Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 49

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 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Should potential tropical cyclones be featured more prominently on season pages?

In light of the ongoing debate farther above on this page, I think we can go ahead and start a formal discussion on whether potential tropical cyclones should be featured more prominently on seasonal pages. Potential tropical cyclones are not official tropical cyclones, so it is no brainer that they should not be included in the infobox at the top. However, should they be included in the timeline? Season effects? Current practice is to relegate potential tropical cyclones to a paragraph under "Other systems". Should this continue or change? Discuss below. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Issue 1: timelines

Should potential tropical cyclones be incorporated into the timeline graphic on the main page, as well as into the timeline articles themselves? Yes or no? wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 03:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it only makes sense since every other designated system is mentioned.

Noah^Talk 04:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Makes sense. United States Man (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, since they are tracked. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 04:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No for the rare PTC that does not become a tropical system; yes for those that do. This appears to be the official practice of NOAA: The North Atlantic Hurricane Tracking Chart. Drdpw (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
No for PTCs that do not become tropical cyclones. To add on to Drdpw, the NHC evidently doesn't consider them part of the hurricane season proper, as they are left out of the annual summary tables (e.g. 2017 ATL, 2019 EPAC), and aren't included in HURDAT. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No, they aren't TCs, so technically aren't part of the season. ABC paulista (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Issue 2: season effects

Should potential tropical cyclones be incorporated into the season effects table on the main page? Yes or no? wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 03:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Their stats should be displayed similar to other storms.

Noah^Talk 04:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Makes sense. United States Man (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Leaning No for PTCs that do not become a tropical system, though I do recognize how it might make sense to include a disturbance such as 2017s PTC-10 in the season summary section, as it was impactful. However, if we to take that route, the question would soon be raised, what about an invest that causes major flooding and casualties? Drdpw (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
People can clearly point and say that the system was never actually warned upon and didn't receive a permanent designation. Systems like that end up with flood articles rather than a TC one. Noah^Talk 16:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
In response to your argument @Hurricane Noah: It is worth noting that sometimes its better to have a floods article rather than a tropical cyclone article even if it has recieved a designation.Jason Rees (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I think that largely has to do with whether or not there were multiple systems involved and if sources picked up on the designation or not. Noah^Talk 16:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
No for PTCs that do not become tropical cyclones, to avoid conflating season totals for deaths/damage with that caused by the season's tropical cyclones. As I argued above, there is little to distinguish deaths/damage caused by eventually non-tropical PTCs with that from other non-tropical disturbances that the NHC doesn't assess as likely to become a tropical cyclone close to land. Simply receiving a numerical designation does not make a PTC properly part of hurricane season as it is still not considered a tropical cyclone. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No, AFAIK their damage doesn't count to the season totals, so they should be kept out to avoid confusion. ABC paulista (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Issue 3: sections

There are three options here. Option 1 is to relegate potential tropical cyclones to a paragraph underneath "Other systems," without the small infobox. Option 2 is to list them underneath "Other systems" but give them small infoboxes just like designated tropical cyclones. Option 3 is to list them underneath the main "Systems" header with similar infoboxes. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it depends on the other system. If there is substantial media coverage and/or a similar amount of information compared to the storms in the "systems" section, I say Option 3. However, if there isn't substantial media coverage and/or less information compared to the storms in the "systems" section, I say Option 1. Option 2 may crowd the "other systems" section with many infoboxes (especially for Western Pacific seasons with many JMA depressions). RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 02:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 - Here are my thoughts on this subject. Potential tropical cyclones are obviously not designated TCs, but the NHC still issues operational advisories and even publishes tropical cyclone reports for these features. As such, I believe this gives them sufficient notability to exist under the "Systems" header and not in a subsection, with the typical infoboxes (sat image + track map). The term "system" does not necessarily refer to only official TCs anyway, so I do not believe adding PTCs here creates any confusion or issue. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 03:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 is the best choice when there is sufficient material/coverage to warrant a whole section.

Noah^Talk 04:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 – I generally wasn't in favor of this before, but this causes confusion when we skip the PTCs that didn't quite make it and leave them lumped together in one section at the bottom. If they have their own sections, readers will understand why Storm X was TD 4 and Storm Y was TD 6. United States Man (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 – The NHC may issue advisories and issue reports on these systems, however that being said, the truth lay in the designation, Potential Tropical Cyclone. These systems are not true tropical cyclones, but rather are small weather systems with a good possibility of developing into a full-fledged cyclone. The problem is not necessarily in confusion caused or over the fact it is considered a "system," but rather if the storm is at all notable enough to warrant more information. Overall, I do not believe that these storms have nearly enough notoriety to warrant more attention than in the "Other systems" section. That being said, I think the only exceptions that could be made is if the system causes significant impacts/is covered by reliable outlets, or if it develops into an actual tropical cyclone in the basin. The current format (as in how PTC 4 is listed on the 2022 ATL season article ) is more than acceptable for weak systems as such in the meantime, unless there is something noteworthy that occurs. That being said, these storms should still be included in the seasonal totals and in the timeline, since they were tracked by the NHC. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 04:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Btw we have articles on some of these such as Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten and Potential Tropical Cyclone Seventeen-E. Would it not be wise to give these full sections with an infobox? Noah^Talk 04:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I can understand why those systems have articles, because of their impacts. However they still aren't tropical cyclones, but rather disturbances. I could support something like Option 2, keeping them in the Other systems section but giving them an infobox. However I still don't think that these storms should be placed in the normal section. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 01:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The label of the overarching section is "systems" rather than tropical cyclones, which means we are not forced to only include TCs within it. People are going to wonder why one storm was given 3L and the next 5L (as an example) for their designations and not including a PTC between those two storms leads to confusion. Most PTCs that fail to develop are likely to have enough material to write a decent section on them. At least 2/3 of the ones brought up do have that. Noah^Talk 01:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why you are getting so fixated on people getting confused as to why a TC is numbered in the way it is, when we ignore this problem all the time in the Southern Hemisphere and Western Pacific basins.Jason Rees (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I understand that we aren't being forced to only have tropical cyclones in that section, however it doesn't mean that every disturbance that develops should be added. The NHC themselves don't include PTCs in their track maps, and even acknowledge themselves that since they aren't tropical cyclones, they don't produce best track data. Since that is the case, why should we include them in the main section?Even if there is confusion, it isn't that difficult to provide an explanation as to why the system wasn't designated and why the main systems skipped a number. I am not going to get into a full blown argument over the placement of a disturbance in the article; I am entitled to my opinions and ideas, and you to yours. Nothing is set in stone as of now, and whatever the outcome, I will support it. That being said, I still support option 1. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 02:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Option 1 ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Option 3 ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that there is an easy option here as whichever one we go for will have ramifications throughout the season articles. FWIW I strongly oppose Option 2 as it would just make a mockery of the other systems section, especially when we include tropical depressions in it that do not last long. I am also not sure that Option 3 would work as we move backwards through time as the label potential tropical cyclones can be applied to those systems, that the BTC feel do not have enough evidence to be added to HURDAT. I also fear that it would mean that certain editors would force all numbered tropical disturbances, tropical depressions and tropical cyclones to have a section even if that system did not have enough information to justify a section for whatever reason.Jason Rees (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Curiously I agree with wxtrackercody here and would go with option 3. To add, their proximity to land and warnings being issued (an essential prerequisite for a PTC's designation) would likely induce enough reliable media coverage that it would be appropriate per WP:WEIGHT to give undeveloped PTCs their own standalone section. However, I find that the NHC makes a clear enough emphasis in their practices that undeveloped PTCs are not tropical cyclones and their statistics should not be mixed with those of actual tropical cyclones, hence my position in the first two issues. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Addendum: since we're only discussing potential tropical cyclones, a designation within only the northern WHEM basins, I don't see why any changes to practices within these basins would affect other basins such as WPAC or AUS. The "other systems" sections exist for TD/TLs in those basins because 1. their RSMCs are much more willing to throw those designations at a bunch of clouds; 2. it's much harder to find detailed advisory products e.g. forecast discussions and as such it's difficult to write more than one or two sentences about each of them. Besides, for those with land impacts, flood articles may be more appropriate depending on how reliable sources cover them. This is a markedly different situation from PTCs which receive the full suite of NHC advisory products and are almost guaranteed media coverage from land impact. The logic applied to granting PTCs individual sections would not hold in those other basins. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 3, with Option 2 used for more notable storms. The "Other systems" section was tailor-made for such cases and kind of systems. ABC paulista (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about if Cyclones Daman and Judy are considered an other system in List of Category 5 South Pacific severe tropical cyclones

There is currently a discussion about whether Cyclones Daman and Judy should be in the other systems section in List of Category 5 South Pacific severe tropical cyclones. Join the discussion here. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rs chen 7754 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

GAR request for Tropical cyclone scales

there is a GAR request for Tropical cyclone scales article. I looked through, and it seems that only Background section has a cleanup template, everything else looks good enough (I'm not a cyclone expert). There are also uncited paragraphs in Atlantic, Eastern and Central Pacific. As that article is rated to be of top importance, maybe someone is willing to fix these problems and remove GAR request? Artem.G (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather § RfC: TC pressures and winds

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather § RfC: TC pressures and winds. Chlod (say hi!) 22:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox for Atlantic-Pacific tropical cyclones

Should the Atlantic-Pacific tropical cyclones prior to the year 2000 be given an infobox similar to this article? I don't want to do something that might be controversial to the project. Any member is welcome to reply, just be nice about it. 📖 (💬/📜) 23:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@TheBigBookOfNaturalScience: Yes, consensus for conversion can be found in this discussion. This includes all pages, be it prior to the 21st century or not. As usual, be careful and consult Template:Infobox weather event/doc/Feature parity to know which parameters map to what. Chlod (say hi!) 23:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chlod, I realized that you didn't understand what I meant. I was talking about the infobox template for two tropical cyclones, like Cyclones Judy and Kevin and Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. 📖 (💬/📜) 23:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@TheBigBookOfNaturalScience: I don't think the fact that there's two storms in an article precludes conversion of the infobox in any way. Regenerating storms (such as Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal) and crossover storms (such as Cyclone Matmo–Bulbul) already have the new infobox. Just be wary of the ordering; the history box acts as the boundary between "different stages" in the storm's life, so to speak. Chlod (say hi!) 23:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chlod Are you trying to say that a crossover hurricane like Hurricane Joan-Miriam should have the same infoboxes as a regenerating storm? 📖 (💬/📜) 23:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@TheBigBookOfNaturalScience: Yes, because we're now able to present that information in a single box with the new infobox (just as for Matmo–Bulbul). Duplicating the /NWS scale box is not necessary for Atlantic-Pacific crossover hurricanes, though, since it's the same agency issuing both. This specific conversion has some issues; I'll be fixing them shortly. Chlod (say hi!) 00:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. 📖 (💬/📜) 00:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean

I have nominated Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean 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. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Reconsidering the Hurricane Severity Index

I am a member of WP:Weather, but not WP:Cyclone specifically and have some concerns about the Hurricane Severity Index (HSI) on many hurricane-related pages. I think it is more useful than the Saffir-Simpson Scale, but I think it's very out-of-date. The last storms on it hit the US 15 years ago and granted there haven't been many landfalls past that point (fortunately), but I still think there have been multiple storms that could have made the list. I have found a source that I believe says how to calculate it if we are able to do that without copyright (I'm actually not entirely sure how that works), but considering how I have found very little information on it outside of 2008 when it was proposed except for one article made after Hurricane Harvey 2017, I think we should reconsider having it on our pages, or at least rebranding/relabeling it.

https://www.stormgeo.com/assets/Uploads/HSI-Abstract-for-AMS.pdf

Jamisonsupame (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jamisonsupame, are you referring to {{Most intense landfalling Atlantic hurricanes (HSI)}} being placed on some pages? As far as I can tell it's transcluded on Hurricane Opal, Hurricane Camille, Hurricane Betsy, Hurricane Ivan, and List of Atlantic hurricane records. I'm not surprised that there's not much information on the HSI out there as it was developed by a private company, ImpactWeather, Inc, which has since been acquired by StormGeo – publisher of the article you linked above. I guess it never really saw more widespread use owing to copyright (people would have to cite their methodology every time they used their scale, or maybe even pay royalties) and it seems likely the main motive behind StormGeo/ImpactWeather developing the scale was to sell their products (they are a business analytics firm, after all).

Anyway, we can't calculate the HSI ourselves – it'd run afoul of Wikipedia policies on original research as applying their formula goes way beyond routine calculations, especially with the 87-knot wind radii not being publicly available from the NHC, and wind radii from historical systems having to be calculated using historical storm surge data from SLOSH. (StormGeo/ImpactWeather doesn't actually outline how they do either of these things.) Their ranking table also looks somewhat cherrypicked to me, or maybe that's just because they don't have the data for some historical systems e.g. I doubt the 1935 Labor Day hurricane should be missing entirely. Given the absence of transparency behind their calculations and potential issues with comprehensiveness, I'd say that there's not much point in the table existing outside of the Hurricane Severity Index article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally wonder about the notability of the HSI article since the scale hasn't taken off at all and is only used by StormGeo themselves. CC: @Cyclonebiskit: since he created the HSI template in the first place.Jason Rees (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding the ACE in basins outside NHC's responsibility

Should the ACE section be added to the Pacific typhoon, North Indian and Southern Hemisphere season articles? Although they don't use RSMC data, they are also official and good measure of seasonal activity. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 08:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@IntegerSequences You need to clarify what you want here, as the inclusion of ACE has been discussed multiple times over the years. Regardless lets take a couple of steps back here and consider a few things that need to be considered before ACE goes anywhere near the season articles. First of all we have to remember that there are at least two ways to calculate what the ACE of a season is, which means straight of the bat it is original research for us to calculate it ourselves. We then would do well to remember that the ACE is one of at least 4 ways to calcuate how active a season is with Velocity Flux, Power Dissipation Index and the Hurricane Destruction Potential index being other ways to calculate it. We then have to take a step back and remember that there are multiple warning centres in these basins, which prompts the question whose data do we use? It would be ideal to take the data from the RSMC/TCWC's (JMA, IMD, MFR, BMKG, BoM, PNG NWS, FMS, MSNZ), who are official, however, with the exception of the IMD they do not tend to present details on what the ACE was. We could use the data from either Ryan Maue or Phil Koltsburg/CSU, however they currently disagree with each other. I also compared the JTWC 2020 ATCR which states that the ACE for 2020 was 155.7 with both websites. CSU shows that it was 152.8 units, while I can not see an overall value for 2020 from Ryan Maue. It is also worth remembering that the season articles are long enough without a section being added that talks about various statistics. Out of curtsey I am pinging @Siroxo: to this discussion, as they commented on this proposal when it was originally placed on Talk:2023 Pacific typhoon season.Jason Rees (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The TSR averages

In the 'Seasonal forecasts' section of Pacific typhoon season articles, we compare TSR's forecast with the climatological averages. However, isn't it important to note that they are based on JTWC data? The JMA number estimates for tropical storms and typhoons are usually lower than JTWC's due to underestimate. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 09:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what the answer here is as the avergae we provide is from the TSR forecast and not the JTWC directly. Maybe we need to add in the JMA average?Jason Rees (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion

Invest 93L and Invest 93L (2023) have been listed at RfD as the targets of these redirects are highly misleading owing to the fact that the same designations are used multiple times each year. United States Man (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Cyclone Jobo

This has recently reappeared as a draft. I have assessed it against the project's criteria to the best of my ability and declined it for the moment. Please will knowledgeable editors check my work. I am content with whatever outcome you achieve. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Speaking on a personal basis, I see that there were at least 23 deaths associated with the system, which is more than enough for a tropical cyclone article to exist, however, I would note that the article needs a lot of work and seems to just be a C & P of the blurb in the season article.Jason Rees (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees My concern was that "Flooding killed 22 people." may not be sufficient to meet this project's criteria for severity. I was unconcerned with the duplication of the text because that can be handled post acceptance (if any).

I am content that the draft be accepted or moved directly to mainspace and tidied, if it meets the project's criteria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Track maps of systems (NHC)

(This is specifically regarding Atlantic, east Pacific, and central Pacific tracks where the NHC has jurisdiction over.) User created tracks for tropical cyclones can be difficult to understand quickly for readers looking up a specific storm/hurricane. The legend for the colored plots on the map (blue triangles, light blue dots, etc.) are located below the image rather than in the image itself. To elaborate how this could be an issue is that for example it makes sharing the image outside of Wikipedia futile without adding a ton of context and legends. Another problem with these track maps is that the map uses an equirectangular projection which can warp the track of a post-tropical storm heading far north (take Hurricane Faith in 1966 as an example.) Yet more problems are present because the tracks aren’t specific on intensity and are rather broad. For example, the tracks do not specify exactly where the storm had peaked in intensity, how low the pressure was and where it occurred, and how fast exactly the wind speeds were. For a new reader, this would be difficult for some to unpack and understand. Another problem is that when a system is over remote and open waters, the track could have very little to zero indication on its position, forcing readers to look at the summary map to get an idea on its location. A solution to this issue would be using official NHC tracks where they include legends in the track maps rather than somewhere outside the image, points of interest in the track (such as peak intensity), a more globe-like map projection to avoid track warping, borders of countries/states/provinces to make it clearer on its location and latitudes and longitudes for exact positioning, time points to show what time it was when the system changed course and/or intensity, dates to show what day it was when the system was at a certain point and intensity, and a more elaborate line of track when a system was for example, a disturbance or a tropical wave. Informative and official tracks should be prioritized and used (if possible) over the user created tracks. KatoSlipping (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@KatoSlipping: This discussion clearly established consensus for the current map, and in the same discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Colour discussions, the colors used on the map were argued about for a year and a half before we finally found a good way to do it. I do think, though, that for new users, the legend is not easy to find, and agree that it should be changed. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I am neutral on this and won't give a support or oppose, but I will point out the discussion that you say "clearly established consensus for the current map" did not have an option for NHC maps. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@KatoSlipping: These maps are meant for cross-language usage, so English text on them is not practical by any means. We could add language-independent text such as peak intensity numbers, but would need to find a way to do so without undue clutter, and different regional preferences for units still makes it impractical (though not as much as the language factor). The standard map projection even in official NHC maps is the same as our maps so there is no need to change the projection (every map projection will have distortion because a spheroidal ellipsoid is not isometric to any flat surface, so there is no way to avoid any "track warping"). Also, the NHC maps are not much better and might have licensing issues. Meanwhile, political borders can cause issues regarding WP:NPOV because of territory disputes, so we should avoid them (they might not be an issue that often here but other wikis might take a bigger issue). Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

JMA track maps

I just submitted a pull request including support for using the JMA's best track files available at [1] in a HURDAT-analogous manner. Since we always prefer RSMC data we should use these maps in WPAC articles. They can live on Commons like SSHWS maps because their (numerical) data is PD. However, we need to be consistent so we need to answer the following:

What naming convention should we use for them? I propose "Mawar 2023 JMA path.png"
How should we use them in articles? Notably, JMA does not have an operational best track, so these maps could only be made several months after each storm when their best track is made. However, our preference for RSMC data suggests that they should be shown first, with potentially a toggle for a user to see SSHWS (or display both maps, but that is impractical for {{Infobox tropical cyclone small}}).

Whichever way we will need a map key too. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

For the #2 I have a mockup at User talk:Jasper Deng/sandbox with Mawar as the example. It makes use of MediaWiki:Gadget-switcher but has the undesirable side effect of making the infobox get wider suddenly when you select "Show all". It might be necessary to modify the gadget to allow us to disable that option.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

RFC on effects of Hurricane titles

Recently, the article Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New England was moved to Hurricane Sandy in New England. An RM to move it back failed, with a recommendation to open an RFC on the topic of if the “Effects of” is necessary or should be dropped. Should every article listed in Category:Effects of hurricanes in the United States, Category:Effects of tropical cyclones and the four Katrina subarticles (Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Florida, Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Alabama, Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi and Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans) be moved to the new format? 160.72.80.50 (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

RfCs can’t be used for page titles per WP:RFCNOT. Noah, AA^Talk 19:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

An RFC was suggested, also while it does affect page titles, it’s also a new change for similarly titled page, and no one was willing to start a batch RM for 78 pages. If you oppose this being an RFC, please start such a batch RM.160.72.80.50 (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as bad RfC since WP:RFCNOT states RfCs may not be used for renaming articles. Noah, AA^Talk 13:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: You can dress up the RFC as an RM if you really wish to, however WP:IAR trumps WP:RFCNOT.Jason Rees (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
This is not an RfC matter. The {{subst:requested move}} template is very versatile, and should be used instead; it will properly categorise the discussion, and alert bots to update the necessary lists and send out the appropriate messages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hurricane Faith needs to be updated

Hello! I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place to put this here, but here we go.

With the release of HURDAT2, Hurricane Faith's article has become outdated, especially the section regarding its meteorological history. The data shown in HURDAT2 contradicts what is written in the article. Though I wish I myself could edit the article, I am busy with schoolwork, and may not even be qualified to edit said article. -Shift674-🌀^contribs 19:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Strongest storm

2023 Atlantic hurricane season keeps getting its strongest storm changed and me, User:Hurricanehink, and User:Drdpw have expressed interest in the changing of what defines the strongest storm. It is mostly based on the premise that people don't read footnotes and comments and that in our experience, strongest storm usually correlates to wind speed. While I'm not sure about the views of other editors (or how it could be coded), I think that we should have three strongest storm categories: one for intensity, one for windspeed, and one for when there is one storm with both highest windspeed and intensity. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 23:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Having three different categories seems a bit excessive, and bulky. The infobox would be overcrowded for one. I'm not sure why our practice is to measure a storm's intensity by its barometric pressure rather than its wind speed (perhaps another editor can provide further insight there). I'm not really sure there's an easy solution to changing the infobox to measure by wind speed rather than pressure unless there's a consensus to do so. Gum balls 678 talk 03:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be a way to include both the strongest by wind speed and most intense by pressure in the season infoboxes when not the same storm, as happens in many seasons. Our practice of measuring tropical cyclone strength by pressure has generated confusion and controversy across several articles, and is out of sync with with various meteorological agencies worldwide, which determine tropical cyclone strength by wind speed. And more broadly, in media and common conversation, wind speeds equate with strength, not barometric pressure. (See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 48#Two Proposals Concerning Listing Tropical Cyclone Strength) Drdpw (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t disagree. Maybe “strongest storm” can still exist, and then if a scenario such as the one in this current season arises, we can have strongest by wind and strongest by pressure, that way both areas are covered and it clears confusion. If it doesn’t occur, meaning it’s clear that the strongest storm of the season is X and not Y, then we can keep the separate designations hidden. Gum balls 678 talk 12:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

There might be a better way to do it. But it's really just so that we can say who the most intense, windiest, and both ones. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 15:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In terms of measuring intensity, wind speed, and the categories associated with them, is used as it is the easiest way to convey information about a storm to the public. However, a storm's overall intensity is better represented by its pressure, which includes other things like size and structure, and determines its location and movement. I know this isn't much, but I hope it helps. ChessEric 18:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@ChessEric Would it hurt to have effectively two strongest storm sections, one half for pressure and another for wind speed? ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 18:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

No. If it gets rid of the confusion, I'm all for it. ChessEric 19:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It would alleviate confusion and controversy generated across several articles. Drdpw (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone with coding skills have the ability to do a mock-up for the 2022 AHS to demonstrate this? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I might be able to via MS paint but I don't even know where templates are coded. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 14:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I made a really rough sketch in MS paint of what I was thinking it could look like. The values are not right. The font will obviously be more correct with the template. Wording may also change. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 15:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks nice, but do we necessarily need to include winds for the storm with minimum pressure, or the pressure for the storm with maximum winds? I might just have the storm name and the appropriate value for each strength rating. — Iune talk 16:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to see an example of an RSMC determining the strongest storm for a season by windspeed, before we implement this proposal as I feel it's just going to cause more agro then its worth for those editors who edit season articles outside of NHC/CPHC.Jason Rees (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Cited examples were provided in last year's thread showing that meteorological agencies around the world use wind speed rather than central pressure. So, given today's common practice of determining tropical cyclone strength based on wind speed, who are we to to use our own standard for declaring "X Storm" as the "Strongest Storm?" Drdpw (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Those citations do not show that the RSMC's use windspeeds to determine what the strongest storm was though which is what i asked for as otherwise I believe that we would be committing original research to say that X was the strongest storm when they say Y was based on the pressure.Jason Rees (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Well then the other basins can just use the "generic" current system while the hurricane seasons can use this new system. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 22:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch199811: Nice try at getting around my comments but since the NHC is an RSMC, my comments about seeing a source from the RSMC's stating that X was the strongest storm based on the winds when they say Y was based on the pressure still apply.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Our saying, for example, that Fiona was the strongest Atlantic hurricane in 2022 is original research as no reliable secondary sources make that claim. Sources do state that Ian was the strongest. Likewise, our saying that the unnamed January subtropical storm is currently the strongest Atlantic storm in 2023 is original research for the same reason. Drdpw (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see links to these sources that state that Ian was the strongest system of last years Atlantic hurricane season, however, I am not sure how relevent these are since if NHC says that Fiona was the strongest then its the strongest not Ian which is why i asked for an example from the RSMC itself.Jason Rees (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This states that Ian was the 5th strongest to impact the US. I'm not sure if it is based on pressure or wind speed (or if it includes the territories) but it's something. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 00:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really as it doesnt state that Ian was the strongest system of last years Atlantic hurricane season, which is what you need to prove before I agree that a change to the infobox that is going to impact at least 500 articles is needed.Jason Rees (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the NHC doesn't use strongest storm, or at least I couldn't find it. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 00:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

~~The only times I could find the NHC use it (e.g. here) is when the storm is both intense and has higher winds like with Isabel being described as the strongest since Mitch.~~ Looking deeper into the article, it does look like they use pressure to describe strongest but in the search for definition of strongest, I also came across many articles that use wind speeds or even deaths. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 00:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

In regards to death, is not going to be very accurate in terms of determining the strength of a storm; there have been multiple instances where a system that was "weak" (in terms of pressure or windspeed) have caused a large amount of deaths in the past. There is just no way to put an accurate measure on what a storm will do, they're highly unpredictable.

In regards to the infobox, I question if it is truly necessary for all of the articles? Considering the amount of confusion regarding what should be used, not to mention that some articles use the barometric pressure rather than windspeed. While I understand that most people equate storm strength with windspeed, the problem is that in many cases, the only way to accurately get a measure of the strength of a system is through using windspeed AND pressure together. I would definitely support an infobox if the NHC or similar reputable source says what the strongest system was, however it is borderline OR to assume the strongest system ourselves. The only issue I have with having both a category for pressure and for windspeed in the infobox, is that again it might create some confusion. We need to consider the average reader who might not know everything about tropical cyclones, wind speeds, ETC, there is a good chance that they would be confused as to why there are two different storms that are listed as the "strongest," rather than one. That won't happen every season of course, but some years, like now, where we have Don and the unnamed SS, it is not so clear cut, not to mention that some editors might not read the footnotes or comments in the article. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 04:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

After digging through the NHC and JMA's websites and not finding any pages pertaining to how to measure the strongest tropical cyclone per season, I feel the best solution here is to email an RSMC directly, most likely the NHC, to find out how they specifically measure the strongest tropical cyclone of each season. I know we've inquired to the NHC before about how to accurately report info on Wikipedia (such as when Hurricane Noah did so during the Amanda-Cristobal dispute). Jay Tee 🕊️ 00:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't that violate OR due to it being unpublished? ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 01:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

As with all things in Wikipedia, we need to go with what reliable secondary sources state. None have called either the unnamed January system or Don the strongest, therefore, any declaration we make about which storm is the strongest would technically be OR. The broader issue is that we declare a given storm as strongest apart from reliable secondary sources. Also, we have a specific way of determining which system is strongest – minimum barometric pressure alone (not wind speed), which we adhere to regardless of what those sources might say. Furthermore, we base our practice on the premise that, Most meteorological organizations rate the intensity of a storm by this figure, so the lower the minimum pressure of the storm, the more intense or "stronger" it is considered to be. Apparently no meteorological agency officially takes such a stance.
And today I came across an article about Hurricane Dora: "The small-sized hurricane had obtained status as the strongest cyclone of the season so far".(Link). Not explicitly stated, but, given that barometric pressure is not mentioned anywhere, the writer used wind speed in acclaiming Dora as strongest.
Given all this, our current practice probably needs to be reevaluated, and perhaps altered in instances where the strongest system by wind speed is different than the strongest by pressure. Drdpw (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that we have reliable sources describing strength by both pressure and wind, I feel like we can invoke WP:CALC for the info box if we ended up listing both. We still would need sources if it was something like the most intense storm on record in the basin, but that would probably be cited in the text of the article anyway. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

They did explicitly state that in the header for Patricia's advisories iirc. Noah^Talk 12:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you please clarify; are you reffering to the fact that Patricia was strongest by wind speeds accross the world, by intensity in the basin, or something else? ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 14:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

From the 4am advisory on October 23, "Data from three center fixes by the Hurricane Hunters indicate that the intensity, based on a blend of 700 mb-flight level and

SFMR-observed surface winds, is near 175 kt. This makes Patricia the strongest hurricane on record in the National Hurricane Center's area of responsibility (AOR) which includes the Atlantic and the eastern North Pacific basins. The minimum central pressure estimated from the aircraft data, 880 mb, is the lowest ever for our AOR." Gum balls 678 talk 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

And this from a 2017 wrbl.com article: Hurricane Allen (1980) is the strongest hurricane on record in the Atlantic Basic (if including Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea) with max sustained wind speed of 190 mph. The strongest hurricane on record in the world is Hurricane Patricia (2015) with 1-minute max sustained wind at 213 mph. … One way to measure the intensity of a hurricane is through atmospheric pressure. In the most basic sense, the lower the atmospheric pressure, the more intense the hurricane. … The lowest pressure in a hurricane ever recorded is 870 mb from Typhoon Tip in October 1979 – which impacted the Philippines. Drdpw (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we have anything from out of the NHC and CPHC AORs like the Bureau of Meteorology? I might be able to look for info regarding the southern hemisphere's agencies but I wouldn't be able to check the Japan Meteorological Agency unless they have it translated. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 18:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The BOM uses strongest reffering to winds, though it is typically specified that it is winds they are talking about (e.g. [2], [3]). Extending my search to Australia in general, I found this article that just gave generic terms relating to strongest like "one of the". Qatari news source, Al Jazeera [4], describes Ilsa being the strongest to hit the continent in a decade but I am pretty sure it beat the next place with both.

As for Meteo-Francais, [5] makes it look like they say that intensity is judged by wind speed. Further on it says that you use lowest pressure to estimate wind speed. Later it says that typhoon TIP and typhoon WILMA had the lowest pressures worldwide and in the Atlantic. And, if I am reading this right, it says NANCY has the most violent winds world wide, with CAMILLE then ALLEN for the Atlantic. Overall, it looks like the French world has multiple definitions of strength (supported by fr.wiki's infobox for the Atlantic basin). ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 19:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What about labeling “lowest pressure” and “highest sustained winds” instead of strongest storm? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

From what I gather, it might be confusing and over the top and violate OR, though no one has opposed anything recently. I am going to ping @Jason Rees and CycloneFootball71 to see if their opinions changed. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

We should use both. We are contradicting NHC when we rank by pressure in their basins since they rank by winds (for example, ranking Hurricane Marie (2014) as tied for fourth- (now fifth-)strongest in the basin by its winds, not sixth- (now seventh-) strongest by pressure), and many media sources use winds. It would help reduce confusion a lot, and one more infobox parameter for a season is hardly any clutter.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Everyone agrees for changing since the straw poll started. Does anyone want (or know how) to implement it? ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 23:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Straw poll on adding a new option for infoboxes

Jasper Deng has implemented the decision. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:07, 9 September 2023 (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.

For seasons when the storm with the lowest pressure is different than the one with the highest sustained winds, do you support adding parameters to the infobox for both the lowest pressure and highest sustained winds?

Yes –

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Drdpw (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 22:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Gum balls 678 talk 18:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Noah^Talk 20:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
foo bar baz 17:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
United States Man (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 02:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No –

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.

Implementation

I have implemented the changes in {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} per the above consensus. Please assist with migrating all seasons.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Jasper Deng! ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 11:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The 1933 Atlantic hurricane season has two strongest by wind speeds but only one by pressure. I have left as is for now as the infobox didn't like me and it broke. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 11:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks as well Jasper Deng (talk · contribs)! I'm glad we can now be done with this bit of discussion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move: new title convention for Effects of (tropical cyclone) in (region) articles

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There are some good arguments on both sides here, and a roughly equal numerical balance, but the arguments against are stronger, with many in opposition bringing up an increase in ambiguity to various titles, as well as inaccuracy in some of the proposed titles. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 21:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

– Recently, Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New England was moved to Hurricane Sandy in New England. A discussion took place at Talk:Hurricane Sandy in New England#Requested move 21 August 2023 on whether the title should be moved back per WP:CONSISTENT, and it ended with a consensus that the new title (without "Effects of") was preferred to the old title as it improves WP:CONCISION without sacrificing clarity. The discussion also showed some support for changing the existing title convention, i.e. dropping the "Effects of" prefix. Since it's been advised above that a batch RM is more appropriate than an RfC in this situation, I'm opening a combined RM here for the 31 articles in Category:Effects of tropical cyclones, 43 (other) articles in Category:Effects of hurricanes in the United States, and the 4 region-specific articles in Category:Effects of Hurricane Katrina. (If I've missed anything that isn't in these categories, please help add them in.) ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There's also Effects of the 2020 North Indian Ocean cyclone season in India, Effects of the 2009 Pacific typhoon season in the Philippines and Effects of the 2013 Pacific typhoon season in the Philippines, which might be affected by this. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Added those three since the same line of argument would apply (merits of which can be debated below); also noting an IP added Effects of Hurricane Ida in the Northeastern United States about 12 hours ago. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Support as proposer per WP:CONCISE and my comments at Talk:Hurricane Sandy in New England#Requested move 21 August 2023. Removing "Effects of" doesn't affect the meaning the title conveys, and a reader clicking on an article titled "Tropical cyclone X in Region Y" will still expect to be presented information about the effects of tropical cyclone X in region Y. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Support per proposal.

Noah, AA^Talk 14:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

These feel weird to me. It's especially noticeable with ones like 1919 Florida Keys hurricane in Texas, which just feels confusing (why is the Florida Keys hurricane in Texas?), but even on the named storms, I think it just reads wrong. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Ambiguity is a problem I think applies to all of these with the change, or at least any with other storms under the same name. For, say, Hurricane Isaac in Florida, is that disambiguating from the 2018 hurricane that hit the Caribbean instead (which would make it target the main article)? To us, we have the context, but to a reader who searches Hurricane Isaac? (I think I sit as a weak oppose for now. Concision is important, but the titles just read wrong and I think have slight precision issues.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I disagree that removing "effects of" doesn't change the meaning. Without the "effects of" the title sounds like it focuses just on the meteorological event, not the impact (in some cases, the long-lasting impact) the storm had on an area. It creates a title that is more concise, but also more ambiguous. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it's not as if there is another dedicated page describing the weather event in a certain location without its effects that this page will be confused with. If there was, merging them would probably be a good idea, unless it's a major storm. Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Support for named storms per previous RM and WP:CONCISE, as they are WP:OVERPRECISE. If we had separate articles on the path/immediate events of the hurricane in the state and the aftermath, then this level of precision would be warranted, but right now anyone seeking content about hurricane X in state Y clearly should be brought to these articles, so no further disambiguation should be added into the descriptive titles. That said, I agree the unnamed storms would lead to some potentially confusing titles, e.g. 1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane in Florida seems more like an overly disambiguated title for 1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane rather than an article about the aftermath of the hurricane in the place for which it is "named". Not sure what to do about those, and we may be able to better articulate reasoning why those should be treated differently, but they are exceptions that shouldn't make the rule. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Support per WP:CONCISE. Would not want to see consistency disrupted. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Support. I like this idea Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Support as naming convention would be more simplified without ruining the meaning of the article(s). Qutlooker (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Support per above comments. Concise, and readers would assume the effects of a particular hurricane would be covered in the proposed titles. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose If we take a look at WP:Concise, it states "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information". However, I feel by removing "Effects of" from the title, we're sacrificing sufficient information for brevity. Take, for example, Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Virginia. If we simply say, "Hurricane Isabel in Virginia", we make it unclear what the article is about. Sure, its slightly shorter than the current title, but is the article about Isabel's meteorological history in Virginia? Its effects? Its aftermath? All three? To someone unfamiliar with the way we word things, they may be left confused. Additionally, the issue becomes magnified with unnamed hurricanes. As User:Skarmory pointed out, saying something along the lines of "1919 Florida Hurricane in Texas" is rather unclear. Why is a Florida hurricane in Texas? the average user might wonder. Adding "Effects of" makes it clear that the hurricane also affected Texas, not just Florida. Minus "Effects of", it seems like the article is incorrect or unclear. The second part of WP:Concise holds that we balance brevity and information "to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." Someone (or some editor) familiar with tropical cyclones would know that it is important to distinguish between a cyclone's met history and its impact- that's why we have separate articles for, say, Hurricane Dorian on its meteorological history and its impact on a certain area. And, in every tropical cyclone article, we clearly separate its met history from its impacts. Potentially mashing the two together (or at least making it seem like we did) in the article title violates WP:Concise, as it sacrifices sufficient information for brevity, rather than striking a balance between the two. This is exemplified by the very first sentence of Hurricane Sandy in New England: "Hurricane Sandy in New England spread as far north as Maine in late October 2012, with the most significant damage in Connecticut, and included hurricane-force gusts." We made it sound as if the system Sandy itself, not its effects, spread as far north as Maine, and the only way to remedy this and separate the two for clarity is to add "the effects of". Jay Tee 🕊️ 19:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Conciseness cannot come at the cost of precision. There may be a need to split especially large "effects of" articles in the future, for example into preparations and impacts, in which case having just one article title that doesn't distinguish that would be too inflexible.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support name shortening. The "effects of" may make it a little more difficult for a reader to search. Ease of searching by readers is important. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how "effects of" would make it more difficult to search. Searching for just "Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans" finds the Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as the first result within (en) Wikipedia and on Google. If the effect of "effects of" on searchability is deemed a concern, "Hurricane (Name) in (Place)" can be set up as redirects to the more precise title. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - I didn’t mind the idea when it first came up, but articles like “Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New England” that make me think the current title is best, per the precision arguments. Sandy was never in New England, only its effects were. Technically same as New York, as the center didn’t go through the state. I think the “effects of” makes it more clear up front that the topic is a sub-article. Just “Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans” as a topic implies that it’s going to cover the storm’s passage through NOLA, while being specific about the “effects” means that preparations and aftermath would be included too. That’s why the word “effects” is used, and not just “impacts”, to be broader when necessary. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - I feel that including "Effects of" in the title better clarifies the subject of the article, documenting the effects of a storm in one location or region, not just the storm in general. (e.g., the strength of the storm or its meteorological history within the area, without mentioning its impacts) ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 02:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose – I think the potential for confusion is limited, especially since these are basically just WP:SPINOFFs almost exclusively accessed from the main article – if you're reading the Virginia section of Hurricane Isabel under the level 2 "Impact" heading, you aren't going to wonder too much what the {{mainarticle}} link is about. And just going by vibes, some of the proposed titles do look slightly better. That said, there are edge cases, mentioned above, where the new scheme could introduce some real awkwardness. Given the lack of a compelling reason for changing the long-standing naming convention, these potential snags are worth avoiding. Also, revert the move of Sandy in New England. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose That honestly doesn't make sense to me. "Tropical Cyclone in Region" can mean anything as far as I'm concerned. The purpose of saying "Effects of..." (in my opinion) is to specify what the article is for. Take this for example. Suppose, hypothetically, a train derails and spills hazardous materials into a river. A report with a Wikipeadia-standard title would not say "Hazardous materials in X river" because that, in my opinion, could mean anything because it's too vague. By definition, the title is saying that there is hazardous material in a river, but it's not saying what the article is FOR. Instead, it would say "Effects of hazardous materials in X river" since this would explain the purpose of what the report is talking about. Here's another issue; suppose you change the Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England title to Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England. By just looking at the title, one would assume that the storm moved through this region. However, the center of Isabel never even went into this region, and the effects from the system was due to the storm's SIZE, not its track. In conclusion, changing the articles can create misleading and potentially confusing information to readers who are not familiar with how we title articles. This should be avoided. ChessEric 18:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose – Removing "effects of" would, as others have pointed out, make the focus of those particular articles less precise and less clear. These articles are about the impact / effects of "X" in an area, not on the movement of "X" through an area; so, for precision and clarity we should keep on using the "effects of" wording. Drdpw (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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

RfC

Please see the discussion related to subtropical cyclone color change proposals here. Noah, AA^Talk 00:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Units

Why Atlantic and Pacific hurricane articles have imperial units first, rather than metric units? It would be more consistent to have metric units first. --40bus (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi 40bus, the reason is… that’s how we’ve always done it. The US uses imperial, and the Miami-based National Hurricane Center issues advisories on both EPAC and ATL. However, if a storm primarily affects a Western Hemisphere nation that isn’t the US, then the article can have metric units first, reflecting the country of greatest impact. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Some hurricane articles there use Celsius first in sea surface temperatures, some use Fahrenheit. All should use Celsius. And why impacts in Mexico and Canada are also given imperial first, despite that these countries use metric? --40bus (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, well I stand corrected. I had in my mind that storms affecting Canada (such as Hurricane Juan) would have the metric units first. In fact, it is official Wikipedia policy, per MOS:METRIC:

In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.)

Regarding consistency, do you think it's more important that all articles in a given basin have the same type of units? That is, all Atlantic hurricane articles having imperial first? After all, Hurricane Maria killed more than 3,000 in Puerto Rico, but it also hit Dominica as a Cat 5. If a storm has an article and it doesn't have significant effects in the US (but there are some) where do you draw the line? Hurricane Elsa is an example of that case, and it has imperial units first. Any thoughts on this admitted inconsistency? Should we get the US to adopt the metric system so everything can be consistent? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather#RfC:_A-Class_in_WikiProject_Weather, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Noah, AA^Talk 21:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Disallow_insertion_of_old-colored_WP:WPTC_track_maps, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Supportstorm, MarioProtIV, Cyclonebiskit, Juliancolton, Hurricanehink, HikingHurricane, Sria-72, Nova Crystallis, Meow, Wxtrackercody, Ks0stm, Hurricane Noah, ChessEric, WeatherWriter, Master of Time, CycloneFootball71, Chicdat, 12george1, RandomInfinity17, Chlod, and Iune: Let's please get this discussion going.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@TheAustinMan: forgot this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Not interested, I still prefer the background image being changed. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Tbh I’m kinda in that boat too (I wanted black and white) but after three years of discussions, I’d rather have a solution that moves forward with everyone being happy… which almost never happens on wiki 🤣 Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WPTC A

Template:WPTC A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It has been proposed that List of retired South Pacific cyclone names and List of retired Australian region cyclone names be merged into one list entitled List of tropical cyclone names retired in the Southern Hemisphere.Jason Rees (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Review of article at FAR

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean/archive1 has been open for several months - it is unclear if the article meets the featured article criteria or not. Input on this matter from editors experienced with the featured article criteria and process would be appreciated. Hog Farm _Talk 03:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

West Pacific named depressions

In some West Pacific season articles where depressions are named by PAGASA, both the PAGASA name and the JTWC identifier (an example would be TD Amang from 2019) are used in the system article, while in other seasons, only the PAGASA name is used in the article (2009's TD Auring). Which way is correct? Incognito-Fedora (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Incognito-Fedora: - The correct way is to include all of the identifiers in the title, so both the JTWC and PAGASA names, if that's applicable. If a depression was not named by the JTWC (but perhaps was an invest), it should only list the PAGASA name. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Central v. Eastern Pacific hurricane seasons

Withdrawing suggestion as discussion has gone stale and there appears to be a consensus against splitting off the CPAC basin. Jay Tee⛈️ 19:00, 10 January 2024 (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.

I’ve given this some thought for a while, and I figured this was better to have a project-wide discussion about. I believe there is a flaw with our current system of merging the North Central and Eastern Pacific tropical cyclone basins into one Pacific hurricane season. While the two basins overlap very often, the National Weather Service and World Meteorological Organization both treat the two basins as separate. They have different naming systems, warning centers, climatologies, and are never referred to as being a part of the same season by any of our sources. The NHC and CPHC go so far as to separate the TCRs and advisories of tropical cyclones in each basin, and they are given separate seasonal summaries each year.

Therefore, I believe the current treatment of the two basins as having one and the same season is reaching or implying a conclusion not stated by the sources, in this case, assuming that there is one overall “Pacific hurricane season”, and a violation of WP:NOR. I think a more concise title would be the “20XX Eastern and Central Pacific hurricane seasons”. This is both brief enough to identify the subject and also provides sufficient information to distinguish the two seasons, as our sources do. Jay Tee⛈️ 19:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It is similar to how Indonesia names storms north of 10° north in the Australian basin. It isn’t exactly its own basin, but there is its own naming scheme. The current title actually works pretty well, because it doesn’t have to specify east or central. Pacific hurricanes only occur east of the international date line, north of the equator. Also, the best track lumps the CPAC with the EPAC, so by and large, the two basins/naming lists are treated as one… basically. It’s important to clarify and explain. I don’t think the CPAC should be split off either, since activity is usually pretty minimal there, and often it is an extension of the EPAC proper. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that lumping them all together is poor practice. The reason I want the title to specify is because most of the articles minimally separate the seasons and basins, which doesn’t reflect our sources, and sacrifices sufficient information for brevity. I agree the CPAC shouldn’t be split off, I just think we need to make the distinction between the two basins clearer. Jay Tee⛈️ 19:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding more to the title would violate WP:CONCISE. I think this sort of clarification should be in the lead and the season summary, when it doesn't already exist. Could you point out an example where we are lacking? Usually, PHS articles mention the boundary between 140W being the dividing line, as well as difference in when the season starts. The 2015 PHS article mentions "The Central Pacific, the portion of the Northeast Pacific Ocean between the International Date Line and the 140th meridian west, had its most active year on record, with 16 tropical cyclones forming in or entering the basin." So I'm not sure if this is a major project-wide issue, or if it's just affecting a few seasons. Which is it JayTee32 (talk · contribs)? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that the entire title of having one "Pacific hurricane season" lumps the two basins and seasons together which isn't what our sources do. And while the 2015 season does take time to note the difference between the basins, most other seasons' articles, notably those in the 1980s and 1990s, do little to specify the difference between the basins other than noting their different start/end dates. They also only summarize the Eastern Pacific season's activity without or minimally acknowledging the Central Pacific. It just doesn't make much sense that the NHC/CPHC never summarize the seasons together but we do. Jay Tee⛈️ 19:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The title efficiently lumps them together through the common name, "Pacific hurricane", which applies to both East and Central Pacific. Also, considering the low number of storms (with nothing forming in the CPAC since 2019), I think it makes sense for the CPAC to be lumped in. When the season articles don't explain the difference clearly, then those articles should be addressed, but I don't see anything wrong from a project level with how the articles are being handled. I'd love to hear from other editors - @Yellow Evan: any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Just popping in real quick while I have 5 minutes, there is no easy solution as to how we title/define the basins, for example, sometimes the SPAC is treated by reliable sources as one whole basin from the GoC onwards while others use 160E. It is also worth remembering SPAC tropical cyclones are sometimes referred to as hurricanes by reliable sources especially when we go further back in time.Jason Rees (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the SPAC tropical cyclones, though the EPAC/CPAC have been more clearly defined for a longer period of time both within the project and by our sources. The NHC/CPHC division of TCRs and storm archives also reflects the division of storm archives by the BoM and New Zealand offices. Jay Tee⛈️ 18:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink All I'm trying to get at is there should be a more clear division between the basins - our article titles are only one part of the issue. Regardless of whether the CPAC is an active basin or not doesn't decide whether or not it is recognized and treated as a separate basin. There could be no CPAC tropical cyclones for another ten years and that still wouldn't change the fact that it's a very different basin than the EPAC. Jay Tee⛈️ 18:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Just pitching the logical extension of this argument, should there be a List of Central Pacific hurricane seasons? That could probably be split into 50 year periods, or so, seeing as how sparse recordkeeping is in the region prior to 1950. A few seasons might get their own articles (like 1992 or 2015). I agree, there is a difference between the Central and the Eastern Pacific. As Jason Rees (talk · contribs) points out, SPAC storms were called hurricanes in the past. It would require a lot of splitting, but I can see the merit, not that I'm pitching it myself. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You're forgetting how many storms move into the basin. If a year with four depressions in NIO has its own season article, I don't see why the same couldn't occur for CPAC. I think a split would be justified considering the WMO considers these entirely separate basins. I think the initial reasoning behind lumping them was they are both overseen by NOAA but that's not a good rationale when sources separate them. Noah, AA^Talk 22:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that’s what I’ve been trying to get at. Jay Tee⛈️ 22:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink I’d be willing to do a mock-up of a potential CPAC article in my sandbox to visualize this proposal. Jay Tee⛈️ 22:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that would be needed since it shouldn't be too difficult to visualize tbh. Here's 2018's CPAC season as an example of what gets included. Noah, AA^Talk 23:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah, that looks great. Could we get a look at what a potential track map would look like for both an EPAC and CPAC stand-alone? Pinging Meow as they have much more experience in this realm. Jay Tee⛈️ 23:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose This really isn't much different from the Australian region having multiple TCWC's or the South Pacific having both RSMC Nadi and TCWC Wellington. The WP:SIZERULE would disfavor separate central Pacific articles because many seasons have no central Pacific activity at all, leaving nothing to cover in them. Since in addition, most activity that does occur in the region is fish storms, WP:GNG does not support central Pacific seasons having their own article. Our existing season summary table with separate totals for the central Pacific is amply sufficient. The OR concerns are completely unfounded because aggregation of activity is simple addition (minus crossover storms; WP:CALC). They issue joint TCR's that are linked on a unified website as well (@JayTee32: you are blatantly incorrect about that part), so separation would make this needlessly awkward (only the JTWC, which operates pan-basin, would also issue cross-basin (A)TCR's). We also have a lot of other work to do, such as track map migration; even the existing timeline articles (which this would add more of) barely get the attention they need. We should address that first before creating more technical debt.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng Just to address a few of your concerns..

1) As Hurricanehink clarified earlier, the splitting of CPAC seasons would be limited to active ones such as 1992, 2015, 2018, etc., so they would pass the conditions of WP:AS. Other articles we would simply need to work more on better clarifying the difference between the two basins, as I commented earlier.

2) The hypothetical article(s) pass WP:GNG on the grounds that an active season like 2015 is covered by a variety of sources and its existence as a season separate from the EPAC season is support by the NHC, CPHC, and WMO.

3) WP:CALC encompasses simple arithmetic, which is not the case here. We are talking basins with different definitions, climatologies, and treatment by warning centers and international organizations. A storm crossing between basins is applicable here.

4) The discussion archives of the NHC and CPHC on individual storms are separated depending on the basin they were located in, and the NHC website doesn't even contain archives of CPHC storm advisories from 2016 and before, and the archived discussions of storms since 2017 are separated by basin. The Central Pacific is treated just as separately from the Eastern Pacific as the Atlantic is, even though they share a common link on a unified website. What I meant about the TCRs is that the Central Pacific storms are issued separate TCRs by the CPHC, instead of lumping the TCRs of both storms into the Eastern Pacific header (for example, Hurricane Walaka has its TCR written completely independently of the NHC and is in its own section under the 2018 TCR archives). These echo my earlier claims that The NHC and CPHC go so far as to separate the TCRs and advisories of tropical cyclones in each basin, and they are given separate seasonal summaries each year. So I was not blatantly wrong, and I would appreciate if you didn't make that accusation towards me.

5) I agree we have lots of other work to do as project, but that shouldn't stop us from actively striving to improve it, even if it adds to our workload. Jay Tee⛈️ 01:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This isnt the Australian region. The WMO tropical cyclone basins graphic shows dashed lines for the TCWCs in Australian region while there are bold lines for the CPAC. Additionally, CPAC is indicated to be its own region, not a subregion of the EPAC. [6] Sources separate the EPAC and the CPAC while Australian region is lumped together in most sources. Jaytee is correct that this is OR. We are combining statistics and labeling things in a way that the sources do not. There is not a single Pacific hurricane season but rather an Eastern Pacific hurricane season and a Central Pacific hurricane season. We are treating it as one basin where it is clearly not treated that way by the sources. This is very clear OR. Whether you like it or not, the CPAC is its own separate region and the CPHC is its own RSMC. If the CPHC weren't NOAA, this would have already been split off. Noah, AA^Talk 01:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to add that WP:SIZERULE would favor splitting in many cases as quite a few season articles become rather large. We aren't arguing that every season would get an article but rather that those that qualify would get one. Fish storms or not, sufficient coverage in media and other reliable sources is enough to pass GNG and warrant an article. If there are more than a few storms, an article should exist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Just would like that I do have User:RandomInfinity17/Table of Central Pacific tropical cyclones, definitely will need expansion and probably some rework if it were to put in the main space but nice to know I guess. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. The above list is along the lines of List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, only, all of the storms in a single basin. I'm still torn on the need of it, creating the technical debt as Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) posted. I didn't think there would be so much support for branching off the CPAC. For what it's worth, NOAA states that there are only seven major basins, including the Central Pacific as part the rest of the Eastern Pacific. Even Meteo France describes it as "western portion of the Northeast Pacific basin (140°W to the dateline)". So there are plenty of sources that combine the Central and Eastern together. They are both Pacific hurricanes, however you cut it. In NOAA's tropical cyclone FAQ, they have a climatology by basin, listing "NE/Central Pacific**", and clarifying below "Note that the data includes storms and hurricanes that formed in the Central Pacific." So it's pretty clear a lot of sources include them together. I am personally against splitting off the CPAC. I would rather the instances where the delineation isn't clear enough, that it gets clarified. In addition, make sure that records are specific - if it's for the entire basin, it needs a reference. If it's for a particular country, or sub-basin, then that is what we have to write. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The NOAA source appears a bit outdated, as it divides the Australian region in half and doesn’t include much of the Central Pacific or South Indian oceans in its provided graphic. I do acknowledge the opinion of Meteo-France, though NOAA’s FAQ appears to conflict with its other instances of separating the NE/Central Pacific, as I noted above. I think there’s a lot of a vagueness overall on whether the CPAC and EPAC are separate, but more of our sources appear to treat them as different basins than those that combine them. That’s why I think our titles/articles need to be more acknowledging of their differences. I also agree with Hurricane Noah that a separate article for certain active seasons would be warranted, like 1982, 1992, and 2015. Jay Tee⛈️ 18:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I also would like to add that technical debt, while annoying to deal with, will always occur on Wikipedia and shouldn’t stop us from actively trying to improve it. Jay Tee⛈️ 18:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose fundamentally I don't think anything has really changed from the last time this was discussed thirteen years ago. Sources conflict on the basin setup (fwiw some sources do split up the AUS as well) and most importantly HURDAT combines the two. I'm not completely against select seasons getting a CPAC-centric article but I'd also caution against it if the summaries for the individual storms would be quite short. If one feels page size is an issue with regards to season articles, I'm more inclined to think we need more storm articles or revive what was once called the "new" format (i.e. making a list of storms page). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The whole point of this discussion is for just a few separate CPAC-centered articles where it is necessary and to better clarify the difference between the CPAC/EPAC, which we aren’t doing a good job of as a project so far, so it seems you support this idea more than oppose it. I would also like to note the wording of that straw poll from over a decade ago seemed to have a bias against the CPAC and may have skewed the consensus. Jay Tee⛈️ 15:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) referred to a new format, which would be along the lines of what RandomInfinity17’s sandbox has. That could end up being a good format for the quieter basins, like SATL and Mediterranean. And the parallel for this list in other basins is the list of storms by each intensity (since a singular list for Atlantic TC’s would be too long). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the making of lists for Mediterranean and SATL storms since they have no formal seasons or RSMCs. However, seeing as the CPAC has both, it should have both a list and a few season articles where they are long enough. Jay Tee⛈️ 22:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - it's been a month since there's been any comments. I am not sure there is a need to split it off, and I personally think the CPHC should just be folded into the National Hurricane Center. I think there is enough literature combining CPAC and EPAC into the Pacific hurricane season, much like there being a different region for Papua New Guinea within the Australian region. So, I don't think this should be a priority going into 2024. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Good article reassessment for Tropical Storm Jerry (2001)

Tropical Storm Jerry (2001) 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. ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

West Pacific timelines

In most basin timelines, the system's name and its intensity are included, however in the West Pacific basin, only the system's name is included. Should the West Pacific be updated for the sake of consistency?

Normal basin:

WP Basin:

''Flux55'' (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

AFAIR the short cuts C1, TS and so on have been introduced years ago to deal with the issue of accessibility. That against the fact, that already three other standard parts of an article tell the reader which category a storm has reached. IMO we can leave out the short cuts totally. Also because of in some over active seasons it really make a problem, especially in the WestPac. Matthiasb (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Cosme (2007)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Cosme (2007)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Isaac (2006)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Isaac (2006)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Karl (1980)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Karl (1980)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Lili (1990)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Lili (1990)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Danny (2015)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Danny (2015)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Fausto (2002)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Fausto (2002)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Fred (2009)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Fred (2009)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Ignacio (1985)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Ignacio (1985)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Newton (1986)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Newton (1986)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Octave (1989)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Octave (1989)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Helene (2006)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Helene (2006)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Humberto (2001)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Humberto (2001)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Juliette (1995)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Juliette (1995)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Kate (2003)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Kate (2003)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Lili (1984)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Lili (1984)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Nora (2003)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Nora (2003)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Julia (2010)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Julia (2010)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Karl (2004)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Karl (2004)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Fran (1973)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Fran (1973)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tropical cyclone basins

Tropical cyclone basins 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) 01:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox tropical cyclone

Template:Infobox tropical cyclone has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Noah, AA^Talk 15:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hurricane season bar gap

Template:Hurricane season bar gap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons track/path names

I have noticed that the Wikimedia Commons track names for tropical depressions are not procedurally organized, with three formats dominating the system. There is this format, with no leading zero and a dash between the number and the basin name (example: File:1-L 1988 track.png), another format with the leading zero and a dash between the number and the basin name (example: File:03-L 1974 track.png), another format with the leading zero and no dash (example: File:10L 2020 track.png), and other unregulated formats like File:1970 Indian cyclone 4 track.png. The closest thing I could find to a guideline was this, but it didn't say exactly what format the depressions should be in. I propose that a new guideline be created to regulate this, using the third format (File:10L 2020 track.png). Please reply if you want to participate in this discussion. Thank you. 2003 LN 6 19:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Putting to one side any problems we may have imposing any guidelines we create here on commons and other wikis, there are at least three types of depressions that would need to be covered by any such guidance. Those depressions that are named/numbered in real time, Those depressions that are named/numbered post-season or in reanalysis and those depressions that are not numbered.Jason Rees (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jason Rees so which format should we follow on Commons or is there really no guideline? 2003 LN 6 03:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)