Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 48

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 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Broadening scope of newsletter, vital articles, daily anniversary, Portal:Tropical cyclones to include all weather

I propose retiring The Hurricane Herald - instead, make a quarterly newsletter for all weather topics. I mean...? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

So just to clarify the other newsletters for WP: Severe Weather and for Nontropical Cyclones would be getting retired too? I do support the proposal though. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 03:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even know they existed. Yea, they should all be together. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 16:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The Hurricane Herald is important, and that quarterly newsletter would be getting big. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If it becomes too big, then make it monthly. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me take my initial idea a bit further. We could call it the World of WikiProject Weather, cover each weather type, still highlight new good and featured articles, essays, words of encouragement, project goals. Also, three other semi-related side-projects, but I think the vital articles should be expanded to include all weather types, and our daily anniversary. Also, the semi-defunct Portal:Tropical cyclones should be moved to I think we should broaden the scope of the newsletter, along with these current parts of the WPTC, and have them include all weather. This could make it a bit of a weather almanac while also integrating all of the articles already on Wikipedia. The WPTC has already provided a great backbone to the global weather project. Think of it as the Texas/California of the USA. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I like @Hurricanehink:s ideas of how to clean the project up a bit and would be good as long as we are careful with what we put into the newsletter.Jason Rees (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Support This seems very interesting. 🐔dat (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Portal:Tropical cyclone including all weather since Portal:Weather is a thing. Support the rest. Noah^Talk 12:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we need a portal for just TC’s? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's okay to keep all established portals. I would even go so far as to say we could use some additional portals for areas that have enough active editors and interest to maintain portals. Noah^Talk 01:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Overall, I like this idea and support it. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 03:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Why? We just stopped at 48 and that's it? Not even to 50? And never posted to my talk page yet? I'll oppose for now. Severe storm 28 16:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Not stopping it, more to expand coverage to include all weather types. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose deprecating Portal:Tropical Cyclones, but Support Transitioning to a wider Weather Project newsletter - I think that the newsletters should be written as the authors want it, for the most part. However, we may be better transitioning over to a single newsletter for the entire project, especially if inactivity continues to persist on the other newsletters. That being said, I feel that the WPTC "Hurricane Herald" newsletter should close out with 1 or 2 more final issues. The Weather Project is large, though, and since there can be plenty of article activity or significant weather events to cover, I think that Hurricanehink's proposal to make the new newsletter a bimonthly newsletter would be the best way to handle it. And monthly, if necessary (which could be warranted in the event of another hyperactive hurricane season, such as the 2017 or the 2020 North Atlantic hurricane seasons). As for the portals, I strongly oppose merging or deprecating any of them. The Weather Project already has its own portal, Portal:Weather, and I see absolutely no good reason to remove any of the others. The Weather Portal is too general as it is right now to cover all of the major topics in appropriate detail on its own, hence the other portals are needed. As long as the portals are maintained, we are perfectly fine with keeping all of them, and portal maintenance hasn't really been an issue on this project. In fact, I would argue that the Weather Project may be able to use a new portal or two, such as the Tornadoes Portal created by Hurricane Noah. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Support larger WPWX-wide newsletter, oppose merging P:TC – As said before, we do have a weather portal already, and tropical cyclones do seem to be a big enough topic to merit its own page. However, merging the newsletters seems like a better idea, as it makes writing more efficient instead of splitting it between multiple projects (e.g. The Hurricane Herald + The Frozen Times), especially considering that the newsletters have been somewhat inactive for a while. CodingCyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 04:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support WPWX newsletter, Oppose merging portals per LightandDark2000. I would say if enough people are willing to keep up with the Hurricane Herald both could run, or there could be a section for the Hurricane Herald inside the WPWX newsletter. Not sure how practical the first is. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Another year of the Cyclone Cup?

In the absence of Destroyeraa-alt, can we do a second year of the Cyclone Cup, which gave us new GAs last year? 🐔dat (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Support – Sure, why not? Plus, last year's started on January 15, we're three days behind.^[1] Severe storm 28 00:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: @Chicdat and Severestorm28: I can start it on the 31st if enough people (at least 5-6) sign up, considering it technically should have started about 4 hours ago. I could possibly also be a judge. CodingCyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 04:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@CodingCyclone: Where is the discussion for starting the Cyclone Cup? Severe storm 28 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: Sorry, haha! I just created the signup sheet here. CodingCyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 03:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd join if I could. 🐔dat (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

^ Maybe four

Colours in Module:Storm categories

Currently several of the major colours in Module:Storm categories do not meet the ACCESS mandated AA contrast against links, which they are inserted against by several templates. I have drafted replacement colours at User:Asartea/sandbox which do meet AA. The major change here is that I have reworked the main colour scale of 1 to 5 to incorporate more colours. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 19:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Asartea: I took a quick look at the proposed color scheme, and one issue I have is that it is non-intuitive. Color symbology for ordinal data should follow a consistent trend, such as consistently getting darker or redder with stronger storms. In your proposal, colors alternate between lighter and darker shades of orange, for example. I can get behind changing the color scheme to be more accessible, but not these proposed colors. There was an earlier discussion here with several proposed color schemes, but it ended up fizzling out with no consensus. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS yeah I see what you mean. This is mostly because I haven't worked that much yet on colour sets, purely on the colours themselves, so right now its the same sets but with the new colours. I'll get those properly working tomorrow. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 20:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Asartea: Alrighty. And the colors are colorblind accessible too? I know we looked into it at the discussion I linked to. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with our current colors. 🐔dat (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that multiple people agree there's something wrong with it means there's something wrong with it. Chlod (say hi!) 12:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC for List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes

There is a request for comment regarding moving List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes to List of the deadliest tropical cyclones. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of season articles in Category:Current events

It seems it has been the practice that articles such as 2021 Atlantic hurricane season are placed into Category:Current events for the duration of the season, without a banner such as that added by {{Current weather event}}. This practice is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#Template:Current long-term. Anomie ⚔ 20:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I recommend using something like Category:Current hurricane seasons, or a template in the form {{Current hurricane season|date=June 2021}} that assigned such a category. The template could be coded to sort articles in the category by age and emit an error message if the month and year was more than x months in the past. This coding could also be done in a relevant infobox, with a parameter like |current=yes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC for changing the colors in Template:Storm colour

There is a request for comment regarding changing the colors in Template:Storm colour to make them more accessable to colorblind readers. Please comment on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Redux: New RfC (February 2022). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Least Intense Pacific typhoon seasons

Template:Least Intense Pacific typhoon seasons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deadliest Atlantic hurricane seasons

Template:Deadliest Atlantic hurricane seasons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Bill Read

This article on Bill Read, one of the previous director of the National Hurricane Center, is ambiguously named. There is a also a famous Canadian indigenous sculptor named Bill Read, a footballer and others of the same name. I had to redirect many link to this article that were for those others and modify the Wikidata. Wouldn't it be better to rename the article "William L. Read", his proper name, in order to avoid this problem in the future?

Please link to the articles about these other people, or to the disambiguation page that lists them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Southeast Pacific tropical cyclone article

The current discussion on Talk:2021–22 South Pacific cyclone season debates whether unofficial systems should be included in season articles, mainly about the recent Chile SS, Katie, and Lexi. Could a separate article be created for these systems? -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 19:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Unbinilium-322 Dibromide: Can i suggest that you have another read of the debate as its not about including unofficial systems, as I am quite happy to include unofficial tropical systems. What I am not happy about including though is subtropical systems like the Chile SS, when the warning centres for the region monitor subtropical cyclones but not as a part of the TC Season. As a result, I am opposed to a Southeast Pacific tropical cyclone article which would in theory include tropical cyclones from Fiji (180°) to America. Since the Eastern Hemipshere starts at 180 not 140W or 120W. Jason Rees (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: I wanted to know where we could include these unofficial storms. We could put the Chile SS/Katie/Lexi in either a) the SPAC article in the other systems section, b) make a new SEPAC article, c) add them to the Tropical cyclones in 2015/18/22 page, or d) add them to the Southern Hemisphere cyclone season page (like Lexi). I think we should add SEPAC SSes somewhere, as currently the Chile SS is only mentioned as a brief line in the tropical cyclogenesis page. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 23:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Unbinilium-322 Dibromide: As far as I am concerned it shouldn't be in any article as subtropical systems occur across the South Pacific and we generally dont add them in since they are not monitored as a part of the TC Season. The BoM even took the step of removing them from the database in 1978 and we do not pick and choose which systems we monitor.Jason Rees (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: If they are SSes, shouldn't they be recognized and designated by the JTWC? Since you said we shouldn't include the Chile SS because the aren't monitored as part of the season, then by the same logic, we should remove Katie and Lexi as well. Also, could you give me an example of the "subtropical systems that occur across the South Pacific"? A quick look on zoom earth only shows a system west of New Zealand that looks vaguely subtropical. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 00:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Unbinilium-322 Dibromide: Here is a thesis from 2005 talking about subtropical cyclones across the South Pacific, while I can tell you that the New Zealand Met Service was monitoring a subtropical cyclone near New Zealand on January 24. However, to the best of my knowledge, they do not consider it as a part of the 2021-22 tropical cyclone season and don't have to. As for the JTWC will generally only warn on/designate tropical systems between Africa and America, besides which they are completely unofficial and it is the BoM/FMS/Met Service who are the official warning centres. I have already commented on the seasonal talk page that I believe Katie and Lexi should be removed, however, Katie could probably stay as scientific literature has suggested that it might have been tropical.Jason Rees (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Judging from Lexi's AfD, you've always been against including SEPAC storms in the season article. So why not create the article Southeast Pacific tropical cyclone? The South Atlantic and Mediterranean storms are unofficial too, thus this article should be created. Unbilinium 322 Dibromide has a point. Additionally, you have repeatedly claimed that no government agency monitored the 2022 Chile SS, while NOAA was aware of it and did mention it. You have said, and we do not pick and choose which systems we monitor. No, we don't; sources do. And Katie was mentioned quite a lot in sources immediately after it formed. This strongly suggests including these storms either in the "Other systems" section (status quo), in Southeast Pacific tropical cyclone, in the SHEM article (probably not, those pages are very low-traffic), or in the Tropical cyclones in XXXX articles (never been tried before). 🐔dat (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that you have a warning center issuing on subtropical cyclones in the South Atlantic and these storms cause some impact. Met Sea storms are warned on by a variety of official agencies and almost always cause some kind of impact. Two of the SEPAC storms mentioned have neither of those and are not notable. Is there significant research on the climatology of that region in regards to subtropical cyclogenesis as there is for South Atlantic? I would be opposed to creating an article just for a few storms that piqued the interest of a few unofficial scientific researchers. Noah^Talk 11:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chicdat: My argument against including them is not that they were unofficial, as I would be quite happy to include systems that were thought to be TROPICAL by reliable sources in the season article. As a result, I am not going to create an article on Southeast Pacific tropical cyclones, which in theory would include systems from Fiji to America. However, I am not happy about including subtropical systems such as Lexi and the Chilean system in the season articles, when such systems are monitored by Met Service, BoM and the FMS, but not included as a part of the cyclone season. After all, we do not pick and choose which systems we monitor as a part of the cyclone season, Met Service, BoM and the FMS do. Its just like NHC/CPHC/JMA do not include tropical disturbances as a part of the season, unless they are a significant threat to land.Jason Rees (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I am now leaning towards agreement with Jason and Noah that it is probably against our best judgement to include these unofficial cyclones on the articles, since only a couple actually have research and reliable sources. However, what should our actions be then for other systems like Subtropical Storm 96C and the 2006 Central Pacific cyclone be then? I ask since these two systems weren't officially tracked and aren't included in any archives by the NHC or the CPHC. I ask because @Jason Rees:, you mention that you do not want to include Lexi and the other hybrid system because despite being monitored, there is no actual inclusion of the systems, and based on what I have seen the two North Pacific Cyclones fall under the same category. Should we remove these for the same reason as Lexi, Katie and other hybrid lows? What do you think our action should be moving forward for systems like those? 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 18:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The 2006 cyclone (91C) and 96C both need to be mentioned, as both were notable systems. Subtropical Storm 96C was monitored by the NWS and the NOAA, BTW, so there were US Government agencies tracking them. I think that the idea of an article for "Southeast Pacific tropical cyclones" (or "Far Southeast Pacific tropical cyclones") is something worth considering, given that tropical/subtropical cyclogenesis in the waters around the Galapagos Islands and Chile is exceedingly rare. There have been barely any tropical or subtropical systems observed in that part of the Pacific, and when one was spotted, there were no official agencies to track them, since RSMC Nadi and Wellington's Areas of Responsibility terminate at 120°W, so there are no official agencies to monitor tropical or subtropical cyclones in that part of the world, anyway. We could use the title "Far Southeast tropical cyclone" to highlight the fact that only the extreme Southeast Pacific is included, or we could go broader and include all subtropical cyclones for the entire wider southeast Pacific, east of the International Date Line. Concerning the issue of official agencies tracking them, I should mention that the Mediterranean basin is still largely unofficial, even though we do have Government agencies tracking and naming the stronger Medicanes now. But prior to the 1990s, the existence of Medicanes was pretty much unacknowledged, so the situation in the Mediterranean in the past was very similar. Even now, multiple Medicanes appear to go completely ignored by the Government agencies of the Mediterranean region (particularly the ones that don't have as big of an impact), so you can't argue that the Government agencies monitor all of them. Same thing for the South Atlantic, where barely anyone paid much attention to the basin until Hurricane Catarina happened in 2004. The issue of official agencies monitoring or tallying these storms is a non-issue, since we've documented numerous storms that were considered unofficial or were entirely ignored by all of the "official" Government agencies of the basin. An example is "Cyclone Stephanie", which Meteo-France believed to be subtropical, but the NHC and basically all the other experts considered it to be extratropical. The NHC, the only official RSMC of the North Atlantic basin, didn't even so much as tally that storm as a part of the 2016 hurricane season, and yet, we noted it due to the dispute between the agencies. The 2006 cyclone (91C) was pretty much tracked by only researchers, as both the NHC and the CPHC ignored the system entirely. And yet, it's meteorologically notable enough to warrant having its own article, because only one other tropical cyclone has been observed developing in that part of the Northeast Pacific (in 1975). There was also disagreement between various meteorological experts on its nature, and the commentary itself is also worth documenting. Subtropical Storm 96C was an extreme oddity, and thus warrants a mention on the basis of its metrological nature alone. However, this storm was mentioned or tracked by both the NWS and the NOAA, so this one wasn't completely ignored by Government agencies. The 1996 Lake Huron cyclone (Hurricane Huron) wasn't tracked or acknowledged by the NHC or any US Government agency, despite its odd nature. This is another storm that was tracked by just the researchers, and yet, this storm was definitely notable enough to warrant having its own article. While this storm does have land impacts (I recently found documentation for the impacts in a US Gov database, which I will add later), but even in the absence of impacts, the very fact that this storm existed is already notable enough to warrant documentation. I believe that the same thing applies to the Far Southeast Pacific subtropical cyclones. Even if we don't mention them on the South Pacific tropical cyclone pages (which I also disagree with), they should be mentioned somewhere on our tropical cyclone regions and subtropical cyclone pages, due to their extreme rarity and highly-unusual nature. However, the main issue I have with something like a Southeast Pacific subtropical cyclone article is the coverage. There have only been 4 tropical or subtropical cyclones documented within the vicinity of Chile (east of 120°W) to my knowledge. These were a tropical depression in May 1983, and 3 subtropical cyclones in 2015, 2018, and 2022, respectively (Katie, Lexi, and the January 2022 subtropical cyclone). I don't think that 4 tropical/subtropical cyclones is enough to produce any meaningful statistics. Coverage is already extremely lacking in the Far Southeast Pacific, but given the very low number of systems observed there, we might not have enough data anyway to document data like the climatological statistics. If we are to create an article for the Far Southeast Pacific subtropical cyclones, we'd need climatological and statistical data so that the article documents more than just the meteorological histories of the storms themselves, which can be accomplished via individual articles (for the most notable systems). From what I've seen, there is definitely research on these systems, but not enough to the point where we have any kind of statistical study. At this point, the only thing we can actually note are the meteorological histories of those cyclones, and only two of those systems (Katie and Lexi) have enough documentation to have their own articles. I don't think that we should create another article if it's just going to end up as another skeleton or a stub of an article - it should at least have more meaningful data, such as the South Atlantic tropical cyclone and Medicane articles. While creating another article for the Far Southeast Pacific subtropical cyclones is an idea worth exploring, I don't think that it's practical at the moment. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I’d prefer to see this potential article start under a “Climatology” section in the current SPTC article. Explain why storms in the SEPAC are rare, and then the oddities can get a mention. I believe that we should include all subtropical and tropical cyclones that are mentioned by a reliable source in the respective season article, since the articles are never too lengthy to include an occasional additional storm that isn’t “official”. It is better to be inclusive than to be missing valid topics of research. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: We are not here to document subtropical cyclones though as they are not considered a part of the tropical cyclone season in the WPAC, NIO, Aus and SPAC. As a result, I do not see why we should document them when they occur in the SPAC to the east of 120W, when we don't to the west of 120W. In fact, I would also argue that we would potentially be committing original research, when the warning centres for the region monitor them, but do not include them as a part of the TC season.Jason Rees (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we should still include these systems at least somewhere, as they exist, unlike Hurricane Hone^[sarcasm], and that they are recognized by a government agency. Maybe a List of unofficial tropical and subtropical cyclones article. Also, @Jason Rees:, the thesis never mentioned anything about SEPAC SSes. I think they should be included because according to tropical cyclogenesis, "Tropical cyclogenesis is extremely rare in the far southeastern Pacific Ocean, due to the cold sea-surface temperatures generated by the Humboldt Current, and also due to unfavorable wind shear; as such, there are no records of a tropical cyclone impacting western South America." This probably means we don't get weekly SEPAC SSes. Since these systems haven't been invested let alone designated by the JTWC (with possibly the exception of 96P), it is questionable whether these "subtropical" systems would be named if they occurred in the Atlantic, or whether they only have few subtropical characteristics, like Stephanie. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 00:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Does the average reader really care whether a storm is official or not? That can be explained in text. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink mobile: Maybe. So as per previous comments, I think we should still include these systems but we should clearly state that they were not official.-³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 23:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m ok with that caveat. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support Hurricanehink's idea. I think it's a great compromise. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I could get behind that as well 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 04:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a perfect compromise. 🐔dat (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response but I have been away dealing with some personal business over the last few days and I am only checking in briefly. @CycloneFootball71: I believe that both 96C and 91C need to be revisited with a very fine eye to cut some of the commentary/original research out. For example, NRL does not open invest areas and nor did SSD analyse it as a tropical storm. However, both could remain in their seasons, since reliable sources think that they were possibly tropical unlike Lexi and the Chilean SS. Yes, I remain opposed to mentioning subtropical storms in the South Pacific basins, where the relevant government agencies monitor them, but do not classify them as a part of the TC season. In fact, the BOM, MetService and FMS (all government agencies) release their final tropical cyclone bulletins when a system is determined to be either subtropical or extratropical. Yes tropical cyclogenesis gets rarer as we get nearer South America, but that does not mean that we should include a subtropical cyclone, when we don't include subtropical cyclones normally. If we do start including them all, I fear that we would be opening the flood gates to including all invests, tropical disturbances and weather systems included in the tropical weather outlooks. Also @Unbinilium-322 Dibromide: You asked for information on subtropical cyclones over the South Pacific which is what you got. Also the thesis does mention that subtropical cyclones occur in the Southeastern Pacific (ie to the east of 180) and that the ones do not generally do not impact New Zealand. Personally, I feel that the compromise while agreeable, doesn't really address the issue at hand.Jason Rees (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What about being clearer with our wording? For example, “Some meteorologists, including [insert reliable source], assessed that the system was a subtropical cyclone; however, the official weather agency for the basin – [insert RSMC] - did not classify it or include it.” Simple, basic wording. We get around the issue of whether it’s official or not, and we include info that’s from a reliable source, which is a bedrock of Wikipedia policy. You mention including all invests as a byproduct of this discussion, but I don’t think that’s the case, and no one has argued or would argue to include every system in the TWO. Let’s keep the discussion on subtropical cyclones. Since you mention the TWO, I would extend it to the JTWC, that if a system was considered a subtropical storm in the STWA, it should be included. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What reliable source include subtropical cyclones as a part of the South Pacific tropical cyclone season though? The RSMC/TCWCs clearly don't at the moment and neither do the JTWC as they just label them as just invest areas snd leave them in the STWA. 99% of the systems currently mentioned since 1998-99, are at least backed up with an XXF or xxU designator, which proves that they are a part of the season.Jason Rees (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Not part of the season, but we have reliable sources that they existed, so they should be mentioned in the spirit of inclusiveness. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes we have reliable sources stating that they exist, but by your own admission we do not have any sources that include subtropical cyclones as a part of the South Pacific tropical cyclone season. As a result, I see no reason why we should include them and commit original research, by saying that these systems were a part of the tropical cyclone season.Jason Rees (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The "cyclone season" is just a loose term for the dates when tropical cyclones form. It's not original research if reliable sources say they existed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I standby my statement that it is original research to say that subtropical cyclones are a part of the tropical cyclone season, when no one classifies them as a part of the season. Just because reliable sources say that something exists, it doesn't mean that it should be in our tropical cyclone seasons especially when the official government agencies do not include them as a part of the season. I also note that the FMS and BoM assign an XXF designator to tropical cyclones, which shows that it isn't just a loose term for the dates when tropical cyclones form.Jason Rees (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Storms form outside the season and are still included. I don’t see what we’re gaining by being needlessly exclusive. Subtropical cyclones (which are included in TC’s by year and other lists of tropical cyclones) that are verified by reliable sources should be included, and I’m not convinced that the articles are better by excluding them for wonky reasons. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not excluding them for wonky reasons and nor are we being needlessly exclusive by excluding subtropical cyclones, as otherwise, it becomes a case of where do you draw the line as to what to include as a part of the TC season? Also, off-season tropical cyclones like Donna, are included as a part of the cyclone season by our warning centres, unlike subtropical cyclones. Also if subtropical cyclones are being included in TC’s by year and other lists of tropical cyclones when they are not being monitored as a part of the season, then they need to come out since we do not pick and choose which systems we monitor.Jason Rees (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, I think we lose more by being needlessly restrictive. The line that I am proposing, and what has been the standard on Wikipedia, is to mention all tropical and subtropical cyclones in each basin's season article (the term "season" here referring to the tropical cyclone year). The named storms by RSMCs tend to have full sections, sometimes also systems of lower intensity, while storms that have reliable sources saying they are tropical or subtropical are sometimes included in an "Other storms" section. This way, we include and highlight all of the official storms, and also include other storms that are backed up by reliable sources. You seem to be against the latter part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You and I obviously have a differing idea of what the standard on Wikipedia has been for years, as we normally keep it to the type of system the warning centers would monitor or have designated as a part of the TC season. This includes subtropical cyclones in the SWIO and Atlantic but excludes them in Aus & SPAC since they are not a part of the TC season and were even removed from the database by the BoM. As a result, I strongly feel that including subtropical systems in the SPAC is a big no no.Jason Rees (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? A straw poll whether to include subtropical systems in the SPAC? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That we keep the season articles tidy by keeping subtropical systems out of the Aus/SPAC pages, when they are not classified as a part of the tropical cyclone season by the warning centres responsible for the region.Jason Rees (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the articles are already tidy, and that the editors who work on the season articles each year are doing a pretty good job keeping articles up to date. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Which is a bloody good reason why not to add subtropical cyclones into the mix, when they are not classified as a part of the tropical cyclone season by the warning centres. It is after all easy to keep up with systems that are designated as xxF, but it would be a lot harder to keep up with subtropical cyclones when they are not classified as a part of the tropical cyclone season. For example, no one has added in the subtropical low that MetService monitored in late January, which suggests that not everyone is as interested in including subtropical cyclones in the TC seasons as you seem to be.Jason Rees (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: If the FMS consider subtropical systems as separate from TC seasons, than why not create an article about subtropical systems? 2021–22 South Pacific subtropical cyclone season? -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 00:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Because there is no such thing as a subtropical cyclone season and to create one for the purposes of Wikipedia would be original research and not notable. It would also be pure speculation as to which systems we would put in, since they are not designated assigned a designation such as xxF or xxU.Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Another option would be to make an article like South Pacific subtropical cyclone, which just lists notable subtropical systems, similar to the medicane article. I would argue that the 3 subtropical systems east of the 120th meridian west should be included due to rarity. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 02:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that Southeast Pacific tropical cyclone would be a better name, since South Atlantic tropical cyclone is not called South Atlantic subtropical cyclone even though almost all of them are subtropical. 🐔dat (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The JTWC have declared 96P a subtropical storm. Before another argument breaks out about whether to include it, I just want to say that the SS 96P of 2021 was included in the other systems section of the season article. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 00:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Rather unsurpisingly, I dont think that either should be included in the season article, since neither system was carried as anything more than an invest, while the BoM/FMS/Met Service did not treat them any differently to any other subtropical cyclone that occurs in the South Pacific including East Coast Lows.Jason Rees (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the page Subtropical cyclone, "Australian east coast lows are extratropical cyclones, the most intense of these systems have many of the characteristics of subtropical cyclones." Australian east coast lows are likely not fully subtropical. I'm pretty sure that that the JTWC has a stricter definition of subtropical cyclones than the BoM/FMS/MetService (I'm not sure so feel free to correct me), so the systems should be included. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 20:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Also @Jason Rees:, the track of the recent unofficial SS in the South Pacific (96P) has been added to the season summary map. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 01:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter if the JTWC has a stricter definition of subtropical cyclones than the BoM/FMS/MetService, as at the end of the day they are not considered a part of the cyclone season by any agency as things stand. As far as I am concerned if the track of 96P has been added to the trackmap then it needs to come out, since it is not considered a part of the TC season.Jason Rees (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: The JTWC might consider it to be a part of the season. And also, as mentioned above, so many other articles have unofficial systems mentioned that the RSMC does not recognize. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 14:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As things stand, the JTWC do not consider 96P to be a part of the tropical cyclone season, as they did not warn on it or assign it a designation aside from INVEST 96P. Yes there is a gap in the numbering for the southern hemisphere systems from this year, but TC 16S has been confirmed through various channels to be TD/TL 08/25U. Also as I have stated above, I am happy to include systems that were not monitored by the RSMC/TCWC's, but only when sources say that they were tropical not subtropical. This is because they are not considered a part of the season, by either the JTWC, FMS, BoM MetService, Meteo France or any other warning center and for us to include them as a part of the season would probably be original research.Jason Rees (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

After reading all the argumentation presented here, I think I agree more with Jason Rees on this one. Regarding the "Other Storm" sections, we have to draw a line on what kind of systems should be eligible to be included on them, and I think that the mindset of including only the "systems that would count towards the season total were they recognized by the official agencies of the AoR" would be the best criteria we can currently apply. These subtropical systems wouldn't be counted on official records regardless the amount of recognition the official agencies give them because they don't issue advisories on such systems, so they would never be a part of their respective seasons. At the same time, their rarity and the fact that they were monitored by some notable agencies make them eligible to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia IMO, but I don't think that there's enough info on SEPAC systems to warrant their own artcle like the SATL one have. Maybe including a section about them on some existing article, like the Tropical cyclone basins one for example, would be the best option for now, until there's enough information on these to justify the article's creation. ABC paulista (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think maybe a List of unofficial tropical cyclones article could be created. It lists unofficial systems that were not recognized by the RSMC but were tracked another notable agency. I agree with ABC paulista about including these systems somewhere as there definitely is something separating 96P and a random extratropical low 1800 miles southeast of Christchurch. Also, @Jason Rees: the SS 96P last year is still included in the season article and 96C is still in the 2018 Pacific hurricane season article despite FMS/MetService/CPAC not recognizing subtropical systems. Their tracks are also added to the season categories over at Commons. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 15:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, their tracks are included on the season summary because most of the tracks are based on IBTrACS data, which include Best Track data from unnofficial agencies, and in 96C's case the NOAA's SPSD assessed it as a tropical cyclone, which would be classifiable per CPHC's standards if they recognized it at the time. ABC paulista (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Tropical_cyclone_classification

I have nominated Template:Tropical_cyclone_classification for deletion.Jason Rees (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Color Changes?

Hi, i just noticed that the colors of the SSHSS categories changed and thus do not match.

Ex: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_Atlantic_hurricane_season

Janet is purple. Was wondering if the maps will update to reflect the color changes or if this is an error?24.47.203.20 (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

No there is no error, Please see on the current long discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather § RfC: Changing the color scheme for storm colors to make it more accessible and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather § Comments. HurricaneEdgar 13:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Holy.... maybe there should have been some restraint before making changes to the articles? It looks like the purple color is contested among editors, I personally think its an eyesore here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: The more participation and feedback we get the better the result will be. Noah^Talk 14:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:A/R/C

There is an ArbCom case regarding the systemic canvassing within the Discord server of this WikiProject. You may be interested in giving the statements about this. Mario Jump 83! 12:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

C - Class Task Force Proposal

I have announced a proposal of a new task force called, "C - Class". The task force's purpose, would be to help achieve the goal of upgrading all articles in this WikiProject to at least C - Class. By December 31, 2022. As of March 24, 2022, 66.5% of all articles, are rated C - Class or higher. There are 188 articles remaining in the "Stub - Class" category. ' ' ' Discussion' ' ' : Vote below if you support or oppose this proposal. TropicalCyclone101 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @TropicalCyclone101, Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/2022 C/B Class Drive is currently working towards this goal. You may want to consider joining that drive instead. Chlod (say hi!) 01:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Chlod. Thank you, I will certainly be participating in the 2022 C/B Class Drive. I apologize for the very delayed reply, I took a (longer than - anticipated) WikiBreak. TropicalCyclone101 (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed, that the class drive's goals is focused specifically, on WikiProject Weather. And not WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. While I will of course, still be participating in that class drive, I would like to continue this proposal, and lead or be the co - leader of my planned task force, if the majority support it. TropicalCyclone101 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000:

:@CycloneFootball71: ,
:@Destroyeraa: , :@Cyclone Toby: , :@Flasty Jam:

@SolarisPenguin: , :@Drdpw: , I made a proposal for a new task force (reasons noted above) and you may all support or oppose this proposal, above my chat with Chlod. I wanted to start this voting session a week and a half, ago. However, I needed to take a Wikibreak, which I had to extend, due to unforeseen circumstances.

TropicalCyclone101 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

And something else I forgot to note; The reason I pinged all of you specifically, is because you guys are more "regular" participants. TropicalCyclone101 (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@TropicalCyclone101: I'm not a major prose writer here, but I'll comment that the drive falls under WikiProject Weather because WPTC, WP:SEVERE and other weather-related wikiprojects were merged. As to pings, you'll want to use this template {{ping|USERNAME}}, since just putting @ in front of a username won't actually ping them. Hurricane Noah has recently retired from Wikipedia. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: Thank you. Regarding the class drive, it was only focusing on improving articles created in 2022. Unlike, my planned task force or class drive, which would help upgrade ALL "Stub - Class" articles to "C - Class" or higher. In WPTC. And, although I didn't know Hurricane Noah that much, I'm sad to hear his retirement. He will be missed. TropicalCyclone101 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

CANCELLED

I have decided to cancel the proposal, and therefore this discussion will be closed. However, If you want this discussion to be re-opened, please let me know on my talk page. Thank you for your understanding. TropicalCyclone101 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2022 (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.

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.

Pacific typhoon category

RSMC JMA used very strong typhoon, violent typhoon but the template of infobox tropical cyclone season had no use of that categories thay use unofficial category super typhoon can I add the whole category of RSMC JMA Jupiter50 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that those categories are not used in the Typhoon Committees scale which is the one we have used for years as it is the official one. We also have to bear in mind that the Super Typhoon Category is widely used and more recognisable than Violent Typhoon. It is also technically official since PAGASA, HKO, CMA, Taiwans CWB and there is no single authoritative voice unlike the other basins. Jason Rees (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the categories in small storm infoboxes, but we also do not give the total number of, e.g. Category 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 hurricanes on the SSHWS, and the same goes for the Australian scale. Furthermore, since the JMA does not explicitly include these categories in their best tracks, it is better to treat the JMA typhoon subcategories analogously. The JMA categories are also going to be inapplicable during the period when the JMA did not put wind data in its database.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that Jupiter50 has canvassed both me and HurricaneEdgar to try to push this discussion their way. 🐔dat (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

1-min winds/SSHWS Classifications

I feel that the project needs to have a discussion over when we should put 1-minute wind speeds and SSHWS classifcations in the Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons. It currently seems that 1-min winds are being added into older SHEM articles based on the information presented as being from Neumann in IBTRACS. However, I strongly feel that this is wrong since these systems were never classified as tropical cyclones etc by the JTWC/NPMOC, while the warning centres in the region use their own classification schemes.Jason Rees (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone images

Example 1 (Morning)	Example 2 (Evening)

Hello guys, I have a question, can we use these types of images if, say, the peak occurs outside of a polar-orbiting satellite (Terra-MODIS, Aqua-MODIS, NOAA-20, and Suomi-NPP) pass over? This is especially true for the evening due to the lack of polar-orbiting satellites that pass over storms at that time, or if Terra-MODIS doesn't pass over the storm directly in the morning due to black lines that occur due to Terra not directly flying over the storm. The data I'm using to create these images comes from EODIS Worldview I combine the Blue Marble background with satellite data from GOES 16 or 17, or Himawari 8 that EODIS Worldview provides. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

We can certainly include none polar orbiting satellite imagery, however, we don't need to do composite images. All the geostationary satellites you listed have the bands needed to create true-color images similar to MODIS and VIIRS imagery. Supportstorm (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cyclonetracker: Make sure you listen to @Supportstorm:'s advice as he knows a lot more about tropical cyclone imagery and how to get it then the majority of us.Jason Rees (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)'

Haha wrong person lol Cyclonetracker (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Deadliest typhoons and Template:Deadliest Philippine typhoons

So one of my recent projects has been getting the death toll for historical events better cited. Per a few discussions, including one on the talk page, I removed 20,000 Philippine deaths from the 1881 Haiphong typhoon article, as I didn't believe the 20,000 was an accurate reflection of the sources. That brings me to the two templates I mentioned in the title of this section. Those templates currently have the 1881 storm, but they're missing, for instance, typhoons in 957 and 1245 that killed 10,000 each in China, or the 1931 typhoon which may have killed 300,000 people, which, if true, would tie the lower accepted number of deaths for the 1970 Bhola cyclone, and is greater than the higher total of Typhoon Nina (1975) that includes all deaths from floods and subsequent disease. Should these templates be throughout history? Or one for each century? The 20th century isn't perfect, but we have decent records going back to 1900. I didn't want to take any more bold action beyond removing those deaths, but I could use some assistance in how to proceed with these templates. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I personally wonder about the sources that talk about 10 000 deaths in China for the systems in 957 and 1245 AD. Are they backed up to extremely reliable sources (Ie: A peer-reviewed journal as opposed to say GP or EMDAT)? We also have to ask if it really was a typhoon?Jason Rees (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The early China systems are referenced in the journal Holocene, written by professors. Yes, they would pass the reliability test. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are we still doing rankings in templates like this in the year 2022? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Because it's basic math that something is first, or second, or tied for tenth. My main question is: do we include the 1931 typhoon that killed 300,000 people? Regarding @Jason Rees:'s point, there are high-quality reliable sources for the 957 and 1245 storms causing 10,000 deaths, but not so much the case for the rest of them. So do we include all of the other storms with 10,000 deaths? To YE's point, maybe the template cover all typhoons with a death toll of at least 10,000? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That'd definitely work - but as been pointed out off and on in the past by multiple people over the last decade or so, we technically do not have a source to say it was in Xth place, and I'd argue it's only WP:CALC if all of the death tolls came from a single source. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Track maps for Ubá and the January Subtropical Storm

There are currently no track maps for Ubá and the January Subtropical Storm, but there is data on them from Australia Severe Weather. Australia Severe Weather tracks have been used before, on storms like Katie, Lexi, Mani, Oquira, 01Q, Potira, and many others. The track for Ubá can be found here and the January Subtropical Storm can be found here (listed under "Humberto"). This data can be used to generate their respective tracks. Although the January Subtropical Storm was deleted from the 2021–22 South Pacific cyclone season article, the track could still be made as with other unofficial systems, like 96P (February 2021), 96P (April 2021), 96P (2022), as well as Katie and Lexi. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 01:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

2018 Global FT

Bumping thread for 730 days. However long it takes... Noah^Talk 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

WPAC work will take longer than it could have, so maybe bumping this until 16:07 UTC 25 May 2023. Feel free to revert. Mario Jump 83! 02:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no point continuing this project with most participants no longer involved in the project any longer. If there is someone who wants to continue this project, I'll fill something in project page. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

What's in the topic?

Tropical cyclones in 2018 (future featured topic)

Tropical cyclones in 2018

92 articles

2018 Pacific hurricane season

Hurricane Bud

Tropical Storm Carlotta

Hurricane Hector

Tropical Storm Ileana

Tropical Storm Vicente

Hurricane Willa

Tropical Depression Nineteen-E

Hurricane Walaka

Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season

2017–18 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

Cyclone Ava

Cyclone Berguitta

Cyclone Dumazile

Tropical Storm Eliakim

Cyclone Fakir

Timeline of the 2017–18 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

2018–19 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

Timeline of the 2018–19 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

2017–18 Australian region cyclone season

Cyclone Kelvin

Cyclone Marcus

Cyclone Nora

18U Flood article

Timeline of the 2017–18 Australian region cyclone season

2018–19 Australian region cyclone season

Cyclone Owen

Timeline of the 2018–19 Australian region cyclone season

Liua may be another possible article. Noah^Talk 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: this spreadsheet is here if you need it. Noah^Talk 20:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@Hurricanehink: I thought that I would bring this rather large topic to the eyes of the project... I have worked extensively on the EPAC portion and almost have enough for an FT there. I plan to Leslie with Cooper and Gordon this summer. Any thoughts on this topic? Noah^Talk 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe a global FT would only feature the seasons, as each individual season could be its own good/featured topic. As usual, WPAC is going to be the biggest holdup. Also, the retired storms will be on the difficult side. I appreciate the efforts for a global GT/FT for a year. Eventually I think that navbox could go on the talk page for Talk:Tropical cyclones in 2018. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: This is displaying all storms involved in the subtopics... there are 60 total articles, but this has multiple subtopics. That is why there is indentation for storms and then for Florence's Met. Although that could be an issue for the SHEM seasons since some storms would not qualify as part of this year, but would for other years. Noah^Talk 13:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right. For instance, the 2018-19 SWIO season would need to be a GA, but (thankfully) not Idai and Kenneth. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: How should we handle this? Noah^Talk 21:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean handle. All storms with articles in 2018 will have to be a GA or better. It'll be a lot of work, but it'll be impressive when it's done when it gets there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I mean how would the SHEM be handled since the entire season subtopic wouldnt get included? Should we just have the topic as it currently stands to keep it consistent? Noah^Talk 17:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: All of the topics for the SHEM seasons wouldn't have to be included. For instance, Idai being a 2019 storm wouldn't have to be a GA for the overall 2018 topic. Similarly, the 2018-19 season wouldn't have to become a GT for the whole topic, but it would have to be a GA at least. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Have you seen the progress that KN has been making in WPAC? Noah^Talk 16:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have! Good job KN, and good job to TY2013 for working on Usman. I might get Sagar and Mekunu to FA eventually (would just need one more FA to make that season an FT) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries! Personally think that there should be an article for Tropical Depression Josie. Like even so, it seems to be more significant than Cimaron. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Would you be willing to help get the southern hemisphere up to a good quality for this topic? Noah^Talk 01:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Accompanying task force hasn't been linked on this page, so here it is. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

2018 Pacific hurricane season (Featured topic)

Any thoughts on having a 2018 Pacific hurricane season featured topic within the next few months? My goal is to rewrite Walaka on Monday/Tuesday (and put it up for ACR) to make it better. I want to later rewrite Olivia and Bud to improve them both (also ACR). CooperScience is working on the timeline article currently as well. Noah^Talk 19:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm busy with Cyclone Owen now, but I'm nearly done. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: The first article is the hardest to do usually. There is no time restraint on the work. Keep in mind I have been working on this topic on and off for two years now. Noah^Talk 19:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink and Chicdat: I can tell you that the topic isn't going to be happening until 2021. I actually would like to hold off on nominating it (even after the timeline is done) until I have gotten the chance to rewrite the storm articles I need to (Bud and Olivia at this point) and get them to FA. I think it would be cool to have an entirely featured featured topic going into the nomination. I really appreciate the effort everyone has put into the topic. I hope to do this prolific season due justice. Bud will be next storm I rewrite (after Leslie in ATL). I will do Olivia in December most likely. Noah^Talk 23:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the entire worldwide topic should be done by 2023 (the 5 year anniversary), which will allow for a lot of TFA's. ~Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: A GT should be doable, but idk about a FT by that time. After Hector, we would need 31 more (32 if we need a couple more WPAC articles). I will continue doing EPAC FAs and move to ATL next year, but it will take more than what I am able to do to get us all the way there in only two years. Noah^Talk 19:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right, 11 per year is a lot. It's doable, for sure, but is probably too steep a hill. I'm already committed to Mekunu, Sagar, 2018 NIO, and Alberto. I'm interested in Yutu for the PTS. But that's only 5, and my editing time isn't what it used to be (peak 2007-08 during college, should've studied/partied more, oh well ._.) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Actually, I am going to get involved with finishing off this EPAC timeline article (I will finish August and do October). Nova has expressed interest in helping to finish it and KN may be willing to lend a hand. I do know that KN said he plans to do a bunch of PTS articles in December as he will be done with his months of exams. Noah^Talk 21:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The WPAC is gonna be a majority of the remaining work, especially with needing four new articles, and improving five start-class articles. Here's hoping the tropics get quiet soon so we don't have to keep up with the busy active season! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

So the remaining nominations for the EPAC in the likely order of completion:

Hurricane Bud (2018)
Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season - CB has been hammering this one
2018 Pacific hurricane season
Hurricane Olivia (2018) - I'm working on fixing up this storm rn
2018 Pacific hurricane season - I will update this article (Bud, Olivia, and ACE) after finishing Olivia

How does this sound? Noah^Talk 11:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well. This is almost perfectly done, only Hurricane Bud (2018) and 2018 Pacific hurricane season aren't FAs yet. I think Hurricane Bud should be at least an A-class article. Mario Jump 83! 05:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

2018 Atlantic hurricane season (future featured topic)

2018 Atlantic hurricane season

10 articles

Tropical Storm Alberto

Hurricane Florence

Meteorological history of Hurricane Florence

Hurricane Leslie

Hurricane Beryl

Tropical Storm Gordon

Hurricane Michael

Hurricane Chris

Tropical Storm Kirk

Timeline of the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season

Adding this in as I plan to work on it during 2021. Just a heads up to everyone... Destroyeraa is working on Beryl and I am doing Leslie right now. I started on Gordon this past summer and plan to finish it in 2021. Noah^Talk 22:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Beryl and Chris both up to GA. L&D2K and I will work on Florence, Noah will handle the rest? ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 03:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I will get Leslie and Gordon done. Noah^Talk 21:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

2018 North Indian Ocean cyclone season (future featured topic)

2018 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

7 articles

Cyclone Sagar

Cyclone Titli

Timeline of the 2018 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

@Hurricanehink: I added this topic here as I know you plan to work on it some during the next year as time permits. I believe you said only Titli needed to be created? Noah^Talk 22:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Titli created by Nioni1234 and me. I’ll try to work on it when I have time. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 18:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding Phethai as DachshundLover82 wanted it. Mario Jump 83! 12:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Luckily, Titli was improved to start. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If we need a timeline, I'm willing to work on one. Java Hurricane 11:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

2017–18 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season (future featured topic)

2017–18 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

7 articles

Cyclone Ava

Tropical Storm Eliakim

Cyclone Berguitta

Cyclone Fakir

Cyclone Dumazile

Timeline of the 2017–18 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

@Hurricanehink: I'm thinking that a featured topic could be done here. I don't think it would be insanely difficult to get. Noah^Talk 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The tricky part would be the 4th FA. The timeline would be 2nd, and I suppose Fakir would be a good one to take eventually, so then perhaps the season article? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of what's left for the season article is met histories and the season summary. I was thinking Dumazile could be a potential choice for a FAC. Noah^Talk 16:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

2018 Pacific typhoon season (future good topic)

Added in the WPAC topic that KN has been working hard on. Prapiroon and Barijat may also be article worthy and should be checked out. Noah^Talk 22:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am going to check Prapiroon and Barijat. I'm going to create these articles first, but if I can't find any more Prapiroon and Barijat information, they'll be merged back into the season article. Mario Jump 83! 06:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.
Chlod (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
Elijahandskip (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
A set of best practices for leaders and/or moderators of off-wiki chat platforms to consider adopting

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed

FAR for Hurricane Irene

I have nominated Hurricane Irene (1999) 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. Hog Farm _Talk 02:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Archiving sections

I archived the "2018 Global FT" section as most participants, including me, no longer involved in the project due to either ArbCom sanctions, inactivity, and retirement. You can see the archived discussions here and if you want to continue the project, you can visit this page. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I also plan to archive "Project notes" because it is no longer relevant to the project. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Just leave project notes as a tribute... it's not really taking up much space anyway. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The point of that section is meant to be a tribute, it should be left alone. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Metadata (the Atlantic reanalysis project) less reliable than the HURDAT database?

Me and Jason Rees are having a disagreement on User:Chicdat/sandbox about whether or not Meta pressures can be used. 🇺🇦 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The intensities of the Atlantic Reanalysis project will replace the values in HURDAT so this discussion is moot. Noah^Talk 12:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: The problem is a bit deeper as @Chicdat: has discovered that the Metadata lists various pressure estimates that HURDAT doesnt. I believe these pressure estimates to be unreliable since they are not in HURDAT while the intensities of the Atlantic Reanalysis project have been imported into HURDAT already.Jason Rees (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say the best bet would be to email the NHC webmaster and ask. Noah^Talk 12:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I was about to email NHC but I took a look at the documentation for HURDAT which states that: "5) Central Pressure: These values are given to the nearest millibar. Originally, central pressure best track values were only included if there was a specific observation that could be used explicitly. Missing central pressure values are noted as “-999”. Beginning in 1979, central pressures have been analyzed and included for every best track entry, even if there was not a specific in-situ measurement available." As a result, of the final sentence, I would strongly argue that we should not be adding any pressure estimates in that are not in HURDAT since that is what is deemed to be official and used by projects such as IBTRACS rather than the metadata even though its produced by the reanalysis project.Jason Rees (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Interpreting a message a certain way does not equal emailing the NHC. 🇺🇦 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chicdat: I haven't interpreted any message, I am just using the HURDAT documentation to reject your notion that central pressure estimates that are not in HURDAT should be used per what I thought was the project standards of not using anything that isn't in HURDAt for intensity, with the exception of TCR's and public advisories. Since you are the one who wants to use these pressures maybe you should be the one to email NHC.Jason Rees (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll give in then, for the tenth time or something. 🇺🇦 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Improving tropical cyclone to GA

How could we do it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a to-do list on the talk page, but basing just off your talk page and your contributions, I have zero faith you'll be the one to bring it to GA and not get it reassessed again. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's much harder to get recent or broad topics to GA than it is with highways and individual tropical storms. SpaceX Starship being GA reassessed is irrelevant to the discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis: Would you know of anyone who may be willing to pitch in for this article? It wouldn't be so bad if others helped out. I have basically been working on it by myself as I have had time.

@CactiStaccingCrane: This article will require tons of work in terms of hunting up academic journals. If you would like to help, preparations would be a good place to start. There's already a plan of what's needed. Noah^Talk 21:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah, what should I do now? I mean, should I find more citations or something? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Basically, whole sections have to be written up from scratch. Noah^Talk 02:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: You are splitting up material that's directly related. The variations of the same factors cause a storm to form, intensify, weaken, and dissipate. Your section titles are too vague for wikipedia. They might work for a research paper, but WP isn't built to be written in that manner. Please discuss any organizational changes before implementing them. We have largely taken care of most organizational issues already. As I have said before, the best way to help is to fill out sections that have a to-do list of items that need to be mentioned. Preparations is a good place to start since it doesn't require a technical knowledge of tropical cyclones to be written up. Noah^Talk 03:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just gonna read up on the topic and edit the main page later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Talk:Tropical_cyclone#Preparations has a list of preparations items that need to be mentioned. Each bolded item under preparations would be its own subsection. I would make edits in a sandbox before transferring them over to the article since this is such a highly read article. Noah^Talk 03:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You should have told me that first :) Anyways, I will try my best to add materials in the coming weeks. I couldn't promise much though, as I am also organizing the WP:30 kB drive to try to stub out short Vital articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_on_Aon,_particularly_in_weather_related_articles has an RFC

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_on_Aon,_particularly_in_weather_related_articles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Feel free to fix if I broke anything, just wanted to make Project aware as were mentioned in a previous discussion Slywriter (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hurricane Esther Featured article review

I have nominated Hurricane Esther 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

96C Track

It isn't clear where the track for 96C comes from. If anyone can find the source, please let me know. Although, the file history says it was made from "Data points were generated by Cyclonebiskit", so it may be WP:OR. In that case, the track could be regenerated using using ASW data, as NRL data isn't seeming to load. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 02:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

RM notice

An editor has requested for Cyclone Matmo-Bulbul to be moved to Cyclones Matmo and Bulbul. Since this article is of interest to the WikiProject, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). 47.16.96.33 (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Please fix the colors on like... Literally every timeline for the Atlantic hurricane seasons

Because the colors have been switched back to the original versions, so too should the timelines. I've gotten y'all started by fixing 1950 - 1961. Best regards! Poxy4 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Tropics, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}

Two Proposals Concerning Listing Tropical Cyclone Strength

I brought this up in the Talk page for the 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season, and was advised to bring it in the project page. And, after searching, I found this one, so here goes. (If this is not the right place, please direct me to where I should go with this proposal. Thanks.)

If you go to the Wikipedia entry for the 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season, you will see that, near the top and on the right, it lists Hurricane Fiona as being the strongest hurricane of this season, owing to how it had the lowest pressure of any tropical cyclone in the Atlantic so far this season. And, from what I've observed and have been told, that is how Wikipedia determines which one of those was the strongest.

However, Hurricane Ian's wind speed (1-minute sustained) was significantly higher than Hurricane Fiona's (155 mph vs. 130 mph). And, from what I read elsewhere, meteorological agencies from around the world use wind speed rather than central pressure, such as the following:

Saffir-Simpson Scale, National Hurricane Center^[1]: Hurricane strength is determined by wind speed.
World Meteorological Organization^[2]: They are classified based on wind speed (either 10-minute mean speed, 3-minute mean speed, or 1-minute mean speed), plus pressure is not listed.
National Institute of Informatics, Japan^[3]: It goes over how Japan categorizes typhoons, along with the Saffir-Simpson scale. That said, though there are differences, they are both based on wind speed.
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology^[4]: Tropical cyclone severity is based on mean wind speeds and wind gusts.
Hong Kong Observatory^[5]: Tropical cyclone intensity is determined by measuring wind speeds near the storm's center, which is measured by surface observations, satellite images, radar, and aircraft.
Japan Meteorological Agency^[6]: A tropical cyclone's intensity is based on its wind speed.

On top of that, the Encyclopedia Britannica^[7] states that tropical cyclone intensity and strength are based on wind speed, with both the Saffir-Simpson scale and Australia using numerical rankings for this.

In other words, it appears that the common practice worldwide is to base a tropical cyclone's strength on its maximum sustained winds rather than its central pressure.

Having written that, it appears that, during the 20th century, NOAA's common practice was to use central pressure when listing a hurricane's strength^[8], plus, during the 1970s and 1980s, the Saffir-Simpson Scale used central pressure as a proxy for wind speeds (since it wasn't until 1990 when aircraft were able to accurately measure them). But, owing to public confusion stemming from their use (the examples given were Hurricane Ike [2008], which had a 20-foot storm surge even though it was a category 2 storm, and Hurricane Charley [2004], which was a category 4 storm but which had a storm surge of just seven feet), they simplified it in 2009 to just list peak wind speed^[9].

So, given today's common practice of determining tropical cyclone strength based on wind speed along with how, during at least part of the 20th century, a hurricane's strength was based on its central pressure, I am making the following proposals for determining which storm was the strongest in a given tropical cyclone season:

1) Under "Strongest Storm," if the one with the highest maximum-sustained winds is different from the one with the lowest pressure, list both. But, if they're the same, you just list that storm. As an example, for the 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season, since Hurricane Ian has had the strongest winds so far while Hurricane Fiona has had the lowest pressure so far, you could write it something like this:

Strongest storm Maximum winds Name: Ian - 155 mph (250 kph) (1-minute sustained) Lowest pressure Name: Fiona - 932 mbar (hPa; 27.52 inHg)

2) Add a note for "Strongest Storm" written something like this: To enable comparison with past tropical cyclones along with ones from different parts of the world, Wikipedia considers the season's strongest hurricane to be the one with the lowest pressure. However, if a different storm has higher maximum sustained winds, it is listed as such, even though it is not the strongest tropical storm.

Doing both of these would enable Wikipedia's entries on current tropical seasons to be more informative while minimizing confusion, plus it would also ensure that Wikipedia users could continue to make apples-to-apples comparisons between how intense tropical cyclones from different seasons or eras were, along with how strong ones from different parts of the world were and are. Mateo Tembo (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good solution, as it appears that most season pages had serious disrepancies. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php
^ https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/focus-areas/natural-hazards-and-disaster-risk-reduction/tropical-cyclones
^ http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/help/unit.html.en
^ http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/tropical-cyclone-knowledge-centre/understanding/tc-info/
^ https://www.hko.gov.hk/en/education/tropical-cyclone/intensity/00152-how-to-assess-the-intensity-of-tropical-cyclones.html
^ https://www.data.jma.go.jp/multi/cyclone/cyclone_caplink.html?lang=en
^ https://www.britannica.com/science/tropical-cyclone/Ranking-and-naming-a-cyclone
^ https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/index.html
^ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/sshws.pdf

RM Notice

An editor has requested for Cyclone Matmo–Bulbul to be moved to Cyclones Matmo and Bulbul. Since you had some involvement with Cyclone Matmo–Bulbul, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). ABC paulista (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Areas affected

How is the section "areas affected" decided? Mitch199811 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, a lot of it is decided by where the system impacts, but generally speaking we tend to prefer to keep the areas affected generally broad. For example, it is generally better to use United States East Coast rather than any combination of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.Jason Rees (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

SSHWS in WPAC articles

Should we stop using the SSHWS to describe storms (except for peak intensity/other cases like rapid intensification) in the WPAC? There is no such thing as a "Category 2 typhoon", and the JMA, JTWC, and PAGASA don't use the SSHWS. Sentences like "The JTWC upgraded X to a Category 2 typhoon" are everywhere and inaccurate.

I've tried doing something like "Category 2-equivalent typhoon", but in most cases like "X became a Category 2-equivalent typhoon, before becoming a Category 3-equivalent typhoon", it's clunky and doesn't add anything of value to the article. I think it'd just be simpler to use TD, TS, STS, TY and STY (JTWC and PAGASA only) for WPAC articles. Akbermamps 12:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Akbermamps: How about we actually follow the JTWC scale in all basins? They categorize storms as TD, TS, TY, and STY in WPAC and simply tropical cyclone in other basins while still differentiating between various intensities on their Google Earth Maps. Their actual scale is < 35 knots, ≥35 knots and < 65 knots, ≥ 65 knots and < 130 knots, and ≥ 130 knots for their Google Earth Maps (all basins), which corresponds to how they handle WPAC. This is what we should use, not SSHWS. Noah^Talk 21:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It's objectively inaccurate to say something other than "Category 2-equialvent typhoon" if we're being frank here. If I saw someone use "Category 2 typhoon" at GAN hypothetically, I'd bring it up in the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I've thought about this before, and have actually long removed the whole "Category n-equivalent" wording from my writing unless someone else put it in first. I think it becomes a bit more important whenever there needs to be a distinction on how strong a typhoon is, since "typhoon" spans a relatively large range of wind speeds. I thought of using the JMA system, but "violent" and "very strong" can easily pass as what seem like 'subjective' verbs to a reader than an actual category as we understand it. We could use the JTWC scale (just for that additional STY category) but, then again, I have somewhat of an issue using JTWC primarily in prose since JTWC is not the RSMC for the basin, and the actual RSMC does not use 1-minute winds, so we're switching contexts very frequently and that might be confusing. Chlod (say hi!) 02:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I echo what Chlod's said above - I generally avoid using SSHWS when writing WPAC meteorological history, except for peak where there'll often be some US news article saying "typhoon has xxx mph winds according to JTWC, equivalent to a category X hurricane", as that adds some value as a benchmark for readers to mentally compare the strength of non-WHEM systems since SSHWS is probably the most well-known scale among readers of EN Wikipedia. In all honesty, I really dislike seeing meteorological histories list one category change after the other - it's repetitive and not engaging to most readers. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Outdated newsletter

Is it just me, or is it merely constantly reposting last year's edition? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Typhoon Trix (disambiguation)

Please can an editor look at Typhoon Trix (disambiguation)? Similar pages have various formats and titles, and I'm not sure which is best for this case. There seems to be a primary topic, Typhoon Trix, which may need a hatnote to the new page once it has a stable title. Thanks, Certes (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The page could be moved to List of storms named Trix, leaving the current title as a redirect. Also, I have added the storm-SIA/DAB page to the see also section of the Typhoon Trix article. Drdpw (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Moved, thank you. I've put a hatnote in Typhoon Trix, as readers often look there for articles on topics with similar names. Certes (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Pacific typhoon season colors

Can we seriously do something about the Pacific typhoon season color scale? Since we have added colors for the very strong and violent typhoon categories, we can use the existing color scale rather than some arbitrary scale where typhoon-strength colors are different from every other basin for some reason. Is there a justifiable reason for this, or any established consensus for this change, at all? Especially given the accessibility issues being brought up with the existing color scale used for every other basin, this one with various gradations of pink provides even less distinction in colors between the typhoon categories. Even without any color vision deficiencies, I have had trouble distinguishing them, especially within timelines. This is not helped by the fact that there is no disambiguation of category next to storm names in the timeline, as is done for other basins, either. If this is not an issue, I don't see how the color scale used in every other basin is. – atomic𓅊7732 12:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Do agree that we need to change the colors on that scale; multiple shades of red just don't work. As for which colors to use, basing on the existing colors we have for SSHWS, I think the linear mapping of typhoon (from cat1), very strong typhoon (from cat3), and violent typhoon (from cat5) should suffice as a temporary measure (while we wait for the results of ongoing color discussions). If we mapped by wind speeds, we'd end up leaving out the last two colors, unless we deliberately skipped cat3 and cat4, which would make the scale appear non-linear relative to our other color scales: (>64 kn) (>85 kn) (>105 kn). Chlod (say hi!) 13:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It is very reasonable to just match up the scales with the cat 1/3/5 color as is done in every other basin. For both color contrast reasons and because violent typhoons are approximately category 5 strength (they are assigned T7.0 from the Koba table, often correlate with JTWC cat 5s, etc) – atomic𓅊7732 06:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hurricane Gloria under FA Review

I have nominated Hurricane Gloria for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

**Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles**
Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

Biology
Physics and astronomy
Warfare
Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

Literature and theatre
Engineering and technology
Religion, mysticism and mythology
Media
Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area	Delisted	Kept	Total Reviewed	Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62)	Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology	10	6	16	0.60	19
Biology	13	41	54	3.15	67
Business, economics and finance	6	1	7	0.17	2
Chemistry and mineralogy	2	1	3	0.50	7
Computing	4	1	5	0.25	0
Culture and society	9	1	10	0.11	8
Education	22	1	23	0.05	3
Engineering and technology	3	3	6	1.00	5
Food and drink	2	0	2	0.00	3
Geography and places	40	6	46	0.15	22
Geology and geophysics	3	2	5	0.67	1
Health and medicine	8	3	11	0.38	5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology	11	1	12	0.09	6
History	27	14	41	0.52	38
Language and linguistics	3	0	3	0.00	3
Law	11	1	12	0.09	3
Literature and theatre	13	14	27	1.08	24
Mathematics	1	2	3	2.00	3
Media	14	10	24	0.71	40
Meteorology	15	6	21	0.40	31
Music	27	8	35	0.30	55
Philosophy and psychology	0	1	1	–	2
Physics and astronomy	3	7	10	2.33	24
Politics and government	19	4	23	0.21	9
Religion, mysticism and mythology	14	14	28	1.00	8
Royalty and nobility	10	6	16	0.60	44
Sport and recreation	32	12	44	0.38	39
Transport	8	2	10	0.25	11
Video gaming	3	5	8	1.67	23
Warfare	26	49	75	1.88	31
Total	359 ^{Note A}	222 ^{Note B}	581	0.62	536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Commentary not entered on the article talk page may be swept up in archives and lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tropical Depression Two-E (2006)

Tropical Depression Two-E (2006) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Final selection: Colors

The final selection RfC for the map, template, infobox, and timeline colors has started. This affects maps, templates, infoboxes, and timeline colors for the Weather, Tropical Cyclone, and Severe Weather wikiprojects. Please see the discussion here to participate. Noah^Talk 21:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

For preventing overflowing on narrower displays

The following templates are simply embedded in

<div style="overflow-x: auto;"></div>

for preventing overflowing on narrower displays. This does not affect the contents on larger displays.

The series of Template:Hurricane season bar had been addressed earlier— now the buttons are floated instead of controlled by a table. Moreover, some tables on the season articles should be revised as well since they are too wide. 🐱💬 06:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Colors Modification

A slight modification has been proposed to the consensus that was achieved in the final selection given its outcome. Said modification only involves the category 5 color. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Weather/Color_RfC#Modification for the discussion. Noah^Talk 18:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Helen

Talk:Tropical Cyclone Helen/GA1 is a GA subpage. Tropical Cyclone Helen redirects to Tropical Storm Helen , but Talk:Tropical Cyclone Helen redirects to Talk:Cyclone Helen (2008). Could someone from this project take a look and fix these? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Looks like the original article at Tropical Cyclone Helen about the 2008 Australian cyclone was (eventually) moved to Cyclone Helen (2008) after another Cyclone Helen developed in the North Indian Ocean in 2013, and the ambiguous article title was redirected to the set index article now at Tropical Storm Helen. I've moved the GA subpage to where it should be at Talk:Cyclone Helen (2008)/GA1 and retargeted the redirect at Talk:Tropical Cyclone Helen to Talk:Tropical Storm Helen to match the mainspace redirect. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

PTC and other storms infoboxes

Why don't we do infoboxes for the other storms section, e.g. Potential Tropical Cyclone 4? ✶Mitch 199811✶ 01:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

They're not important enough. Chlod (say hi!) 02:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? They have all the details to have one. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 02:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The idea behind other system sections is that these systems do not have much information available for them and can not justify a full blown section including the infobox.Jason Rees (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

But a few of the other systems do, and even have a standalone article: 1996 Lake Huron cyclone and Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten, for example. My impression was that the other system sections was for non-(sub)tropical systems that in some ways resembled a subtropical cyclone or bore some characteristics of a tropical cyclone, and that, because they were not tropical/subtropical, did receive an infobox. Drdpw (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw: The problem is that some of the systems we monitor worldwide can not justify a full-blown section in the season article, for various reasons including the fact they were only analysed to be in the basin for only a few hours. Severe Tropical Cyclone Gertie of the 1995-96 Australian region cyclone season is a prime example, as the Australian TC Database shows that it was last noted after it moved into the South Pacific basin as a Category 1 tropical cyclone.Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's just editor bias considering every designated tropical low in SHEM gets a subsection. It isn't included in the season timeline or subtotals either, which is also due to bias. People argue that NOAA doesn't publish a total for PTCs in the stats. That doesn't matter. It was an officially designated system that has a TCR, albeit a brief one, yet people think it shouldn't be treated the same as a TD, TS, or HU. Other systems are meant to contain UNDESIGNATED systems that were either reported on by a RSMC as a TL or a disturbance or were reported on by researchers. BIAS is BAD... This BIAS is an INCONSISTENCY in how we handle things. This why I plan to probe every practice of this project to make sure we are consistent. None of our practices are written down and none of them have been discussed in length and approved. This is why people accuse us in discussions of not following things like the MOS. There are a lot of practices that have been based in bias. There's a big difference when it comes to what is practiced and what should be practiced according to policy. This project (all of Weather) needs to have its practices written down, checked to make sure they follow policy, and approved by the project at large so they can be pointed to. Last thing we need is a clusterfuck like WikiProject Years experienced where people were topic banned due to practicing and enforcing measures that went against the MOS. Noah^Talk 01:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Not every single designated or undesignated (JTWC/NPMOC/FMS/BoM/MFR/Etc) tropical low/depression/cyclone in the SHEM has a full-blown section and nor should they all have a full-blown section. As mentioned above, I look at Severe Tropical Cyclone Gertie of the 1995-96 Australian region cyclone season as a prime example of a system that is justifiably in the other systems section. I also look at various season articles and see that 1997-98 & 1998-99 SPAC both have other system sections which are well developed.Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: I think the fact that people wont even include NOAA PTCs in the timeline and season effects is the most concerning thing here. Im not saying every storm should have its own subsection, but there is a clear bias when it comes to SHEM TLs and NOAA PTCs. Noah^Talk 22:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I have just proved to you @Hurricane Noah: that there isnt a bias when it comes to TD/TL's being moved to Other systems, but I should also note that in January someone (173.185.207.69) decided to move all the TL/TD's of recent seasons that were in an other systems section back to mainspace.Jason Rees (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Why are TLs being counted in timelines and season effects but not PTCs? What about the PTCs that deserve a full section but are simply lumped under other systems? that's where the bias is. Noah^Talk 22:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I would assume its because TL's like TD's are considered to be tropical cyclones in the broad sense of the word, while PTC's are not considered to be tropical cyclones.Jason Rees (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

But PTCs are official systems. It seems odd to not list them within the effects table/timeline and not count their deaths as part of the season either. That's the issue I have with it. I think any designated system should be included within both of those and only get a full blown section if it has enough information on impact. Noah^Talk 23:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I dont tend to deal with Atlantic hurricane seasons so I dont really have an opinon on if PTC's should be counted towards the season.Jason Rees (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they should simply because they are neither tropical or subtropical. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 13:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That isn't exactly true... a disturbance is often a tropical disturbance. The only thing they aren't are cyclones. The issue we have systems on which the NHC issued full blown advisories on not having their deaths/damage being counted towards the season. That sounds rather odd. Noah^Talk 13:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So should we create some subpage like Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/MOS or something? If we need order, we should write down our practices somewhere. Also, I personally do not like sifting through talk pages, if we could discuss and then put it in a project article I would like that. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 01:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I plan to facilitate the process later this year after current discussions end. No, It would not be titled MOS and it wouldn't be under WP Tropical Cyclones since the relevant project would be Weather (as the topics are closely related and similar in nature). This will take quite a bit of time since there will be a lot of practices to review. Noah^Talk 01:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I know it's not an MOS but can wikiprojects have them and are they trumped by the site's MOS? ✶Mitch 199811✶ 02:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The practices of a project must be based upon the WP MOS. If the practices of a project contradict the WP MOS, they are not enforceable in discussions. The site level trumps a local wikiproject consensus which in turn trumps a single talk page. Noah^Talk 02:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811: there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style but that hasn't really been updated in the past couple of years. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: the crux of the matter is that different RSMCs each have a different bar for what they consider a tropical cyclone. You have JMA's low standards for TDs (compared to JTWC which itself approximates NHC), BOM keeping bona fide tropical storms as tropical lows because gale-force winds don't wrap across half the circulation, MFR numbering sometimes at ZODW and sometimes at TDi (only difference being the latter has a "definite cyclonic circulation"), and now NHC numbering systems that they don't consider tropical yet but are close to land and the "official designation" makes it easier to coordinate disaster response. With such discrepancies between our reliable sources, trying to establish any consistency between basins is, bluntly put, a fool's errand. It's also false that "every designated tropical low in SHEM gets a subsection" as there was a time where BOM-numbered TLs with minimal to no land impact and SPAC tropical disturbances would all be lumped into other systems, since all that could be written about each of them amounted to two or three sentences – I'm not too sure when editors started putting out individual sections for every single thing but it looks like around 2017–18. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@KN2731: The lack of consistency is what almost got us in trouble at AN/I when two of our editors were taken there. We are not allowed to have different standards for different locations; that is textbook discrimination in the eyes of the WP community. We need to look at what we are doing and make sure we are following the standard practices of the rest of the community. Otherwise, next time someone gets in a trouble, some brazen editor is going to take us to arbcom where everyone will pull out an anal probe and force our compliance on every single issue. Noah^Talk 13:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Which ANI...? I don't see an issue treating the basins differently when reliable sources call for it – in fact I'd argue trying to force a common baseline when none clearly exists is OR. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Then where are the damage/deaths supposed to be counted? If they are not counted at the TC season article, then where? That's the issue we run into by not even listing PTCs in any of the effects tables or the timeline. Noah^Talk 14:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes PTC damage and deaths different from that of every other tropical wave passing through the Caribbean and Central America or non-tropical low hanging off the Gulf Coast? PTCs were eventually not classified as tropical cyclones by the NHC, so what makes them eligible to count towards tropical cyclone season totals? The NHC doesn't include details about PTCs in their hurricane season summary tables, despite producing a mini-report with a best track and brief impact details (example being 17E in 2019). Is it up to us to override reliable sources and count them in anyway? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that they were designated and warned upon makes them eligible. It's the difference between being 90L and 01L. Our infoboxes state "Part of the X season". Either it was part of the season or it wasn't. This inbetween treatment needs to end. It's akin to treating people as second class citizens. Either they are citizens or they aren't. Noah^Talk 15:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want to restrict yourself to thinking in absolutes, then sure – they weren't tropical cyclones, so why include them in totals for tropical cyclone seasons? Getting a numerical designation from the NHC doesn't change that fact, when you preemptively assign designations it's not always going to work out. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

So then should the criteria be systems that count towards seasonal totals? Or would that exclude some things? Noah^Talk 17:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this whole debate kind of shows that we need a set of rules. Personally, for the simple fact that they are not tropical cyclones I think means that PTCs should not be added to totals. Maybe a compromise could be done where we mention what would be done with and without them. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 17:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Areas affected, flatlist vs commas

I notice that there is an inconsistency between how the "areas affected" section of the infoboxes is structured. In some articles (like Hurricane Ian and Typhoon Maria (2018)), areas listed in the "areas affected" section are separated by commas. However, in other articles (like Cyclone Gabrielle and Hurricane Earl (2022)), the areas are separated by using the {{flatlist}} template. Which way should be used on articles since there is currently no standard. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 01:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes RfC

Just a heads up that we are discussing a replacement infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/New Weather Infobox. Please see that page for further details. Noah^Talk 23:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

[1] Maybe four

[2] ttps://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php

[3] ttps://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/focus-areas/natural-hazards-and-disaster-risk-reduction/tropical-cyclones

[4] ttp://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/help/unit.html.en

[5] ttp://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/tropical-cyclone-knowledge-centre/understanding/tc-info/

[6] ttps://www.hko.gov.hk/en/education/tropical-cyclone/intensity/00152-how-to-assess-the-intensity-of-tropical-cyclones.html

[7] ttps://www.data.jma.go.jp/multi/cyclone/cyclone_caplink.html?lang=en

[8] ttps://www.britannica.com/science/tropical-cyclone/Ranking-and-naming-a-cyclone

[9] ttps://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/index.html

[10] ttps://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/sshws.pdf

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]