 Atlantic hurricane season

1966 Atlantic hurricane season

1967 Atlantic hurricane season

1968 Atlantic hurricane season

1969 Atlantic hurricane season

1970 Atlantic hurricane season

1971 Atlantic hurricane season

1972 Atlantic hurricane season

1973 Atlantic hurricane season

1974 Atlantic hurricane season

1975 Atlantic hurricane season

1976 Atlantic hurricane season

1977 Atlantic hurricane season

1978 Atlantic hurricane season

1979 Atlantic hurricane season

1980 Atlantic hurricane season

1981 Atlantic hurricane season

1982 Atlantic hurricane season

1983 Atlantic hurricane season

1984 Atlantic hurricane season

1985 Atlantic hurricane season

1986 Atlantic hurricane season

1987 Atlantic hurricane season

1988 Atlantic hurricane season

1989 Atlantic hurricane season

1990 Atlantic hurricane season

1991 Atlantic hurricane season

1992 Atlantic hurricane season

1993 Atlantic hurricane season

1994 Atlantic hurricane season

1995 Atlantic hurricane season

1996 Atlantic hurricane season

1997 Atlantic hurricane season

1998 Atlantic hurricane season

1999 Atlantic hurricane season

2000 Atlantic hurricane season

2001 Atlantic hurricane season

2002 Atlantic hurricane season

2003 Atlantic hurricane season

2004 Atlantic hurricane season

2005 Atlantic hurricane season

2006 Atlantic hurricane season

2007 Atlantic hurricane season

2008 Atlantic hurricane season

2009 Atlantic hurricane season

2010 Atlantic hurricane season

2011 Atlantic hurricane season

2012 Atlantic hurricane season

2013 Atlantic hurricane season

2014 Atlantic hurricane season

2015 Atlantic hurricane season

2016 Atlantic hurricane season

2017 Atlantic hurricane season

2018 Atlantic hurricane season

2019 Atlantic hurricane season

2020 Atlantic hurricane season

2021 Atlantic hurricane season

Transcluding on behalf of Chicdat. Noah^Talk 12:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Noah. I knew someone would help me with that huge table! 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

To be comprehensive and not have any notable omissions, that should include all of the articles before 1851. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll add them in. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, and 40 articles to go! 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass merger for disambiguation pages

See above (Talk:Hurricane_Lili_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_22_August_2020) for context. We have hundreds of disambiguation articles, only they're not really dab articles, they're more like set index articles. Technically, the majority of them should be titled like List of storms named Arlene, as opposed to Hurricane Arlene. I propose that all of these articles should be merged into individual lists for each letter. There is already a List of named storms (U–Z) and List of named storms (I), and a draft for Draft:List of named storms (A). Note, this would only apply to named storms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely support, centralizing the lists would be much easier to maintain and navigate, while getting rid of the "set index articles aren't disambiguation articles" problem that's been causing confusion at several RMs for years. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Support - this needs to happen ASAP since we are now naming all sorts of weather systems.Jason Rees (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Strong support. List of named storms (U–Z) is now split into List of named storms (U), List of named storms (V), List of named storms (W), List of named storms (X), and List of named storms (Y). I kept U–Z as a references article. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to hear why @CycloneYoris: thinks we should have 600+ disambiguation pages that are largely redundant to other disambiguation pages like Vicky, hard to maintain accurately, yet alone mistitled. (Storms named x is more accurate and allows us to include all weather systems that are named).Jason Rees (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Then we should simply rename all of these pages instead of merging them, this will likely fix the WP:SETNOTDAT problem mentioned above. I cannot by any means support a decision that would greatly affect the majority of our readers who are accustomed to these pages, and since this is obviously an encyclopedia, thinking about what is best for our readers should be one our main priorities as editors. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@CycloneYoris: I myself, a reader from last September to January, didn't learn about dabs till March, and 99% of them have low pageviews. Click Special:PrefixIndex/List of tropical storms named, and most likely, when you find out their pageviews, on average there will be one or two. Even with high readership, merging Tropical Storm Bertha to List of named storms (B) has a lot more benefits than keeping it there. Basically every storm whose name has been used more than once has its own, stubby, disambiguation page. Anyway, I personally think this list modernizing is the best thing that happened to WPTC in years. Thanks, 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Keep in mind that these Storm index pages are not only part of this project, but a part of Wikipedia as a whole. I personally would have no qualms with both Tropical Storm Bertha and List of named storms (B) coexisting, anything that further benefits our readers is fine with me. I still think that a wider consensus for this would be necessary and it's not only our decision to make. A similar discussion regarding this can be found here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is making sure that all of the dabs are accurate, that the links all work, and navigating similar names. Let's say you wanted Lucy, or was it Lusi, or Lucie? They're all alphabetically listed on List_of_named_storms_(L), which would be the case for every other letter when they're all done. Another problem with these dabs is that many have practically no useful information. Let's take Tropical Storm Amy (disambiguation). The Atlantic storm has no reference to where it went, and eight give no reference to any info or just its intensity. Having all of the storms on the same list will make those shorter descriptions stand out, so one day we can have better descriptions for every named storm. Several storms that were named in multiple basins don't have a dab to begin with. It would be less effort making the lists by letter than making sure every name had a short-stubby dab/set index article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

What happens now if a storm is serious?

From Tropical cyclone naming: "A name is retired or withdrawn if a consensus or majority of members agree that the system has acquired a special notoriety, such as causing a large number of deaths and amounts of damage, impact, or for other special reasons." So what happens if a storm name has to be retired at this stage when we're using Greek letters?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: The letter is added with its year to a list of retired names, but is not actually withdrawn from use.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not following. Then it's not truly "retired". What is your source?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: [1]. if a significant storm designated by a letter of the Greek Alphabet, in either the Atlantic or eastern North Pacific Basin, was considered worthy of being “retired”, it would be included in the list of retired names with the year of occurrence and other details, but that the particular letter in the Greek Alphabet would continue to be available for use in the future Doesn't get more official than this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The information should be added to the article, then. I don't have time this week.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am personally not sure how relveant it is to note that the letters of the greek alphabet can be retired, but are continue to be available for use in the future. Especially when in theory any name remains available to be used for a tropical cyclone as proved by Yolanda, which is the next name to be used by Nadi and Vicki which was retired in 2004 but has been reused twice this year.Jason Rees (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:TCWC Wellington BT dead link

{{TCWC Wellington BT}} includes a reference to the "TCWC Wellington Best Track Data 1967–2006" and appears on a large number of articles for Pacific cyclones. Unfortunately, the link is dead. I asked the NZ Metservice whether there was a replacement, and they pointed out it was hosted by NOAA and pointed me somewhere else:

"IBTrACS data, from all World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Tropical Cyclone Warning Centres, are publicly available on https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ibtracs/. For links to data, please see https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ibtracs/index.php?name=ib-v4-access. If you want to browse the data, a couple of options can be found here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ibtracs/index.php?name=browse."

Digging through cyclone data to find the exact replacement is not something I feel qualified to do, but I'm hoping someone here canupdate the template with a pointer to the appropriate data set (or else update all the links to it int he individual articles). --IdiotSavant (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @IdiotSavant: There isn't a direct replacement for the dataset, but as time allows I have been replacing the templates with links to IBTRACS which has the same information just not presented as well. I also have a copy of the spreadsheet saved on my computer.Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Merging

Withdrawn. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 09:55, 1 October 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.

Once upon a time, many years ago, when you wanted to merge a tropical cyclone article, you didn't go to the talkpage. You went to WP:WPTC/MERGE and started a discussion. Then, somewhere along the line, someone decided to propose merges on the talkpage instead. Unfortunately, most people don't look at these articles much. After all, the storms aren't even notable. So let's pretend an editor is looking at tropical cyclone pages, looking for merging discussions to !vote in. Out of 5,000 TC articles, what are the chances that he stumbles across a merging discussion? On the other hand, if we moved merging discussions to WP:WPTC/MERGE, he could find a lot more merging discussions to !vote in. Do you support or oppose this idea? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - That was an one-off event when notability for TC articles that wasn't quite established at the time. I can't see that many current articles that need merging to warrant the return of this page. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 13:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose requests for merging must happen on the talk page of the article, not with such centralisation (which IMO is not constructive). Java Hurricane 15:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose hell nah. we probably aren't even allowed to do it that way— why bother bringing the page back? TC notability has been long established. ~ AC5230 talk 15:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose in favour of established procedures at WP:Merging. Proposed mergers using the {{merge}} templates are also listed in the Article Alerts at the top of this talk page, which suffices to alert users to the existence of the discussions. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as someone who actually was around when that was used, it's not an avenue I wish to go back down. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose It's normal that people would do that now in the talk page instead of that avenue. If you aren't expecting a much of the discussion, then WP:BOLD could be done. SMB9 9thx my edits 23:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Neutral. I see why Chicdat brought that up. Few of us have the entire project watched. Maybe not a separate merging page, since there aren’t many mergers these days. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:29, 1 October 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.

WPTC 15th anniversary goals

Since these are unlikely to be completed before October 5, i suggest extending this initiative from October 5 into January 15, 2021 (The day of Wikipedia's 20th anniversary). BTW, Wikipedia's 20th anniversary is about 105 days after our 15th anniversary. SMB9 9thx my edits 06:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Good idea 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 09:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently accepted. Great! SMB9 9thx my edits 07:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Typhoon Haishen (2020) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Haishen (2020) to be moved to Typhoon Haishen. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Template:TC Decades

Can someone with good coding knowledge update the aforementioned template to allow for global yearly tropical cyclone articles? (Tropical cyclones in 2020) It would be good to be able to navigate through the years, just as you would for regular season articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Pacific typhoon season articles and timelines

Is it me or is the Pacific typhoon season getting 0 love here? The timeline aren't getting published and many of the season articles are stubs at best. Some attention needs to be given to these articles as well.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 10:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there is any love for Pacific typhoon seasons in here. In List of Pacific typhoon seasons, i just have finished the table and most of new links are redirects to either 1902–19 Pacific typhoon seasons or 1920–38 Pacific typhoon seasons. I hope someone should create an article from these redirects, as creating a Western Pacific typhoon season article is not going to be easy - in fact, it's not like 1940s North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons or 1939 Pacific hurricane season. It's going to be more like 1927 Pacific typhoon season or 1939 Pacific typhoon season. SMB9 9thx my edits 03:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yea, re: the big amount of work, that's why I was only able to do a few of them. I hope we can retain some of the editors who joined or have been editing more because of the active AHS, and maybe get some of them to work on older articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

JackGordean

Closed as anyone can join Wikiprojects, I do not see this discussion becoming constructive

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Does a seven-edit user who hasn't done a thing in a month need to be a full-fledged member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Does that really bother you that much? Don't gatekeep. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 13:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Well, if he edited TC articles, yeah, he can become a member. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to identify themselves as a member of WPTC is able to do so — it's a self-identification rather than having any particular criteria — Iune talk 19:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Didn't you realize that Jack is also active as an IP 66.102.195.102? It's normal. See WP:URIP2. Even so, I also called that IP JackGordean. By the way, he has done something two weeks ago by participating in ITN, which Destroyer frequently participates in. SMB9 9thx my edits 03:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Typhoon Haishen: SIA or dab?

I have started a discussion at Talk:Typhoon Haishen#SIA or dab? which may also apply to similar pages. Certes (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

5 day cone graphics

IIRC there was consensus that the infobox should contain the 5day cone with line. However, for some time, at least since the beginning of the season the bot is uploading the noline version. Was there a decision to change that or did it just happen due to involvement of newly arrived editors?? --Matthiasb (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I remember the opposite being the case. Either way, the no-line graphic is the primary one used by the NHC so we should follow suit and use that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Why should we? The line version is far clearer to see how the points in the track are connected, especially for slow or erratically moving systems. Buttons0603 (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Adopt the JMA domestic scale project-wide for infoboxes (western Pacific storms only)

This has been brought up several times, with several arguments for and against. I feel that consensus has increasingly shifted in favor of this, so I am formally proposing it here. @AC5230, Atomic7732, Chicdat, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, Juliancolton, Ks0stm, Master of Time, MarioProtIV, Nova Crystallis, TheAustinMan, Thegreatdr, Titoxd, TropicalAnalystwx13, Typhoon2013, and Yellow Evan:

I will use Typhoon Halong (2019) (which I separately want to make an article on) as the example at hand, to illustrate why the international scale is of little utility to readers (but not proposing track maps yet; I need to create the functionality in the track generator first). First, the current SSHWS map:

I think we would rather make a map with RSMC data if possible. But using the international JMA scale yields this useless thing (I am using JTWC positions, but altered the intensities to be those of JMA's best track):

which is useless to the reader, as it conveys absolutely no information about the storm's intensity above typhoon strength. In contrast, the domestic scale, which subdivides typhoons in to strong, very strong, and violent, yields the much-more-informative

which clearly shows Halong's peak intensity's location.

The JMA uses these subclassifications in their domestic best track. A common argument against it has been that they aren't intended for the international best track. However, this is a very weak argument; the "international JMA scale" is more akin to the classifications of tropical storm and hurricane than the SSHWS categories, or tropical low, tropical cyclone, and severe tropical cyclone of the Australian scale.

Especially if we are to adopt the JMA scale for track maps, we should make this switch. Even without doing that, I think readers would find this much more informative. It's about time we actually implemented this change, which could easily be done by modifying the infobox accordingly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'm saying this right here right now: Fuck no. "is more akin to the classifications of tropical storm and hurricane than the SSHWS categories" is not, last I checked, reality. I will have to check again. Also, SSHWS is used primarily by the English-speaking world. This is English Wikipedia. Hell, the only scale most people in the US know in regards to TC's is the SSHWS.

If we used RSMC data, we could do both tracks, which would be very useful. But not Wiki-wide adoption of JMA. Despite the fact it and most other scales match up, it just won't do. ~ AC5230 talk 02:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC) (10:14 PM EDT Wed Sep 16 2020)

@AC5230: You misread my proposal. To be clear, this is only for where the scale is already used in infoboxes, namely western Pacific articles (only). This is not a worldwide adoption of this scale. Secondly, "last I checked, reality. I will have to check again" – you're simply incorrect. JMA refers to the subclassifications in advisories all the time. And also, the U.S. is not the only country that consumes our articles. Readers in the Philippines will likely be more interested in the JMA scale, which is similar to the PAGASA scale.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I give up. There's no fighting.. essentially anyone. I concede that I am in the wrong almost at all times, and that the JMA scale is better than that of the SSHWS. Let me go home please. ~ AC5230 talk 02:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@AC5230: That's not what I'm proposing. Again, I should have clarified that this is only for where the international JMA scale is already used.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's still a good idea, so I give up any opposition and wish for my own freedom before the admins shoot me in the- ~ AC5230 talk 02:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Support. The differentiation would be more informative and I think the use of the classifications in advisories is enough to justify their use here. – atomic𓅊7732 02:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose for numerous reasons. We have enough trouble keeping up with the addition of new maps and maintenance as data is changed and the best tracks are released. Who is going to be able to go back and change all the data for hundreds if not thousands of storms? This seems like a proposal that would take months if not a year to do. It would leave a lot of inconsistency within the project for a significant period of time. Speaking of inconsistency, this would be the only basin not using SSHWS. I also do not like the idea of us recognizing a scale that the WMO does not. There are internal classifications within the various weather agencies that warn on cyclones in the western Pacific. They have different names for the classifications and do not agree on the same windspeeds for them either. As the WMO doesn't recognize it as the scale for this reason, we shouldn't give it any special favoritism over the other unofficial scales. Lastly, I feel an argument can be made using WP:COMMONNAME (not in the standard sense). As this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia and most readers hail from ENGLISH countries, we should use the scale that most people are familiar with and would recognize. The scale that needs to be used for these maps is the one that English-speaking people know, not the internal JMA one. Noah^Talk 02:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah: The proposal is emphatically not for the immediate adoption of it for track maps. I still have to write extensions to the software for that and other RSMC tracks (IBTRACS especially) so we can then use all RSMC scales. This proposal is only, for now, to implement it for infoboxes. Nowhere does the WMO say this is not the internationally-recognized scale. The JMA is the RSMC of the western Pacific and as such, their scale, which is prominently mentioned in advisories, has supremacy over them .COMMONNAME does not apply here at all; instead, WP:ENGVAR is more apt, and we have to respect local protocols. The English-speakers of the western Pacific reside primarily in the Philippines, where the SSHWS is not used at all by local media. You would help your case by not WP:SHOUTing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  - Right here on page 29, it lists the typhoon committee scale as the official, agreed-upon scale. Due to the high amount of disagreement and lack of announcement of changes, I doubt this scale has changed or will change anytime soon. As articles are supposed to be slanted towards the majority view (most English wiki readers are concentrated in North America and Europe), the most important aspects should be shown in that manner. I see absolutely no reason to change what has been in place for over a decade. We already heavily detail the official info in the infobox and text. If anything, each basin should have the option of alternating between a map of SSHWS and the official scale. I'm sure there is a way to add in buttons so people can view multiple images (similar to how geographic maps are displayed). Noah^Talk 03:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    - @Jasper Deng: Just for the record JD, I never adamantly opposed adding the JMA status to the infobox. I just think the maps need more thought before they get changed out and don't like the idea of just having JMA scale maps. Maps should be changed worldwide rather than solely in WPAC imo. Basin crossers could pose a problem due to multiple scales being used. As for your infobox proposal, am I correct that you simply want to add a strip at the top with the JMA internal status? A suggestion I thought of... Could we possibly display the two other major centers as well? I think it would be fairly easy to include the CMA and HKO as well considering how many storms hit China. I know the CMA has been mentioned frequently in some of the older articles. What would you think about that? Noah^Talk 01:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Support. We shouldn't use JTWC data or SSHS colors outside of the NHC. This would be a good move. The SSHS is used mostly in the Atlantic and EPAC. Even the JTWC rarely uses a term such as "Category 2 typhoon". Sure, the JMA doesn't use these labels too much either, but for track map purposes, I think this continues an important step in moving away from our older ways of primarily using JTWC (instead of now which is using it as a supplemental resource). I'm all for re-coloring other basins and using their scales/data too. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Support If other scales are re-colored to not be confused with SSHWS. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Strong support. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The proposer did not want to mention the uploader who uploaded 99% of western Pacific track maps in recent years. He did not respect uploaders that supporting his proposal is dangerous for the future of this project. 🐱💬 07:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Meow: I didn't intend to exclude you, but your unconstructive comment makes me glad I did. Your comment that "supporting his proposal is dangerous for the future of this project" is baseless and not even wrong. It's also not true that you have uploaded 99% of western Pacific track maps in recent years. Since we have less than fifty such tracks to be made a year, that would imply the existence of years where you were the sole uploader, which I will not believe for a second. If you are unable to provide any actual arguments, then please kindly refrain from further participation. I haven't seen any WP:AGF from you in that comment. Also, I have taken up the responsibility of extending the software to make this easy. If a map requires more than just one command to make, then the software can be extended. I've already written the necessary software extension to support this and envision functionality to concatenate tracks (e.g. OPC extratropical tracks). You should be grateful that I did so. I have never seen you write a single line of that program.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Support. For the readers who will look at the English Wikipedia pages for Western Pacific season the JMA domestic scale will likely be more relevant to them than the international typhoon committee scale and/or the SSHS. If this change will only apply to infoboxes I see no reason who it should not be implemented as long as it is under different colours from the SSHS. AveryTheComrade (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Support but only if used in all basins. Otherwise, oppose.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 10:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This proposal is just for the western Pacific. Did you mean using the local RSMC for each basin? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Support per Jasper Deng and others. Most users in Hong Kong, Japan, and other countries who use English do not understand the JTWC's categories. They don't even know what the JTWC probably is (I have a friend in China who does not know what the JTWC and the JTWC's categories are). It is rather pointless to use the JTWC, since it really does not have jurisdiction over the basin. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia is a global site. It would be best to have a single global nomenclature so that tropical cyclones around the world can be compared equally. There is nothing wrong with the current system – why fix something that isn't broken? Buttons0603 (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)