Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Article Improvement Task Force & Graphix Task Force

After going through the list of page ratings, I was quite alarmed to see 840 pages or 19.3% of our content either at or below start class. As most of the current task forces work on creating new articles and improving higher priority articles, I would like to propose the creation of the Article Improvement task force. The purpose of this task force would be to improve all lowly rated articles (as possible) that have been neglected due to age or others getting precedent and get them to a higher quality rating. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting proposal but I would note that some of the 20% would be season articles which may need splitting off before being improved. Especially in the Southern Hemisphere basins.Jason Rees (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The task force could work on cyclone articles until that happens. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I kinda meant season articles into storm articles. Always happy to see work on SHEM though.Jason Rees (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Im reviving this because I shouldn't have prematurely killed it a few months back based upon a few people who felt it was not worth doing. There are a lot of older/less important articles that need to be improved and there should be an officially designated area for it. Also, I feel we should have a Graphix task force... this one would easily be doable as we have several individuals that work with images and tracks already. @CooperScience:, @Oof-off:, @FleurDeOdile:, @Master0Garfield: to name a few. This would simply be an official place to organize efforts. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 00:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

More importantly, we need to define what articles we still need to create and, yanno, actually create them. I believe that would be creating seasonal articles back to the start of every basin's reliable recordkeeping. Atlantic is done to 1850, but the Eastern Pacific is only done to 1949. The WPAC naturally has a few year gap when World War II disrupted recordkeeping, but a lot of the early 1900s don't have good records on Wikipedia, despite readily available info online. It just takes a lot of time to compile. The North Indian Ocean needs season articles in the 60 and 70s, and much of the SWIO needs content for the 60s to the 80s. Based on what I've read, some of the world's deadliest storms occurred in the early 20th century in eastern Asia, Oceania, and Africa, and we're just scratching the surface documenting what actually happened. Count me in for the task force, on the condition we come up with a cool name like Cyclone Squad... but better. (if you read my comment this far, congrats, you have an above-normal attention span! Please contribute to Wikipedia, and also note I need to joke at times of discussing historic deadly storms we know next to nothing about.) TL;DR, the top priority should be adding and citing content where it's lacking, namely stub-season article creation, articles for historic and retired storms, and eventually having citations for all articles, making them C-class. That's a pretty big undertaking, but it's doable. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the main priority of this task force would be improving the older articles (possibly creating more articles if need be). For example, 1959 Pacific hurricane season has practically no information despite it being available. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be worked on. Coverage on older seasons definitely needs a lot of improvement and this would be able to help with that. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 00:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind joining in, after mid November I'm pretty much free until January. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 11:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the creation of these task forces would be a good idea, allowing for editors most experienced in the respective forces to continue to focus on what they do best. There are still plenty of Atlantic and Eastern Pacific systems which could use better imagery (Using the NOAA CLASS system, which goes back to 1978). That's what I will be focusing on for the while. Cooper 21:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also be fine with joining the task force if necessary. I think it would be good to have a force like this to improve articles that are in dire need of it (NIO and SHEM especially!), as well as images. With this force, the quality of articles can be vastly improved. --Oof-off (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the improvement task force could also be a supplement for basins that have minimal support as is (NIO, AUSR, SWIO, SPAC). Although, the focus would be on improving older content rather than providing updates for current systems. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the assessment page, which shows by color-coding every storm and season article worldwide, from Stub (the worst in red) to green/blue for good/featured articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I want to create it, because it should improve (should) all our articles, and could make other people participate. What we got to lose? DerpieDerpie:D 01:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay... We need to decide on an official name for the task force... so as it stands currently, the responsibilities of the article improvement task force include:

• Serving as a supplement for SPAC, NIO, SWIO, and AUSR (more or less creating content for those basins rather than performing updates on current systems).
• Improving all older, stub and start class articles regardless of basin. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 01:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree to the above. We should set benchmarks to define how we hope to improve these articles, and identify the top priority articles that need to be created. For the season articles, we need to at least document every storm on record and with their impacts. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This is fundamentally why I was against this when it first came up. There was no really well-defined scope that would be a sub-project of WPTC in accordance with WP:TASKFORCE. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay... a lot of the stubs and start class articles need more content in general as well as citations. Each storm section on a season article should have at least a small paragraph written about it. Stub and start class storm articles also need more content and citations. MHs and impacts need expanded on a lot of them. I think content and citations will be the main things we do. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I would rather create a task force for each basin, instead of a large "Storms Task Force". Also, we should set a minimum standard for the notability of a storm ($10,000 of damage, 10 deaths, etc.) Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A lot of the basins don't have enough active editors to really warrant individual task forces. AUSR, SWIO, NIO, and SPAC all have a few editors who make content, but nothing compared to the Atlantic and East Pacific. The goal of this task force would be to provide additional help in those basins as the coverage of systems is not good currently. Also, the task force will improve all stub and start class articles. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 02:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a minimum of editors needed for a task force. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but is it worthwhile creating a task force that will have one or two people in it at the start? I don't see a point in creating them now when there isn't enough interest to do so. If a group of 4-5 people want one for a specific basin, it can be discussed. I think it would be better to more or less have a cover all for now to supplement the activity in those areas. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

What about a task force for the historical storms? There are going to be people who only edit when storms are active. But for the historical storms, there is a lot of overlap of resources and databases. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd say a task force for each basin would be useful for assessment/WW purposes even if it wouldn't exactly have an active talk page. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Well... I would be okay with that. However, I think the article improvement task force should still have the function of serving as a supplement for the low traffic basins. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to take it as far as having a task force dedicated to "South Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Southeast Pacific cyclones," and also have a task force dedicated to timelines, with new classes (BL, CL, SL) to further categorize lists. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we could a Miscellaneous tropical cyclones task force for those. As for timeline task force, I don't think we need one due to individual basin task forces. Actually, I have thought about eliminating the season and storms task forces. They aren't really needed as the individual basin task force would cover the duties of them. I see no reason to have two task forces to do the exact same thing. For the classifications you mentioned, I think they should be used. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 11:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It is great to see the project trying to become organised again, however, I firmly feel that we do not need task forces for each and every basin especially if it goes as far as SE Pacific which would be merged with South Pacific.Jason Rees (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Task Forces

For the sake of having an accurate assessment (on wiki instead of a spreadsheet accessible by IRC only), better management of each basin, and organizing users by area of expertise. The storms and seasons task forces should be disbanded, and the articles of those should be redistributed into these task forces. I am open to splitting Southern hemisphere even more, but those basins tend to have many crossovers. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• WikiProject Tropical cyclones
  • Task Forces
    • Northern Atlantic Task Force
    • Anomalous Cyclones Task Force
    • Eastern Pacific Task Force
    • Western Pacific Task Force
    • Northern Indian Ocean Task Force
    • Southern Hemisphere Task Force
    • Meteorological Task Force
    • Graphix Task Force

I like the idea, but I would rather see another task force to cover the miscellaneous areas such as South Atlantic, Mediterranean, etc.. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 16:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Added. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I changed the name because there are many more areas than the ones I mentioned. Full list includes: Within 5° of the equator, Great Lakes, South Atlantic, NE Atlantic, Bay of Biscay, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, Gulf of California, SE Pacific, Natuna Sea, Gulf of Thailand, and Gulf of Aden. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 21:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Considering most of those are covered by the regular season pages, I don't think those storms should be added to the Anomalous task force. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles may be covered by multiple task forces. If the storm(s) in question have their own articles, they can fall under both. The season article itself wouldn't be added to the task force. All has to do about the peculiarity of where the storm formed. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The biggest priority now is creating the task forces, and then tagging all of the articles in the non-NHC basins. WPAC will take the longest. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

So User:Figfires got User:Oshwah to add the WPAC force to the template, only it's not encoding properly. Could anyone who template knowledge take a look at the project banner template? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Has this been resolved? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Top priority articles to be created

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Article requests

1. Hurricane/Typhoon/Cyclone ?

Cyclone Josie/Cyclone Keni both of which are retired names from this year, but are not yet under articles.Jason Rees (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Basically any retired names due to damage. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018)

@Hurricanehink:@LightandDark2000:Could some people please help with TD Nineteen-E? This is probably one of the most important TDs in EPAC history. First known TC to form in the Gulf of California. Agricultural damages of $41M and flooding damages estimated in the hundreds of millions. I have expanded the article some, but am having severe internet issues due to damages from an ice storm. I would appreciate it if some of you could help with expanding it. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 06:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) to be moved to  Subtropical Storm Alpha. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Australia TC's post 1971-72

I thought I would post this here as a heads up as there maybe a few significant intensity changes including category. Over the next few days, I am going to go through all of the Australian tropical cyclone seasons after 1971-72, to ensure that all of the intensities from the BoM are consistent with the BT Database.Jason Rees (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Naming for tropical cyclone effects articles

I'd like to open a discussion about how we name articles like:

• List of Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones
• List of Baja California Peninsula hurricanes
• List of United States hurricanes
• Tropical cyclone effects in Europe
• Typhoons in the Philippines

There are a lot of areas that could eventually get this sort of article (as I proposed above). I think we could have better names for them, namely: Tropical cyclones in the Arabian Peninsula, Hurricanes in the United States, Typhoons in the Philippines. That still leaves how to title Tropical cyclone effects in Europe. Any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the article title change as it works better in my opinon, however, im not sure about Europe. I suspect it might be better to split and tidy it up.Jason Rees (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Are they fundamentally not lists? Why do they work better? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:Concise. The article titles could be shorter if written differently. This way it mirrors Tropical cyclones in 2018. I wouldn’t be opposed to a mass move for all list articles, as they could be retired similarly, but one batch at a time. The current wording is awkward for longer titles like “List of Baja California Peninsula hurricanes.” I forget what I’m looking at y the time I’ve read what it is the article is describing. The inverse is “Hurricanes in Baja California.” Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays everyone

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello WikiProject Tropical cyclones, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, ~ KN2731 {t · c} 11:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hope you guys have a miserable Christmas. /s Merry Christmas everyone! YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

1935 Labor Day hurricane listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 1935 Labor Day hurricane to be moved to Labor Day hurricane. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Tropical cyclones in X

I just wanted to get some discussion going on the yearly TC articles as their popularity has been increasing. We should establish some ground rules on these articles for handling certain situations. Feel free to add more subsections if an issue needs to be debated.

Crossover systems

First topic for debate is crossover systems.... this is referring to systems that span multiple calendar years. Which year should they belong to? I will present you with a few choices for discussion purposes (feel free to make other suggestions).

Should we make them count as systems for both years, make them count for the year in which they became a TC/system, or make them count for the year in which they were named (unnamed crossovers will be counted for the previous year only).

Additionally, if options 2 or 3 were selected, how would that be handled in the article? Would the outliers be included only on the timeline or would they be in the January table as well? Noah^Talk 04:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

If storms are in two calendar years, they should be mentioned in both, and only counted for the peak intensity during that year. For example, a tropical depression in December of one year would be included as a TD for that year, but not for the subsequent year, although it would be counted as a C5 cyclone or whatever. Ditto basin crossers - include them in both, but not for number purposes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I do agree that the systems crossing over should get mention and be put on the timeline. They shouldnt be counted for numerical purposes in the new year unless the system becomes named. For crossovers...

• Crossover systems will be mentioned in the yearly article table (Dec/Jan) for the year in which the RSMC counts it. Systems will be put onto both timelines.
• Crossover systems that remain a TD/TL or are already named will count only for the previous year's stats
• Crossover TDs and TLs that become named systems after December 31 will count as a TD/TL for the previous year and as both a TD/TL and a named system for the current year
• The first system of the year will be the first new system or the first crossover to become a named system.
• The last system of the year will be the last system to dissipate, not the last to form.
• Systems that formed in one year, but were named in the next will receive mention in an other storms section on the previous year's article as well as normal mention on the current year (included in the table and mentioned in prose if it caused damages/deaths).
• Tropical cyclones that were tracked by either a TCWC or an outside RSMC, but were not designated by the RSMC of that area will be explored more thoroughly than what would be possible on the season article (in the other storms section).

How do those look? Noah^Talk 23:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, that seems to be a good set of rules that works for what we have in place. In the case of Tropical Storm Zeta and 2005-06 Atl crossover, it's not included for any stats in 2006, because it reached its highest status in the previous year. If Zeta was a tropical depression that was named in 2006, then it would be mentioned there. To further clarify, Tropical Storm Soulik formed in December 2000, but became a typhoon in January 2001, so it would be listed as a TD and TS for 2000, and a typhoon for 2001. Because it was named in 2000, Souik is not counted as the first storm of the year for 2001, but rather the last storm for 2000. The same goes for storms in the Southern Hemisphere, which are much more common because the near year is right in the middle of the cyclone season. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Okay... I fixed this to better go with how season articles are being done. Noah^Talk 21:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! Great job to you and to all people who keep the season articles up to date. It's important to document every tropical depression, storm, and tropical cyclone with sustained winds of at least 74 km/h (46 mph). One of the things you'll learn (and for anyone else out there who edits) is that the more you do it, the better you get. Eventually, you just get used to everything that's required in an article. As noted above, we've done a great job over the years documenting tropical cyclones worldwide as a community. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

use of JMA weather maps from digital typhoon

as we all know, storm imagery from digital typhoon is copyrighted. however, are the weather maps from the site copyrighted? they are JMA images but hosted on a different site FleurDeOdile 05:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Set indexes redirect to List of named storms (U–Z)

@JHunterJ, Tavix, DexDor, Rubbish computer, and Ajf773: After listening to feedback from the AfD, it appears a broad consensus is needed as this is a controversial issue. I would like to open up a discussion on whether set indexes between the letters of U and Z should redirect to their corresponding storm section on the List of named storms (U–Z) page or remain in their current capacity. Each storm name would be a section and simply have its current set index page redirect to it, not the level 2 heading for the first letter in the storm's name. Noah^Talk 01:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm confused. You just withdrew Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typhoon Unding acknowledging broad consensus to keep these. What changed since then? -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Tavix: I acknowledged there was consensus against deleting the set index pages entirely and closed the discussion on those grounds. I figured it would be better to bring any discussion regarding redirecting here since it may take some time to get a clear consensus. Noah^Talk 01:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• But the AfD was a clear consensus to keep the indexes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Neither of the two options suggested at the top of this thread; they should be disambiguation pages - e.g.:

Storm Foobar may refer to:

• Storm Foobar (1989), a storm that ...
• Storm Foobar (2013), a storm that ...
• The name "Storm Foobar" (see Naming of storms#F)
• Storm Foobar (book), a book about the 2013 storm

(of course, if there's only one article to link to it should be a redirect). DexDor ^(talk) 06:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• I wasn't able to comment on the AFD as I have been busy with other things over the last few days. Had I have done I would have supported the deletion or redirection of these articles, as I feel it is better to have one main list per letter than 600 odd SIA/DAB articles that are hard to maintain and do not have the same format. I also feel that several of the articles are pointless and redundant, as they contain or should only two or three entries like Xangsane or Prema. I also wonder at times if some are not redundant to more generalised lists about the subject like Cyclone Ada (disambiguation) & Ada.Jason Rees (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jason Rees, it would be better to have one main list per letter, especially for similar-but-different names. Human memory can be faulty. I think it would be more useful, in cases where the storm doesn't have the main article, to be redirected to a list of each letter, with a dedicated section for each name. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

If there's a title that's ambiguous on Wikipedia, we disambiguate that title with a disambiguation page, not redirect it to a longer list. In cases were the ambiguity is limited to a set of topics of a particular type, we forego the disambiguation page for a set index article so that those SIAs can be consistently formatted differently than disambiguation pages as suits the type of topic. But we don't forego the disambiguation page for a longer list article. Disambiguation pages do have the same format (WP:MOSDAB) and aren't hard enough to maintain to avoid maintaining them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Track map request

Could anyone add the track maps for the storms in the 1961/1962 cyclone seasons? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/ dead for long time

As the website for tropical cyclone advisories has been dead for long time, we should think about an alternative solution as soon as possible. 🐱💬 04:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I have been aware of Keith's website being down for a while now and from what he's told me its likely to remain that way for a while. It is worth noting that all of the advisories provided by Keith's website were accessible via NOAA's product store, although some were lifted from warning centre websites. It is also worth noting that there are a couple of other websites which archive advisories such as NRL the MT Archive and this private one. I also have WX Trop, [MetService] and the FMS emailing me certain products that we take note of, such as the Tropical Disturbance Summary.Jason Rees (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

More consistent windspeed conversion & rounding

I dove into TFA Tropical Storm Marco (1990) to check the wind speed conversion. I think it has some flaws.

Apparently hurricane researchers use speed units knots, mph, km/h (and sometimes m/s), and so do wikipedia articles. On enwiki, it is common to convert speeds into other units:

50 mph (43 kn; 80 km/h; 22 m/s). (btw, in general {{Convert}} is well equipped to do these maths including rounding, presicion, names & symbols).

It is up the the article editors (and this WikiProject) to establish good practices on this. For example, the {{Infobox hurricane}} takes input |1-min winds (in mph) and shows conversions mph, km/h only. The same speed input(s) are used to determine classification (like by Saffir–Simpson scale). All fine so far.

Let me decribe the issue.

The sourced wind speed(s)

TS Marco has sourced infobox input "55 kn", and it shows "1-minute sustained: 65 mph (100 km/h)". These same output speeds are hardcoded in the article (lede, #Meteorological history). An other source says: "65 mph".

(Having two values, it is up to the editors to apply the best RS-value. For consistency, the article best use a single source value throughout. The second one could be mentioned once. Anyway, my points here apply to both speeds values used, just a bit more confusing.)

• Guideline 1: input should be the sourced value (a speed), unchanged.

Converting RS values

The conversions for these two sourced values are (rounded to integer numbers here):

55 kn (63 mph; 102 km/h; 28 m/s)

65 mph (56 kn; 105 km/h; 29 m/s)

In general, it is good habit that to round conversions to five-folds:

55 kn (65 mph; 100 km/h; 30 m/s)

65 mph (55 kn; 105 km/h; 30 m/s)

Any such rounding should be done consistently throughout the article.

Now introduce classification scales

Hurricanes are classified by their wind speeds (for example, on the Saffir–Simpson scale). As the table appears, one can lookup a certain speed in whichever one of the four units (kn, mph, km/h, m/s). Of course this classification must be done per the RS-value full stop. An editor should not change that value when classifying (do not round, do not convert unit).

Classification by converted value

Then when a storm is classified, the converted speed values should be in the same class (same horizontal row). For this reason, it is not good to round speeds to five-folds. Because: when looked up in a converted unit (say km/h), it might end up in a different class! (Of course the RS has classified correctly, but a reader may be metric-minded and so be more familiar with the other unit column (that is why we add conversions).

The class table has integer (whole) numbers only. That means ther could be border issues, when "96 kn" (class 3) storm converts to "177 km/h" (class 2). This required detail checking later on. But anyway, we should not add to this mistake by rounding too roughly (IOW, rounding by five-folds will increase the chance of misclassifying).

• Guideline 2: wind speeds in storm articles: always round to integer values.

Implementation

We best imply these guidelines in both infobox and article body text.

To support Guideline 1 (use RS value unchanged), the infobox should have these parameters (1-minute value example):

|1-min winds= (current, must be kn)

Needed:

|1-min winds kn= (synonym)

|1-min winds mph=

|1-min winds km/h=

This way, the RS value can be used directly and no need to pre-convert values.

Then, the infobox can classify using the straight numbers. So when source unit is km/h, use lookup table column "km/h" values. (Current rounding & number manipulation should be and could be removed).

In body text, easiest is to use {{Convert}} all around:

{{convert|65|mph|km/h|0|abbr=on}} → 65 mph (105 km/h)

When the source is in kn, but the article uses mph, km/h:

{{convert|55|kmn|mph km/h|0|abbr=on|disp=out}} → 65 mph (105 km/h)

Guideline 2 can be suported by prescribing "All wind speeds should be rounded to 0 decimals". Use of {{convert}} is preferred.

Comments?

-DePiep (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

TL;DR

I propose: in hurricane articles and infoboxes, for classifying wind speeds:

• Guideline 1: input should be the sourced value (a speed), unchanged.

This way the editor does not need to pre-convert any input (no knots into mph manually). Also, changing RS-value before input may introduce errors and imprecision.

• Guideline 2: wind speeds in storm articles: always round to integer values.

This makes sure that the converted value ends up in the same class (same catewgory in Saffir–Simpson scale table).

-DePiep (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok hold on @DePiep: this is a little convoluted to explain. The National Hurricane Center (our primary RS for hurricane info) provides 1-minute sustained winds in knots, in multiples of 5. They issue several types of advisories, with the one most people read - the public advisory - stating wind speeds in mph and km/h, which are converted from knots and then rounded to the nearest 5. The infobox currently imitates the public advisory: input a value in knots, and the output values are mph and km/h rounded to the nearest 5. Of course, this makes using convert templates a bit problematic: for example, a Category 2 hurricane with 85-knot winds would be reported as 100 mph (155 km/h), but people who don't realise that these winds are actually converted from knots tend to dump 100 mph straight into the convert template, which would give 100 mph (160 km/h) but is not what the NHC states. This could be solved using the syntax {{convert|85|kn|mph km/h|abbr=on|disp=out|round=5}} which produces 100 mph; 155 km/h, the correct value, but without the km/h in brackets (I believe you tried something similar above?). Though some, including myself, usually forgo the convert templates and just write out the converted and rounded mph and km/h values. Is this the inconsistency that you refer to? ~ KN2731 {t · c} 13:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the description. So there is already some manipulation in the NHC handling of speeds, implicit and effects are present in our articles. I will have to think again on my remarks. Yes, this is the inconsistency I noted, expanding it even ;-).

I thought this edit was needed (while not touching the hardcoded 65 mph/100 km/h infobox/NHC numbers). -DePiep (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that edit is ok, definitely not NHC 1-min winds there. ~ 'KN2731WP:' {t · c} 14:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• At least the infobox should mention the knots. And the article, say in first section (not lede). And somewhere, this incidental rounding should be clarified. Still open what to do with other sources. (same again tomorrow). -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: (as an overall comment) The current rounding system isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed. We mention knots in {{Infobox hurricane current}}, presumably since it's of interest to the meteorologically-inclined readers, but the knot is of almost no interest to casual readers. I didn't even know of the knot's usage in meteorology until I began tracking storms myself in late 2014. I often have removed usage of {{convert}} when it produced wrong conversions ("wrong" in the sense of converting directly and correctly from knots).
  • The only drawback I find with this practice is the misbehaved Regional Specialized Meteorological Centers who decided for some reason to use non-multiples-of-5 (looking at you India Meteorological Department), but even those are rare enough to disregard. Speaking of RSMC's, our practice is straightforward: we take the RSMC's (or in some cases the Joint Typhoon Warning Center's) intensity number in knots and apply our conversion figure. No other sources matter: the RSMC is considered more reliable than any third-party source. Lots of third-party sources violate the rounding convention.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY

• Per WP:VERIFY, I challenge this approach. This thread already illustrates some background, esp re source handling. [later more] -DePiep (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There is literally nothing in WP:VERIFY that would conflict with this practice. The conversions and roundings are clearly permissible per WP:CALC, and in the case of third-party sourcing, weather sites like The Weather Channel apply the correct conversions, but many others don't, and basically none update for reanalysis, so they are all deemed strictly subordinate to the RSMC. Additionally, other sources will seldom do anything other than quote the RSMC or the JTWC, which also means they can never be more reliable than the agency making the estimate in the first place.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Noah^Talk 19:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Ribbons of Merit & Medals of Honor

This proposal is for an awards system for WPTC. We have been discussing ways of trying to promote activity within WPTC recently. I figured that an award system for doing work could motivate some editors to stay active. How it would work is the awards would be divided up into two tiers (basically the upper tier would have higher difficulty). The awards will be based on edits and time served in the project. Awards may only be given by other members of the project (one can't issue an award onto himself). Please feel free to discuss whether this would be worth pursuing or suggest changes. Im only going to post the lower tier for now so discussion on it can take place. Noah^Talk 22:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I like this idea, but keeping track of WPTC edits might be tricky. Unless you meant, by edits, overall edits. This is exactly the sort of thing that could encourage some editors, so I’m all aboard. We have a project barnstar btw, but that’s one that can be given whenever. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we can use overall edits. The upper tier (medals), which is not currently mentioned, would have additional requirements such as GAs and FA/FL/FP. Noah^Talk 14:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ribbons of Merit

This is the lower tier of the awards system. These awards are designed to be easier to obtain. Each award will have a different color to signify the level of the award. The numbers mentioned below are total amounts, not additional.

• Ribbon of Merit I

  Edits: 500

  Days in WPTC: 30 (1 month)

• Ribbon of Merit II

  Edits: 1,000

  Days in WPTC: 60 (2 months)

• Ribbon of Merit III

  Edits: 1,500

  Days in WPTC: 90 (3 months)

• Ribbon of Merit IV

  Edits: 2,000

  Days in WPTC: 120 (4 months)

• Ribbon of Merit V

  Edits: 3,000

  Days in WPTC: 180 (6 months)

• Ribbon of Merit VI

  Edits: 4,000

  Days in WPTC: 240 (8 months)

• Ribbon of Merit VII

  Edits: 5,000

  Days in WPTC: 300 (10 months)

• Ribbon of Merit VIII (white color)

  Edits: 7,500

  Days in WPTC: 420 (1 year 2 months)

• Ribbon of Merit IX

  Edits: 10,000

  Days in WPTC: 540 (1 year 6 months)

• Ribbon of Merit X

  Edits: 12,500

  Days in WPTC: 660 (1 year 10 months)

Set indices move proposal

All of these navigational articles are not disambiguation pages. They are technically classified as Set Index Articles (SIA for short), which fall under the larger category of lists. Moving all of these articles now will correct the issue with the naming to be in line with lists. This should have been done years ago but was lost after some time. This will also mean that these navigational articles will no longer have to be moved if a storm gets the main name. I would like to request permission from the project to go through with moving these articles. The new name would be "List of tropical storms named X". There are already several navigational articles with this naming scheme. Noah^Talk 03:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We need to be moving away from the idea that all of these disambiguation pages should just cover named tropical storms as they should cover Non tropical storms as well such as the ones the UKMO name.Jason Rees (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe do lists like “List of storms (I)”? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We could simply do "List of storms named X" or "List of cyclones named X". Even if we decide to get rid of individual pages in the future, it does not change the fact the names need to be standardized and corrected. Noah^Talk 13:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively we could add the rest of the letters besides List of named storms (U–Z) and redirect everything else to those pages. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 15:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We still need the redirects to have the correct name. The thing is... longer navigational lists have a lot of resistance from the outside and even some members of this project. Be warned if we go through with this, we will need a consensus to do so. Otherwise, it will simply be reverted by an outside admin. This will likely be challenged after the fact as well. Wikipedia admins outside of WPTC are staunchly opposed to this. Personally, I feel each letter should have its own separate list. Noah^Talk 15:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe long term, the best approach is to make the articles by letter. Once they’re all done, everything can be moved over. I’m sure even outside project members would appreciate the better sourcing of a singular list, and the ease of navigation, versus the monstrosity we have now of hundreds of SIAs. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I will be able to work on getting this task accomplished soon as there is a list established for some names already. I can start moving things over as I get a list done for each letter. However, redirects should be named similarly to the larger lists. Noah^Talk 14:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That work would be appreciated, but keep in mind it might take a while. I got burnt out just doing U-Z and some of the I storms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 Australian region cyclone season listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2018–19 Australian region cyclone season to be moved to 2018–2019 Australian region cyclone season. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Anomalous task force

Hi. Does the "Anomalous task force" exist for this project? I ask because Category:Anomalous tropical cyclone articles by quality exists, but the link to the task force is a red link. If it doesn't exist, I'd like to add the categories to CfD; if it does, can the link's target be updated? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: It does exist and I just fixed the links. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis: thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane preparedness for New Orleans listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane preparedness for New Orleans to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

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

PTSD/general anxiety related to tropical cyclones? Post away here

I want to ask the project editors, have you experienced any anxiety, depression, or PTSD because of researching/documenting a tropical cyclone? I'm not going to lie, discovering an older, extremely deadly cyclone is shocking, but there is small comfort that it occurred far in the past. That shock wears off when your research yields a or , because you produced a body of work that is better than anything else online. Other websites make a profit by the millions of hours the thousands of editors have contributed to this project. Sometimes, that includes documenting storms in real time. I'll share my story.

In May 2008, Cyclone Nargis killed 138,373 people when it struck Myanmar (or is it Burma)? I, along just a few other editors, documented the storm up to its landfall. After that, I couldn't edit the article any more. It's just a sad, numbing feeling, following so closely an unfolding disaster, seeing the death toll skyrocket, rescue efforts unfold, humanitarian crises, and the dread etc. Thankfully, because this is Wikipedia, the collaborative efforts hundreds of other editors helped expand the article and cover the developing tragedy. There have been 2,137 edits to the article, including some vandalism. On October 6, 2010, an anon removed 10 kb of impact, which wasn't noticed until Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) restored the deleted info in 2013. It's funny that no one noticed for three years. Maybe it's just a coincidence, or maybe it's because we don't want to even think about the sixth-deadliest tropical cyclone on record.

I don't know if it's PTSD, but man, some storms still give me that sinking pit in my stomach. I remember exactly where I was, when I was, for quite a few storms since 2005 (when I joined), from the comfort of my own computer in New Jersey, Typhoon Bopha, Cyclone Idai, Hurricane Mitch, to name a few. In a way, the reason I'm on here is because I want to document the storms that cause that dread and awe that tropical cyclones inspire. The world turns to Wikipedia for information. Too often, our work is done without anyone else knowing or appreciating the countless hours of editing. So, my fellow Wikipedians, I implore you to share your stories. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I really can think of three instances, two of which occurred in 2013. First, I was doing Hurricane Liza, which had more impact than most storms I had done at the time and killed over 1,000, caused me to well comprehend the extent of the disaster more than I had in the past, which in turn made me uncomfortable to say the least. The second was Hurricane Manuel, largely because I wrote that as the disaster was ongoing. The third was Typhoon Mike, because reading news articles about how many or in some cases who they died hit more more since my grandfather had recently passed away. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing YE, and sorry for your loss. You're a good writer, I'm glad Wikipedia as your contributions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

SPAC articles have incorrect date formats

After checking on Jason's FAC, I noticed that all the SPAC articles have the wrong date format. Neither Fiji nor New Zealand use the format that is currently being used. Both countries use the same DD/MM/YYYY format that Aus and Reunion use. @Hurricanehink and Cyclonebiskit: Noah^Talk 00:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Date format by country - Jason is correct. Fiji and Wallis and Futuna use MDY date format. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Changes on Wikidata

Hi,

I'm working to introduce some changes in the ontology of information about tropical cyclons in Wikidata. I left a message in the discussion page of the project, but it seems inactive.

Is there any other more specific point to discuss about WD?

Could you please go through this page and make suggestions about the proposal? Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

on the usage of neumann data from IBTrACS

despite its usage on southern hemisphere seasons, should data from the Neumann database from IBTrACS be used as an alternative to JTWC? some cases of neumann being stronger than JTWC are used here such as Amy 1980 where its listed as a 140kt category 5 storm compared to JTWC's category 3. FleurDeOdile 23:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This prompts an interesting question which I hope other members of the project can help clarify as to whose data we should accept for 1-minute winds both pre and post-September 1980. Pre 1980, the JTWC did not warn on any tropical cyclones in the Southern Hemisphere and I believe that their BT data comes from the local agencies (Eg: BoM, Reunion Nadi etc). Post-September 1980, they warned on TC's along with the NPMOC (Never Push Me On Cyclones), however, I quote from the JTWC BT Archive Report. "There is no ATCR documentation of the Southern Hemisphere for the years 1981-1984; however, the 1985 ATCR (p. 139) reports totals (24, 25, 25 and 30 TCs per year) which are different than those found in the JTWC Archive. The JTWC Archive (1981-1984) was left as is because we were unable to cross-validate individual TCs." Returning to the original question, I wish to provide the following clarification for the Neumann Database from IBTRACS. "Charlie Neumann produced a consolidated best track dataset for the Southern Hemisphere which brought together information from dozens of sources. It is a static dataset; IBTrACS uses data from Neumann’s data from 1960 through 2007."Jason Rees (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is JTWC the be-all-end-all for SHEM storms anyway? They're an American-based warning center. I think we should defer to IBTRACS when we list the maximum 1-minute sustained winds. If we have a reputable source saying a higher 1-minute wind speed (AKA Neumann), then we can go with them. The RSMC reports in 10-min anyway. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

They shouldn't be for any tropical cyclones pre 1980 since they didnt warn on the systems, the data is not their own, questionable and unreliable. Post 1980, I note that the JTWC are the ones who have designated the systems as xxP/xxS and that their data should be noted for every system, however, I feel that the infobox should be superseded if better data comes to light, since it is doubtful that they would ever do a reanalysis. I also note that @Jasper Deng: has some feelings about this subject.Jason Rees (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree per the above. pre-1980 is very questionable. I feel this should be used in some cases after 1980 as well. If there is a large discrepancy (>10 knots), the JTWC data could be replaced. Noah^Talk 23:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence of reliable sources (like Jeff Masters) using Neumann's data? Otherwise, for consistency we should keep using JTWC, or just not list any JTWC intensities (though this would leave open the question of track maps). I don't even know of Neumann's own credentials. If we use Neumann, then we have to consider what happens for 1980-2007, the years where they overlap. Either way, I'm strongly against mixing the two within a given year since there's no a priori reason for the higher value to always be the correct one. Of note should be papers written on southern hemisphere tropical cyclone climatology. Whichever data set is primarily used by them should be the one we use. Also, Phil Klozbach collects ACE statistics; I would think what he uses for these years should also be taken into consideration. Do we also have reliable sourcing that JTWC has no confidence in data from this period? I've usually seen ibtracs have both data sets so I don't think that can be used as a distinguisher.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC).

The JTWC BT Archive Report states that the authors had less confidence in the quality of the older tracks than they have in the newer ones, which while natural, we have to bear in mind that the JTWC did not issue warnings on any tropical cyclone in the SHEM pre-1980. This in my mind makes the data questionable and unreliable especially since they say that the BT archive was developed from The NCDC, FNMOC and the ATCF and that they could not check it with any documentation. The same could be said about the era between 1980 and 1985. However, they were in warning and the data was published in these reports. As a result, while I have some qualms about using their data I am not going to declare it unreliable and support its usage within the infoboxes.Jason Rees (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane preparedness for New Orleans listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane preparedness for New Orleans to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Cyclone Xavier listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cyclone Xavier to be moved to Cyclone Xavier (2006). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Request for input on an addition to the "List of California hurricanes" article

Specifically, Talk:List of California hurricanes#A source worth noting (relative mortality hurricanes / earthquakes). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox records

So I've been making my one every few months visit to view all the season records but it seems every few months people get fancy and start adding stuff to infoboxes and whatnut, despite my repeated removals. Why maintain those? I understand and support leaving it in the prose, but I'm under the impression we are forgetting the big picture here. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE notes tat "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. " I realize there's a great deal of subjectivity here, but I don't think what year a season shares a record with fits in the "key facts" bit, considering it isn't directly related to the season itself. Furthermore, including the Xth record bit may be useful in prose if sourced, as suggested by WP:TRIVIA, but I have reservation that said trivia could be consider a "key fact". Yet, despite my arguments, it seems my wisom has not bounced off of other's very well in my 11 years here. The reason this sort of stuff gets under my skin more than anything else is that it starts bad long term editing habits; the lasted thing I want bloating articles with poorly organized and trivial sections. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you propose a cutoff for what gets mentioned? For example, 2nd costliest/most intense/deadliest? What about the 3rd most? The record also has something to do with it. What are the records that should be mentioned?

To answer my own questions, I’d say activity records should list 2nd most. For worldwide/basin damage/death records, I would include 3rd most. The 3rd costliest Atlantic Hurricane still caused $92 billion in damage, that’s a lot. Of course, these all need verification. I generally think we can err on the side of including the records in the info box. I don’t think it’s trivial, if anything it highlights how active/intense/damaging tropical cyclones have gotten lately. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not just list 1st only though? I don't disagree with broader inclusion, but the point of the infobox is to highlight key facts, not records and I don't think runners up ever qualify as a "key fact". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone Lili (2019) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cyclone Lili (2019) to be moved to Cyclone Lili. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Paleotempestology article expansion; questions

Greetings,

I have been working on expanding the Paleotempestology article and as I did so I got a couple of questions about what should go into the final article: a) Should it cover written historical record-based information? b) Should it have a list of sites where paleotempestological research has been carried out, as it currently has? c) The "Techniques" section currently uses bullet points to delimit each method, but I wonder if subsections would be more appropriate.

Thanks in advance for any reply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Great work so far on this field. I don’t think written historical info (like historic strikes) is needed unless it compliments your research. I absolutely think the locations should be there. I know the Atlantic ones are already mentioned in List of Atlantic hurricanes before 1600. I think the “Techniques” section should be in prose instead of bullet points, personally. I think you’re on the right track - the world has benefited from your edits, so keep up the good work! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. To clarify a) I was meaning things like shipwreck reports or the Chinese gazettes. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I've compiled a list of sources to use, in case someone wants to help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

'k, I've applied some of these and will work the others in over the next few days. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've finished this up. Does anyone think this might stand a chance in a GA process or the like? (Not FA, the source incompleteness is a hinderance there) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Good work! Given the level of referencing, I’m sure it could pass a GAN without too much work. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured Picture

As the bot does not notify anyone about featured pictures, I would like to make everyone aware of the discussion going on. Noah^Talk 11:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I undid you removing this, as I think it’s an important reminder that featured pictures do exist. I just think they should be limited to visually impressive pictures. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Yes, visually impressive images are important, but that's not all of what is included under the umbrella. Images that are informative are also eligible. One could nominate charts and diagrams. Those aren't visually impressive, but they can become featured pictures just the same. Noah^Talk 13:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Awards

Hello all,

I just wanted to make you aware of the awards program that should be live here soon. Noah^Talk 22:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

File:2019 Atlantic hurricane season summary map.png

Could someone update this map with the track of subtropical Storm Andrea?

Pierre cb (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Pierre cb: Already updated. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. Pierre cb (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

A-class review

I just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. Please note that A-class reviews do require at least 2 impartial reviewers per the A-class criteria. Such reviews have been done on the assessment page in the past and I think we should resume doing that. Please note what I have done at Talk:Hurricane Sergio (2018). We have the option to add ongoing A-class reviews to the project template which goes into a category for requested reviews. I also created a transcluded page for a review (this was done by the project in the past; there is an archive). I have seen the military history project add the result of the review to the article history template as well which wouldn't be difficult. I have made this nomination because I want to request an A-class review, but more importantly to educate the project on A-class reviews since they seem to get little attention nowadays. Noah^Talk 23:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Automatic upload of NHC hurricane track maps

I am trying to create a bot to upload the NHC hurricane track maps to commons. Please give some suggestions. Thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_the_2000_Atlantic_hur

1864 Calcutta typhoon

Would someone like to create an article for the 1864 Calcutta typhoon, which wrecked nearly 200 ships. Should be plenty of coverage in contemporary newspapers. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots:, it can be tricky writing articles for storms from 150 years ago. The 1864 storm has a mention here in the season article for older storms in the North Indian Ocean. Feel free to add content here if there's not enough for an article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: - this was a massive event with casualties in the tens of thousands. A quick internet search shows that there are a mass of web sources. I can point anyone interested to contempory newspaper sources which are free to view worldwide online. Would think the The Times would be a good source, but you will need a subscription to view it. I haven't the time spare as I'm busy with shipwreck lists. Currently about 3/4 the way throughthe 1856 list. I'll cover the ships when I do the 1864 list in depth, probably about a year ahead. Mjroots (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Project re-engagement

The project has seen more active days in the past, sometimes arguing ad nauseum (myself included, regretfully) for combining articles, as opposed to the spirit of increasing the number of articles and encouraging improvement over the years. I'm sorry for spending so much time over the years arguing with other editors, which is why I hope we can rebuild the community of tropical cyclone editors and add to the great work that's already been done. We should be using this space more, fostering discussion about project goals, sharing our resources and knowledge. There have been hundreds of featured articles/lists on the main page of Wikipedia, thanks to dozens of different editors, who I would like to thank for their tireless hours. But there is plenty of more work to be done. We should be using this space more, fostering discussion about project goals, sharing our resources and knowledge. I propose we more formally define project goals, and we find new ways of engaging new editors. The below is a good set of intermediate goals. Feel free to discuss, add, and debate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

To do

• Document every tropical cyclone by season/year

• Tropical cyclones since 2000 (99/00 for SHEM) - 41/129 (31%) rated a good article
• Tropical cyclones 1950-1999 (49/50 to 98/99 for SHEM) - 100/350 (29%) rated a good article, up to 68 season articles (19%) need to be created
• Tropical cyclones 1900-1949 - 40/350 (11%) rated a good article
• Create Tropical cyclones by year, and create additional yearly cyclone articles

• Improve every retired storm to at least good article status - 150/473 (32%) rated a good article

• Improve every retired Atlantic hurricane to at least good article status - 43/87 (49%) rated a good article
• Improve every retired Typhoon to at least good article status - 25/48 (52%)
• Improve every retired Australian cyclone to at least good article status - 27/112 (24%) rated a good article
• Improve every retired South Pacific cyclone to at least good article status - 28/105 (27%) rated a good article

• Formalize/revitalize project peer review/A-class review

• Create additional project task forces

• Anomalous Cyclones Task Force
• Northern Indian Ocean Task Force
• Southern Hemisphere Task Force
• Graphix Task Force
• Article improvement task force

• Restart the project newsletter

• I think that these goals are achievable if the project can pull together and work on them. For what its worth, I have an article that I would be willing to put through A Class Review.Jason Rees (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Project newsletter

Would any users be interested in receiving the project newsletter? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm almost done the first one. I'll publish it on the 1st, but I'd really appreciate someone else taking the next month. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I released the first newsletter. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 36 - the 2nd issue of the year has been published. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Me Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Moi Noah^Talk 22:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Me ~ KN2731 {t · c} 11:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• I'd like to receive the newsletter as well. Cooper 22:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Doesn't have to be long. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

We have bigger things to worry about than a newsletter tbh. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Remember Tito's law - telling people how not to waste their time is a great way to waste your own time :P I was happy to make up the newsletter, but I hope someone can do the next month, as this month should be pretty busy for me. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Project peer review requests

List the article below for requests for a peer review. These should be articles held to the same standards as featured articles.

1. Tropical Storm Zelda (1991) Just interested. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC) - (reviewed)
2. Typhoon Mike. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC) - (reviewed)
3. Typhoon Ike. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC) - (review in process)
4. Hurricane Epsilon ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Typhoon Mireille ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - (discussion)
6. Hurricane Rosa (2018) Noah^Talk 18:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
7. Tropical Storm Ileana (2018) Noah^Talk 12:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
8. Hurricane Sergio (2018) Noah^Talk 16:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 180 days. Noah^Talk 14:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• I've mostly been sidetracked the past month or so, and I hadn't logged into wiki in like 4-5 days, which is somewhat rare for me, even in the winter, and at this point, I seldom use IRC (which has deviated majorly from its original purpose sadly) so I haven't had much contact with you all since mid-January or so. I find WPTC's activity really hard to evaluate, largely because the project was so successful from 2005-2008 and again from 2011-2014. Around 2014, myself and a few others got somewhat burnt out, and since then, I've been pretty hit and miss as far as my editing goes, and I think there are many others in the same boat. At least in the past year or so, there seems to be a new guard to have come in and replaced the older generation, and all in all, said new guard has done relatively well and has written much of the content in recent storm and season articles and generally make edits that don't piss me off. With that said, we haven't reached 2011-2014 era levels of productivity either (up to you to decide how problematic that is - most wikiprojects couldn't dream of that level of success we had back then). These goals are a good start to returning to said activity levels, however, although I must emphasis that the focus and effort needs to be outside of the Atlantic, as most articles in that basin are in relatively good shape, and the goals listed above seem to reflect that.

• I can't speak for others, but I can say I do intend to keep working on old WPAC typhoons for the forseeable future. I've primarily edited only in that basin since 2013, and remarkably, haven't lost much interest, despite my aforementioned erratic editing patters. On a semi-related note, if you guys want to reach out to me, feel free to do so on every platform/forum I'm active on (here, Storm2k, ect) because, without trying to sound too romantic, the overall pleasant nature of the wikiproject, or at least our core editors, is partially what made editing fun back during the heyday of the project. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I, for one, can say that I count fellow project members among my lengthiest acquaintances, ones I've debated with, shared laughs with, and worked on projects with. I've spent time away from the project multiple times, but each time, I feel like there was something I was meant to do. I'm glad to see you working on typhoon articles. That's the 2nd largest basin, and has hundreds of potential articles (if not from the past then from the current season). I'm also thankful that User:Cyclonebiskit wrote Tropical Storm Rumbia (2018), and that several editors collaborated on Typhoon Mangkhut, which are two of the storms from last year that are likely retired. Part of what has made the project so successful in the long run was some sort of end goal. I remember in the Atlantic, back in 2005, working with RattleMan (talk · contribs) and jdorje (talk · contribs) making the entirety of the Atlantic hurricane database available for free, online. Come to think of it, I'd love if someone could create a project history, or a project hall of fame, recognizing users who have created substantial or good works. (I don't even want it for myself, there are a lot of retired users who have made articles that have been on the main page.)
• TL;DR - thanks Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) for continuing to edit. Lemme know if you want to collab on 1997 PHS GT/FT. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Didn’t we have the WPTC versions thing we made in like early 2014? That might be worth an update lol. We can probably do 1997 together at some point once I clean up the early 90s a bit more (1990-92 are largely done sans Yunya 91, so the focus will be on 1993/94 soon). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• We're not on WPTC 4.0 yet. I think we need to get all of the seasons back to the beginning of record keeping (even if we do decade articles). We gotta split the Pre-1970 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons up into AUS and SPAC. Jason Rees (talk · contribs)? Anyone? You can make a few stubs if you need! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough though I’m excited at the pre-1980 SHEM focus we’ve had lately. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully in the near future, we can stop using 1980 as a benchmark for pre/post! Satellite imagery began in 1965. We should have good storm coverage back to that point (especially since storms worldwide have been named since the 60s). There are a lot of storms left though, which is why I've been trying so hard lately to get new editors editing. Hopefully we can all get more editors to join in the coming year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Pre-1970 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons id be surprised if it couldn't be renamed Pre-1970 Australian region tropical cyclone seasons.Jason Rees (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of SPAC storms in there though. We need dedicated articles for AUS and SPAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Strange I could only see two - Apia and Giselle but i agree.Jason Rees (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup needed for all uses of Template:Australian areas affected (Top)

Jason Rees (talk · contribs) made this edit which appears to be a "breaking change" to the template. That is, if this change is kept, all 30-odd uses of the template will need to be changed. I did not revert it because at least one of the pages that uses the template is using the current version.

I recommend reverting it (possibly keeping subsequent changes) and making sure all pages that use it it look good. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-synoptic points within storm tracks

I've had a bit of resistance with reverting tracks that had non-synoptic points, mainly for Michael. While 17:30Z had Michael as a cat 5, the NHC had the 18Z point at cat 4. I think to keep tracks consistent we should keep non-synoptic points out if we have valid synoptic data. I'll admit that this issue rises from having points to represent intensity and position. It makes tracks such as Michael and Andrew seem inaccurate when they truly aren't. Supportstorm (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox hurricane listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Infobox hurricane to be moved to Template:Infobox tropical cyclone. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

I need some feedback regarding an issue

Please state your opinions at Talk:List of Atlantic hurricane records#Most and fewest storms in a season. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Tropical cyclones

Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones and climate change

Hello from the WP:WikiProject Climate change. I've just done a quick overhaul of this article, but it remains in a dire condition. I see it's only mid-importance to this project, which might reflect the old research in which the two weren't strongly linked? Anybody fancy making this less about the US, and replacing older science with newer science? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)