Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) to be moved to Tropical Storm Stan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Wider issues

This RM discussion has become quite involved, and potentially affects many other article namespace pages within the scope of this WikiProject. See in particular Talk:Hurricane Stan (disambiguation)#DAB or set index and Talk:Hurricane Stan (disambiguation)#Most general term.

Wider input from the WikiProject members would be welcome. Andrewa (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Precedent

Input from the WikiProject is looking more and more important... this RM may well be seen as a precedent in a number of important issues regarding naming of pages within the scope of this WikiProject. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 36 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Jose (1999) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Jose (1999) to be moved to Hurricane Jose. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Season articles

Hi Guys, In a recent discussion on the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season, it was noted that we use the word storms in the infobox for the Atlantic and that the section where all the storms are contained is called storms. As a result I would like to propose that we change the level 2 header from Storms to Systems. Ideally I would need someone who has access to AWB to perform this manover since it affects so many articles.Jason Rees (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. "Systems" is a more neutral term, especially as some basins have tropical disturbances and zones of disturbed weather. Anyone have strong feelings either way? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier if we changed "Total storms" to "Total tropical storms" in the infobox? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: If you think about the classifications used these days, you will realise why that is not a feasible option.Jason Rees (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

True, hadn't though of that honestly. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing no major objections, should someone start making this change via AWB? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Storm names: dabs/set-index articles

There have been a several discussions over the past few months (including one back in August and a more exhaustive one recently Talk:Hurricane Stan (disambiguation)), and it's time we have one centralized discussion to figure it all out. For the disambiguation/set index articles, we have 680 pages (example: Typhoon Muifa), which show the storms of a given name. Many of these articles are only 2-4 lines long. We have several different formats for covering these articles: List of tropical storms named Koppu, List of storms named Ada, Cyclone Mick, Cyclone Hina (disambiguation) (usually if the name was retired), Tropical Storm Helena, and 09F. The recent discussion on Talk:Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) reveals a split among which option to take: List of storms named Stan, Tropical Storm Stan, or Cyclone Stan. Jason Rees (talk · contribs) noted that some storm names were used for non-tropical cyclones, and given that the disambiguation pages are for all of Wikipedia, the titles must reflect any sort of storm. I propose to go a step further.

As we have 680 dab pages, it would be a lot easier if many of them were merged (given that most only have 2-4 storms), so all A storms would be lumped together in an article called List of storm names (A), and so on. Here is an example for what I propose, using the names from U to Z (so far just Atlantic and EPAC names are in there). This would solve the problem of having to move disambiguation pages when a storm name is retired, and it would reduce the number of set index pages to maintain. Further, it would be useful having Tropical Storm Ana and Tropical Storm Anna on the same page, given how close the names are.

Ping @Andrewa:, @Tavix:, @Gorthian:, @Bkonrad:, @Ebonelm:, @GPHemsley:, @GPHemsley:, @Yellow Evan:

I'd like to resolve the discussion from the Hurricane Stan page, which is why I pinged the above users. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not conflate disambiguation pages and set indices. A set index page format such as Typhoon Muifa, if it were a disambiguation page, would not contain links (or extraneous explanatory text) in the leading line and would not include a succession box. Similarly, there should be only one blue link for each entry on a disambiguation page, as is sometimes seen with set index pages (for example Typhoon Nanmadol). There are a some other related issues:

1. If set indices are to be the standard, the category Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages and it's subcategories should be renamed.
2. If set indices are to be used, then pages including "(disambiguation)" should not be used as titles and should not be created as redirects.
3. If more generic set indices are to be used, some determination may be needed for succession boxes (i.e., may look odd to have a Pacific typhoon season names succession box on a page that includes other types of storms)

PS, regarding the specific proposal of one or more alphabetical lists, that would work for me, although there may need to be a forest of redirects (and perhaps a way of tagging and categorizing the redirects). older ≠ wiser 16:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I like the alphabetical list idea. Less pages to maintain. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference, but it seems like the number of storms is small enough that a single list page would do, if you went that route. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: The whole point of this conversation is to un-confuse the SIA's/DABs and put them all the same format and name them in the same way. I like Hink's format, but am not sure that only 1 page would work for the entire world and would prefer at least 21 pages. As for redirects I suspect a mass deletion would be better, but we will look at the links on each of the 680 pages and point them in the right direction over time.Jason Rees (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but referring to them as "680 dab pages" when many of them are not dab pages is conflation, especially so when many well-intentioned editors don't appear to see the distnction. Also, I'm not sure where that number comes from. Counting pages in subcategories of Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages gives 877 or so. older ≠ wiser 18:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Tropical Storm Iris is an example of a page with several different types of storms. older ≠ wiser 19:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with about a page per letter. One page would defintiely be too much, so they should split into manageable sizes (obviously more obscure letters should be grouped). Any redirect that ends with "(disambiguation)" would need to be deleted, but I'm not sure what else would need to go. I guess anything questionable should go to WP:RFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have no preference regarding the article names, but I strongly support making them into lists or set-index articles; dab pages are high maintenance no matter their size. And I endorse every one of Bkonrad's points. — Gorthian (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see no advantage whatsoever in merging/splitting articles as proposed, and many disadvantages. For a start:

• It's complicated. Some notable storms will have articles and some will not. Navigation will be made more difficult. Navboxes are problematical. A reader who knows the name of a storm but not its technical type and title will need many clicks to find the page they're after.
• It's high-maintenance. It's a lot less work to maintain many short pages, one on each storm name, than fewer more complex articles (probably in table form).
• It's a lot more work to set up in the first place.

IMO there should be at least one article for every name that has been used to name storms, worldwide. That's the simplest structure. If there's only one such storm then that's the topic of the article. If there's more than one, then all by that name are covered, and the format should be a list of some sort or a BCA. What are the problems with that? Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the points. One thing worth considering: given that most naming lists rotate, and future names are always announced in advance, might it be less work having 22 or so lists, as opposed to going through the hundreds of naming pages? As for ease of use for the readers, a lot of storm names worldwide aren't in English, but the pages almost always list the locations affected. Here is a potential benefit of having all of the A names together, for example: a user could do a page search for a location, and get all of the A storms that hit a certain area. We currently have List of historic tropical cyclone names for tropical cyclone names by year, and it would only be a natural extension IMO to have a general list by letter. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

But is it at all likely that anyone will want to know only the names of storms that start with A? If they know the first letter, normally they'll know the name, surely?

Similarly with the ease of maintenance. When would we ever have to go through hundreds of naming pages? I don't see that scenario as likely... can you be more specific as to how it might occur? Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If there's consensus for a new formatting, all 600+ pages would have to be updated. It'd be easier to manage 22 pages than several hundred, especially on one's watchlist. For your other question, I can easily imagine someone wanting a list of all named storms, which this would provide. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. But there are two different issues here.

And I'm wondering if we're even discussing the same proposal! How would what you're suggesting provide a list of all named storms? That's exactly what it does not provide. Nor does it provide a list of all the names that have been used.

Just to clarify this, what I'm questioning is the grouping/splitting of storms alphabetically. I think a list of all named storms is an excellent idea, as a sortable table perhaps. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

To the issues. Firstly, there's the once-off task of going to any new format, and secondly, the continuing maintenance afterwards.

The once-off needs to deal with all of the 600+ pages regardless of the target format. I'd argue (and do above) that it's a lot less work to convert these 1-1 than to merge them.

The continuing maintenance is a strange one. Do you really watchlist 600+ pages at present? There must be better ways to do such things. The more logical format should be no bigger a maintenance task. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hurricanehink would you be willing to create this list(s)? If so, how much effort do you think it would be to create? -- Tavix ^(talk) 06:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• The more I think about this, I'm liking more and more the idea of alpha sorted list articles. Although I don't edit these pages beyond disambiguation-related tasks, it seems to me a finite number of such lists would be considerably easier to maintain that a plethora of individual pages. But I do wonder what will become of the individual names. Will these become redirects to sections or named targets in the list articles? For example, if something similar to the example partial list given above, were to be adopted, would Typhoon Virginia continue to exist as a set index or disambiguation page? Or would it become a redirect to to the named anchor "Virginia" on the list article? I'm assuming the latter would be preferable, although I think there would need to be some apparatus for keeping track of such redirects. older ≠ wiser 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I would presume it would become a redirect to the "Virignia" anchor at the list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... and similarly, Typhoon Stan would redirect to the Stan anchor unless there was a storm which was the primary topic, in which case Typhoon Stan would be either a primary redirect or the name of the article on that storm, with a hatnote to this Stan anchor? This proposal could work fairly well provided that was done and the redirects were in an appropriate category which included also the actual storm articles... still not convinced it's the best way. Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes! Now you're getting it... -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

With those important details filled in, the proposal does provide good tools for a naive user to get to the article they want, and my one remaining objection is that it's initially a lot of work... but I take it we have volunteers, so that's answered too. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, I seem to be the only one with any reservations about splitting the list according to the initial letter of the storm name. If that is true then I'll certainly admit to consensus against me.

And it's certainly a workable solution to the current issues. I'm just concerned that it may not be the best solution.

One {possibly final but maybe not) question: Is there an example of this working elsewhere in the article namespace? I think I've seen it done by time ranges (even then can't think of where) but that's a different thing IMO. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There are lists of roads (see the categories applied by {{road index}}). Not quite analogous, but somewhat similar. older ≠ wiser 20:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the members of Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title, not even similar. To follow that example, we'd have a separate List of storms named Stan rather than a List of storms starting with S, and so on, just as there's a List of highways numbered 32A which is separate to List of highways numbered 32. I'd have no problem with that approach. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Roads is a bad example. The format would probably be List of tropical cyclones (S) (a spin-off of List of tropical cyclones). That would imply one list that has been split by letter due to length. For an example I worked on: List of NHL players is way too massive to have one list, that's why we have List of NHL players (A), etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks... will look at that example... I was looking hard myself, just not in the right places I guess. Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That kind of list is very common in sports, and would work well here. Just like List of NHL players is listed both alphabetically and by team, List of tropical cyclones can be listed by basin (✔check) and alphabetically. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Pali and the odd blog referencing standards in the project while I've been gone

Hello there. It's been a while.  :) CPHC concluded on their Facebook page that Pali was considered a continuation of the 2015 Pacific hurricane season yesterday, and left the storm off its 2016 map. Thinking this was more than enough evidence, since blogs by Joe and Jane Schmo are used nowadays for determining records, I made the changes. They were immediately reverted. The call was for a better reference. Enlighten me as to how an RSMC Facebook page is LESS authoritative than a blog by Joe Schmo? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources confirm this is now online here, which places it at a slightly higher level than a tweet, Facebook posting, or blog. I'm not going to continue a revert war, for obvious 2007-based reasons. What say ye? Thegreatdr (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Good to see you back on here! Regarding your source, it says In addition to the 6 tropical cyclones during the season, Hurricane Pali which occurred in January 2016, is included in the 2016 calendar year cyclone total of 7. I think Pali could have a mention in the 2015 season as an extension of the activity, but its section and totals should be in the 2016 article IMO. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

CPHC goes out of their way to say it wasn't part of the 2016 season in line 1, and doesn't include it in their 2016 seasonal map. That makes it pretty clear it should be dealt with the other way. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If they imply it wasn't part of the 2016 season in line 1, yet they explicitly correlate Pali with the 2016 season in line 2, then respectfully this report doesn't "make it pretty clear" the storm should be moved to the 2015 article. It makes it ambiguous. I don't think any changes should be made until the CPHC portion of Pali's TCR is released and it clarifies one way or the other. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for sidetracking this for a second, but why is this being argued in 2 different places? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted a broader audience. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

And good discussion is always healthy. Happy holidays, my fellow Wikipedians. :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Jose (1999) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Jose (1999) to be moved to Hurricane Jose. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Storm names: dabs/set-index articles

There have been a several discussions over the past few months (including one back in August and a more exhaustive one recently Talk:Hurricane Stan (disambiguation)), and it's time we have one centralized discussion to figure it all out. For the disambiguation/set index articles, we have 680 pages (example: Typhoon Muifa), which show the storms of a given name. Many of these articles are only 2-4 lines long. We have several different formats for covering these articles: List of tropical storms named Koppu, List of storms named Ada, Cyclone Mick, Cyclone Hina (disambiguation) (usually if the name was retired), Tropical Storm Helena, and 09F. The recent discussion on Talk:Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) reveals a split among which option to take: List of storms named Stan, Tropical Storm Stan, or Cyclone Stan. Jason Rees (talk · contribs) noted that some storm names were used for non-tropical cyclones, and given that the disambiguation pages are for all of Wikipedia, the titles must reflect any sort of storm. I propose to go a step further.

As we have 680 dab pages, it would be a lot easier if many of them were merged (given that most only have 2-4 storms), so all A storms would be lumped together in an article called List of storm names (A), and so on. Here is an example for what I propose, using the names from U to Z (so far just Atlantic and EPAC names are in there). This would solve the problem of having to move disambiguation pages when a storm name is retired, and it would reduce the number of set index pages to maintain. Further, it would be useful having Tropical Storm Ana and Tropical Storm Anna on the same page, given how close the names are.

Ping @Andrewa:, @Tavix:, @Gorthian:, @Bkonrad:, @Ebonelm:, @GPHemsley:, @GPHemsley:, @Yellow Evan:

I'd like to resolve the discussion from the Hurricane Stan page, which is why I pinged the above users. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not conflate disambiguation pages and set indices. A set index page format such as Typhoon Muifa, if it were a disambiguation page, would not contain links (or extraneous explanatory text) in the leading line and would not include a succession box. Similarly, there should be only one blue link for each entry on a disambiguation page, as is sometimes seen with set index pages (for example Typhoon Nanmadol). There are a some other related issues:

1. If set indices are to be the standard, the category Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages and it's subcategories should be renamed.
2. If set indices are to be used, then pages including "(disambiguation)" should not be used as titles and should not be created as redirects.
3. If more generic set indices are to be used, some determination may be needed for succession boxes (i.e., may look odd to have a Pacific typhoon season names succession box on a page that includes other types of storms)

PS, regarding the specific proposal of one or more alphabetical lists, that would work for me, although there may need to be a forest of redirects (and perhaps a way of tagging and categorizing the redirects). older ≠ wiser 16:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I like the alphabetical list idea. Less pages to maintain. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference, but it seems like the number of storms is small enough that a single list page would do, if you went that route. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: The whole point of this conversation is to un-confuse the SIA's/DABs and put them all the same format and name them in the same way. I like Hink's format, but am not sure that only 1 page would work for the entire world and would prefer at least 21 pages. As for redirects I suspect a mass deletion would be better, but we will look at the links on each of the 680 pages and point them in the right direction over time.Jason Rees (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but referring to them as "680 dab pages" when many of them are not dab pages is conflation, especially so when many well-intentioned editors don't appear to see the distnction. Also, I'm not sure where that number comes from. Counting pages in subcategories of Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages gives 877 or so. older ≠ wiser 18:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Tropical Storm Iris is an example of a page with several different types of storms. older ≠ wiser 19:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with about a page per letter. One page would defintiely be too much, so they should split into manageable sizes (obviously more obscure letters should be grouped). Any redirect that ends with "(disambiguation)" would need to be deleted, but I'm not sure what else would need to go. I guess anything questionable should go to WP:RFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have no preference regarding the article names, but I strongly support making them into lists or set-index articles; dab pages are high maintenance no matter their size. And I endorse every one of Bkonrad's points. — Gorthian (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see no advantage whatsoever in merging/splitting articles as proposed, and many disadvantages. For a start:

• It's complicated. Some notable storms will have articles and some will not. Navigation will be made more difficult. Navboxes are problematical. A reader who knows the name of a storm but not its technical type and title will need many clicks to find the page they're after.
• It's high-maintenance. It's a lot less work to maintain many short pages, one on each storm name, than fewer more complex articles (probably in table form).
• It's a lot more work to set up in the first place.

IMO there should be at least one article for every name that has been used to name storms, worldwide. That's the simplest structure. If there's only one such storm then that's the topic of the article. If there's more than one, then all by that name are covered, and the format should be a list of some sort or a BCA. What are the problems with that? Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the points. One thing worth considering: given that most naming lists rotate, and future names are always announced in advance, might it be less work having 22 or so lists, as opposed to going through the hundreds of naming pages? As for ease of use for the readers, a lot of storm names worldwide aren't in English, but the pages almost always list the locations affected. Here is a potential benefit of having all of the A names together, for example: a user could do a page search for a location, and get all of the A storms that hit a certain area. We currently have List of historic tropical cyclone names for tropical cyclone names by year, and it would only be a natural extension IMO to have a general list by letter. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

But is it at all likely that anyone will want to know only the names of storms that start with A? If they know the first letter, normally they'll know the name, surely?

Similarly with the ease of maintenance. When would we ever have to go through hundreds of naming pages? I don't see that scenario as likely... can you be more specific as to how it might occur? Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If there's consensus for a new formatting, all 600+ pages would have to be updated. It'd be easier to manage 22 pages than several hundred, especially on one's watchlist. For your other question, I can easily imagine someone wanting a list of all named storms, which this would provide. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. But there are two different issues here.

And I'm wondering if we're even discussing the same proposal! How would what you're suggesting provide a list of all named storms? That's exactly what it does not provide. Nor does it provide a list of all the names that have been used.

Just to clarify this, what I'm questioning is the grouping/splitting of storms alphabetically. I think a list of all named storms is an excellent idea, as a sortable table perhaps. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

To the issues. Firstly, there's the once-off task of going to any new format, and secondly, the continuing maintenance afterwards.

The once-off needs to deal with all of the 600+ pages regardless of the target format. I'd argue (and do above) that it's a lot less work to convert these 1-1 than to merge them.

The continuing maintenance is a strange one. Do you really watchlist 600+ pages at present? There must be better ways to do such things. The more logical format should be no bigger a maintenance task. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hurricanehink would you be willing to create this list(s)? If so, how much effort do you think it would be to create? -- Tavix ^(talk) 06:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• The more I think about this, I'm liking more and more the idea of alpha sorted list articles. Although I don't edit these pages beyond disambiguation-related tasks, it seems to me a finite number of such lists would be considerably easier to maintain that a plethora of individual pages. But I do wonder what will become of the individual names. Will these become redirects to sections or named targets in the list articles? For example, if something similar to the example partial list given above, were to be adopted, would Typhoon Virginia continue to exist as a set index or disambiguation page? Or would it become a redirect to to the named anchor "Virginia" on the list article? I'm assuming the latter would be preferable, although I think there would need to be some apparatus for keeping track of such redirects. older ≠ wiser 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I would presume it would become a redirect to the "Virignia" anchor at the list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... and similarly, Typhoon Stan would redirect to the Stan anchor unless there was a storm which was the primary topic, in which case Typhoon Stan would be either a primary redirect or the name of the article on that storm, with a hatnote to this Stan anchor? This proposal could work fairly well provided that was done and the redirects were in an appropriate category which included also the actual storm articles... still not convinced it's the best way. Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes! Now you're getting it... -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

With those important details filled in, the proposal does provide good tools for a naive user to get to the article they want, and my one remaining objection is that it's initially a lot of work... but I take it we have volunteers, so that's answered too. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, I seem to be the only one with any reservations about splitting the list according to the initial letter of the storm name. If that is true then I'll certainly admit to consensus against me.

And it's certainly a workable solution to the current issues. I'm just concerned that it may not be the best solution.

One {possibly final but maybe not) question: Is there an example of this working elsewhere in the article namespace? I think I've seen it done by time ranges (even then can't think of where) but that's a different thing IMO. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There are lists of roads (see the categories applied by {{road index}}). Not quite analogous, but somewhat similar. older ≠ wiser 20:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the members of Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title, not even similar. To follow that example, we'd have a separate List of storms named Stan rather than a List of storms starting with S, and so on, just as there's a List of highways numbered 32A which is separate to List of highways numbered 32. I'd have no problem with that approach. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Roads is a bad example. The format would probably be List of tropical cyclones (S) (a spin-off of List of tropical cyclones). That would imply one list that has been split by letter due to length. For an example I worked on: List of NHL players is way too massive to have one list, that's why we have List of NHL players (A), etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks... will look at that example... I was looking hard myself, just not in the right places I guess. Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That kind of list is very common in sports, and would work well here. Just like List of NHL players is listed both alphabetically and by team, List of tropical cyclones can be listed by basin (✔check) and alphabetically. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Update - List of named storms (U–Z) - here is the first list I prepared, getting all of the TC names from U to Z. Assuming we want to go further down this route, then the dab pages for the U-Z storms can be redirected here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Good work, Hink! I think there's consensus to follow suit for the rest of the alphabet. Let me know if you'd like some assistance. One quibble: shouldn't the title be something like "List of named tropical cyclones (X)" so there isn't confusion with named winter storms? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! As for the named winter storms, those could be added later on, along with the European wind storms. This could serve more use than just for tropical cyclones, especially as it's going alphabetical. All storm names by letter? Sounds like something you'd see in an encyclopedia. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed template merge

See "Propose merging Template:Infobox tropical cyclone small with Template:Infobox hurricane". – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Using JMA weather maps to extend western Pacific storm tracks needs to stop

@Typhoon2013, Meow, Yellow Evan, and Jason Rees: This practice needs to stop (spurred by this). The problem is that the JMA is not labeling the TD on the map with "Nock-ten" nor the number 1626. It is purely WP:SYNTH to connect that "TD" with a previous storm when the RSMC is not making a direct statement to that effect. This practice causes readers confusion and should stop. Any ambiguities will be resolved when the JMA releases their best track.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Why? It is the same system, even though it doesn't say "Nock-ten" or "1626". And TD means "Tropical" Depression, therefore we have to add it in the Season totals. So if you're saying by this then the "TD" active in South China Sea right now is a separate system? Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: How do you know? For all we know, JMA could've happened to add a new TD near the same area. There is no way to tell for sure. Doing otherwise is improper synthesis of what they are saying.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Well I mean obviously JMA BT will be much better. But there are also JMA BT in Weather maps and will show the storm weakening to a tropical depression (if you're wondering why the number of TDs so far this season has changed). Also it's very unlikely that a TD had newly formed in the exact same area where Nock-ten "dissipated". Also you should've done this a long time ago because when I came here everyone was doing it. I was like you before but I got warned a lot. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: "But there are also JMA BT in Weather maps and will show the storm weakening to a tropical depression (if you're wondering why the number of TDs so far this season has changed)" - this statement does not make sense. And "very unlikely" - says who? Just because I decided to open up a discussion about it now isn't relevant here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Never mind about the first one. But to be very honest imo, "Using JMA weather maps to extend western Pacific storm tracks needs to stop" does not make sense at all and I'm sure if JMA has an account for this, they would disagree. I'll ping other users since no one has joined @Cyclonebiskit, Supportstorm, and Hurricanehink:. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: If they were to comment on this, they would ideally clarify it. But then it becomes an explicit statement by them. It's not our call to make.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Sorry need to add more. So you stated it's WP:SYNTH and has led me to "no original research" if I am correct? How is this thing original research? This is clearly using JMA sources. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

How did you prove that TD was part of that storm?—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@CycloneIsaac: Because it states "TD", "DOWNGRADED FROM TS 1626 NOCK-TEN". Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Where does it say that on the map? Note that the final advisory by the JMA was at 21z and therefore it is verifiable that it was downgraded at 21z, but not afterwards.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Says on the map. Otherwise words are too small too see. Downgrading to a TD doesn't mean that it dissipated. Dissipated means when it's not tropical or downgraded to an LPA. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Typhoon2013: And I just went to the map; the language "DOWNGRADED FROM TROPICAL STORM 1626 NOCK-TEN (1626)" does not make any explicit connection to the TD, and even if it does, is due to them having just issued the final advisory rather than connecting it on the map.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: How do you know that it has no connection to the TD in the South China Sea? Also do you mean 18Z? JMA's final advisory was at 18Z. TC Advisories are issued every 3hrs, while JMA weather maps are every 6hrs. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Yes I meant 18z. And the burden is on you to show that it does have such a connection, since you are the one proposing to add that statement. If I were to add another TD instead, then the burden would be on me to show it has no connection. Neither is verifiable; the weather map's statement, at least to me, doesn't cut it. And it doesn't hurt to wait until best track.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: First of all before we do anything else, is to wait for other users' opinions. So if for example, we have a new thing now, then we would have like about 70 TDs so far this season, and we would change many storm durations. What I was mentioning earlier is that JMA issues BT also for TDs. Like this, the BT, shows the same thing what we're talking about in previous storm. So say for example Dianmu, it weakened to a TD during the 19th and you are saying that the TD that existed until the 20th is a separate system? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Once the BT is out, we go by whatever is in that: if the BT shows it's the same system then that's what we say. Simple. But operationally, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to connect the two. Bear in mind that they are no longer issuing RSMC advisories on it, which they are supposed to do for active (and only active) storms.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Ok so obviously BT data will solve and reveal it all and there should be no problem with it. Only problem is when counting active storms. So you're saying that if the JMA has downgraded it to a TD, it is a separate system. But imo it's the same as it states "downgraded from Nock-ten". That's our only problem, especially how no one is contributing here. It would reveal it more if more users join this discussion and I wanted to hear other people's responses because 2 users would not solve the problem as it could make confusion to other users as they may not be aware of it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I'd actually prefer that we not count such TD's at all because both directions are not verifiable information to add.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: So you are saying if we should not include other (unnumbered JMA) TDs? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: That's a different discussion to have. However, in that case, I think there's far less ambiguity and those are fine.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we please apply some common sense please I know its not explicitlly stated by the JMA that Nockten is still active but the JTWC and the rest of the OFFICIAL warning centers are still in warning status and its pretty damm obvious that its Nockten.Jason Rees (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Yes it would rather be in a different discussion than this. But anyways, the best person to talk to is @Jason Rees: as he pretty much is the "boss". I, for myself, personally think I'm bad at solving problems when it comes to something like this. But I just do what is "right" and I just follow other users so I don't get users angry again or have to warn me. If no one else contributes to this discussion in the coming hours, we just have to leave it for now and discuss again a different time. Besides, Nock-ten will be our last named system and we wouldn't have to deal something like this again in several weeks when Muifa arrives. But I am really curious what will happen with this situation so I know. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To add as well as there was an edit conflict, I know it'ts not the RSMC, but Jasper, the JTWC still issues advisories as Jason had states above ^. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Either we break with the convention that the RSMC's word is the only one that counts, or JTWC's does not count.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng, Jason Rees, and Typhoon2013: I'm with JR on this one. The assertion that every time a named system is downgraded to a TD a new system must be started until the best track is released is asinine. Use common sense and, when policy gets in the way, there's always WP:IAR to maintain quality. We can use basic logic to continue systems like Nock-ten since it's blatantly obvious that the TD in the South China Sea is the remnant of Nock-ten. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, not to mention, it will be sourced later once the BT comes out. If you're worried about sourcing, check the rest of the season article, which has plenty of unsourced parts. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don’t need to answer anything about this ridiculous question. -- Meow 04:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Sorry for a late response but I was just browsing through my old talk messages and found this: User talk:Typhoon2013/Archive2#TD and dissipation. This was the first time I got warned and is similar to what happened to the both of us two weeks ago. It's just fyi, but have a good day! Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of storms in the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

This list, which has been featured for nine years, no longer needs to exist. It was part of an experimental format for season articles (various discussions can be found in the archives), but for consistency, nearly all articles should have the the same format. 2005 is the only article with a separate list article, and given the number of storms in that season, perhaps that is still appropriate. But I don't think it's needed for 2003 - the content all fit well in the main article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Last week we had the infobox hurricane season updated and tweaked, to accommodate some changes from above amongst a general reshuffle. Anyway ever since @MarioProtIV: has been adding the word hurricane, before the name of the strongest storm within the infoboxes in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific articles. While this change is interesting, I do not personally see the need for it and would personally prefer us to consistent through out the project with this. This would as a result mean we might use extremely severe cyclonic storm in the infobox for the NIO or Very Intense Tropical Cyclone in an infobox which is too long for an infobox imo.Jason Rees (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I like it how it is, but for the Indian Ocean and such just use something like "Cyclone Vardah" (as the article names start with "Cyclone" actually). The word "Hurricane" before the strongest storm is better IMO because the "Strongest storm" part isn't one continuous line like it used to appear on the old version. In that old version I wouldn't have added it. But since the design was changed and the "Strongest storm" is now it's own little section with three points, I think it is more stylish to add the word "Hurricane" to the infobox. For the typhoons, just put "Typhoon" in front of the word. For the 1914 Atlantic hurricane season it can just stay as is because it has only one storm. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I think your opinion could be valid here, since we've been kinda at a feud discussing this. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Yeah actually same reason as yours. It was already obvious by adding "ESCS..." would not fit and possibly just "Tropical depression/storm". We could put Cyclone for a shortened term though what if the strongest storm is a TS. So I decided to be the same in the others where we don't include "hurricane" in. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: The only one that would have to do that would be the 1914 ATL, where that can remain the same. For the NIO storms of tropical storm strength are referred to as "Cyclone" anyway so it can work. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually their not officially called tropical storms and cyclones in the NIO and I would personally prefer to keep with the official RSMC terminology with the season articles.Jason Rees (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The only part where the RSMC names would appear is in the respective cyclone's article or the section header on the season page. Personally IMO if we put Cyclone in the front, they'll know it is reffering to the name of the system, without actually including the RSMC names in the infobox. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: any thoughts on the above? would like to know soon so I can decide whether or not I have to undo all the "hurricane" additions to the infobox, which honestly, is time-consuming and I do not feel like flipping through my revision history and doing it one by one. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be obvious that it referred to the strongest storm of the season? I don't think "hurricane" or "cyclone" is necessary in this situation. — Iune(talk) 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iune: Look at 1914 Atlantic hurricane season and a few old NIO seasons, some of the storms don't even exceed tropical storm intensity.--MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There are several years without any systems exceeding tropical storm strength and I feel that hurricane, typhoon, cyclone, severe tropical cyclone or any name is necessary. As a result of this and the majority of editors who have commented here thinking that its unnecessary, I would strongly urge you to revert all of your edits and in the future discuss any changes like this before you edit or after you are reverted per WP:BRD.Jason Rees (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: Sorry for the very late response since something's wrong with my notification thing. But anyways, I strongly agree with JR on this and to change it back to the original layout/not to keep its terminology. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Kathleen (1976) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Kathleen (1976) to be moved to Hurricane Kathleen. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

X-scale factor

It is better to follow the X-scale factor if you want to upload images from EOSDIS Worldview. For example, if a system’s centre is located at 30ºN, you should narrow the width to 86.6% of the original.

The following values are gathered from Rapid Response - LANCE.

80 +0.1736481776669304
75 +0.2588190451025207
70 +0.3420201433256688
65 +0.4226182617406994
60 +0.5000000000000001
55 +0.5735764363510462
50 +0.6427876096865394
45 +0.7071067811865476
40 +0.7660444431189780
35 +0.8191520442889918
30 +0.8660254037844387
25 +0.9063077870366499
20 +0.9396926207859084
15 +0.9659258262890683
10 +0.9848077530122080
05 +0.9961946980917455

-- Meow 06:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Gordon (1994) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Gordon (1994) to be moved to Hurricane Gordon. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Fern (1971) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Fern (1971) to be moved to Hurricane Fern. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Gerda (1969) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Gerda (1969) to be moved to Hurricane Gerda. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Invitation to WT:DAB about related articles

I started the discussion about handling pages related to hurricanes and tropical storms disambiguated by years: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Pages about hurricanes and tropical storms. I invite you to the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Kathleen (1976) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Kathleen (1976) to be moved to Hurricane Kathleen. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Storms and weather disasters distinguished by years

Endless RMs on related articles were addressed at "Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation". Then I found out about sockpuppetry, which was resolved at "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Procedural closes?" and an SPI case. Nevertheless, the results of Talk:Hurricane Kathleen (1976)#Requested move 5 February 2017 and Talk:Hurricane Gordon (1994) (official "procedural closes" excluded) and Talk:Tropical Storm Dorothy, which both contrast each other, would raise the consistency issue. I want to continue discussing the disambiguation at WT:DAB. However, per JHunterJ's advice, we can discuss here the articles disambiguated by years.

The project's rule says,

Less infamous (i.e. non-retired) hurricanes may have a separate page distinguished by year (e.g. Hurricane Bertha (1996)), only if it must be differentiated (e.g. Tropical Storm Bret (1993) and Hurricane Bret (1999)). If a name was used only once, no year is needed (e.g. Hurricane Rina or Typhoon Zeb).

To rephrase, disambiguation by year may be encouraged just to differentiate lesser known weather disasters. However, unsure about the second part. I could not understand what it means exactly. To my knowledge, "Rina" and "Zeb" are used only once as of now to refer to their respective disasters. However, after huge amount of RMs and one or a few inconsistencies, perhaps the project members can respond to what I'm saying and clarify the rule's meaning and compliance with policies and guidelines. I know very little about the handling of such articles, but I hope this discussion can reduce the chance of more RMs in the future. If not... what else to do about this? --George Ho (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Remember that the names of tropical cyclones are reused every few years, until they either become so significant that further usage of the name is inappropriate. When they reach that point the name is generally retired by the WMO committee concerned and will not be used for another system again. As a result the project used to have the rule that any tropical cyclone article, would initially have the year in brackets as a way of distinguishing them. Then if the name had become so significant that it was retired, then the project would automatically give it the article. However, we also have to bear in mind that names in the Indian Ocean, are generally only used once before they are removed but not formally retired. As a result if there is a system with only one usage of the name not type - then it would be given the title.Jason Rees (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with moving Dorthy, because I don't think it is the clear cut WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Otherwise all the moves have been consistent. If the name has been used once, or only once became a hurricane, or was retired or the clear cut primary topic, the title does not include the year. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Should intensity be determined by pressure or wind speed?

Recently there has been some debate on Talk:List of retired Atlantic hurricane names as to what constitutes the "most intense" tropical cyclone for each decade. Even though it is generally agreed that barometric pressure determines which storm is the most intense, the National Hurricane Center refers to Hurricane Matthew as "the strongest Atlantic hurricane since Felix in 2007." However, the minimum barometric pressure for Matthew is 934 mbar. Both Igor and Joaquin had lower pressures than Matthew, at 924 and 931 mbar, respectively. Similarly, in the 1980s, Hurricane Allen had a higher wind speed than Gilbert, but also a higher barometric pressure. It was suggested that perhaps the most intense storm in terms of both wind speed and barometric pressure should be listed in this article. However, this matter encompasses all of WP:Tropical cyclones, which is why I decided to add a discussion on this page. --Undescribed (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be both. For season articles, the storm is the lowest pressure and the highest winds should be listed if they were different storms. I'd do the same for retired storms. Keep it simple. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

NWS license tag on Commons

Hi guys, just a quick tip: when you upload government-created media to Commons, use the {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} PD license tag instead of {{PD-NWS}}. The latter is meant more for images that were submitted by the public, but that are in the public domain because they're hosted on NWS websites. For everything else, like damage photos taken by NWS employees, forecast/analysis products, or radar/satellite images, use the more standard PD-USGov-NOAA. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

|archive-url= vs |url=

Please see this edit. There are many problems in Tropical Cyclone articles.

1. The |url= field must contain the original URL. Even if it's dead. Otherwise we don't know what the original URL is supposed to be. This is important because sometimes (often!) the archive URL goes dead. As in this case.

2. Webcitation.org is incredibly unreliable. The links often die after a couple years. The Cyclone articles are loaded with tons of dead Webcitation links. If you must use Webcitation, use a secondary or tertiary backup. Recommend Wayback Machine and/or Archive.is .. you can link to multiple archives using {{webarchive}}. Add the first archive in the |archiveurl= as normal, then put the {{webarchive}} following the {{cite web}} like this:

{{cite web}} {{webarchive |format=addlarchives |url=http://web.archive.org/... |url2=http://archive.is/... |url3=..}}

See the {{webarchive}} docs for more info. Any Q let me know, thanks. -- GreenC 00:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Edith (1971) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Edith (1971) to be moved to Hurricane Edith. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Rick (2009) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Rick (2009) to be moved to Hurricane Rick. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Marie (2014) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Marie (2014) to be moved to Hurricane Marie. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Hurricane John (1994) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane John (1994) to be moved to Hurricane John. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Bonnie (1998) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Bonnie (1998) to be moved to Hurricane Bonnie. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 36/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

JTWC

Recently I've noticed that in regards to the WPAC, all typhoon seasons prior to 2000 seem to use the JMA as the official source for classification. Despite this however, the JTWC was the agency that named storms prior to 2000, so why is it that the JMA is used as the "official agency" even prior to 2000? --Undescribed (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The JTWC was the first agency to name systems in the WPAC and issue regular storm warnings. That is true, however the warnings were almost always for personnel of United States armed forces or territories. Because of this most places in the WPAC had their own weather bureau to monitor tropical cyclones until 1988 when the JMA officially was selected to monitor typhoons. Since the JMA is the RSMC of Asia, the information issued by them is official. And also since the JMA released a best track of storms going back to 1951 that too is official. Though it is rather incomplete and doesn't encompass as many years as the JTWC best tracks so we use both in the article despite the JTWC not being official. Plus the JTWC info is more english friendly since it uses the same scales and sample techniques as the NHC uses. I don't know why the JMA continued to use american names until 2000 however. Maybe they hadn't gotten a list together until then. Supportstorm (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Fern (1971) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Fern (1971) to be moved to Hurricane Fern. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Gerda (1969) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Gerda (1969) to be moved to Hurricane Gerda. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Tropical Storm Bret (1993) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Bret (1993) to be moved to Tropical Storm Bret. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

WPAC categories

See Talk:Typhoon Gerald and User talk:Yellow Evan for more details, but here's is what I'm proposing and why. As of right now, Category:Typhoons serves as both a sub-category to stuff like Category:Typhoons in Taiwan and a set category. Not only does it border Wikipedia policy, it's also potentially misleading because Category:Typhoons was designed as an intensity category, yet Category:Typhoons in Taiwan could imply that the tropical storms in the latter category were also typhoons. Therefore, I think it's best to replace all the typhoons level articles into a new category, Category:Typhoons (intensity) or similar, largely because SSHWS isn't used in the WPAC. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel like Category:Typhoons by location should exist for location categories.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 18:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but then articles in that category should not then exist in the higher level "Typhoons" category. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it would then make sense to create Category:Atlantic hurricanes by location to be consistent, but not sure if that's necessary when Category:Atlantic hurricanes is fine as it is? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone have any more thoughts on this? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I definitely think that it's wrong to assume that our readers understand that Typhoons really means "Typhoons by intensity". I also think that Category:Atlantic hurricanes by location can happily co-exist with Category:Atlantic hurricanes because the former is a more refined category of the latter, i.e the latter should be empty as long as it is possible to categorise where each hurricane made impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

After looking at Category:Atlantic hurricanes myself, I think they can, so yea, we can create Category:X by location actually in a logical manner without any hassle I think. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

New article: tropical cyclone tracking chart

For the life of me, I don't know why we've never thought of creating an article about this topic. I'm only aware of their use along the Gulf and East coasts of the United States. If anyone wishes to add their international perspective (i.e. Australia, Asia, Africa, Pacific Islands) feel free to do so. It still has US POV right now, and it's not an easy topic to look up information about from abroad and their frequency of use was mainly pre-internet. It's just one of those things that's always been around within my experience. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Bret (1993) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Bret (1993) to be moved to Tropical Storm Bret. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposal to revive and rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management

The proposal to revive the WikiProject occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management#Project reboot & project rename to WikiProject Emergency management, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Linking old newspaper articles

In hurricane articles, there are a lot of references to old newspaper articles without an external link. I fixed some of them (e.g. here), but overall this is too much for a single person to do. I would like to encourage all participants of this WikiProject to apply for a Newspapers.com account (which is free through Wikipedia Library) and help me add these archive links. --bender235 (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Typhoon Megi (2010) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Megi (2010) to be moved to Typhoon Megi. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Liza (1976) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Liza (1976) to be moved to Hurricane Liza. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 23, 2017

This is the TFA hitting the Main Page in about 9 hours ... any last-minute thoughts? In particular, I went with "Although the season begins by convention on June 1, there were no tropical depressions until July 23 ...". "by convention" is a stronger and broader characterization than "officially", and AFAIK, it's warranted ... I don't know of any countries that are pushing for a different date, that seems to be the consensus date for the start of the season, but you guys will know better than I do. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Tracks

• Any chance of a track for Cyclone Prema 1983, the tracking data is here. It would also be nice to have a better version of the seasonal track map for 82-83 SPAC, which isnt so zoomed out.Jason Rees (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Article titles

Earlier today, I got into a wheel war with another uses on the title of Typhoon Gene (1990). I mentioned this briefly off-site, but I've been thinking about this today. I opposed request moves in the past for the same reason why I reverted the one today initially - the fact that there was a hurricane/typhoon level version of Gene in the SPAC- Cyclone Gene. But I've been having second thoughts on this. Cyclone Katrina doesn't have a year on it even though it isn't not the primary topic. Same goes for Typhoon Ike and Cyclone Ivan. So long story short, I'm not sure if we need to include the year any more when a system is the only typhoon/hurricane/cyclone of that particular name. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Harvey's sat images

Users uploaded to commons imags over and over again on the same file, even if the took it from a different source and even true colour images over infrared or low resolution over high res images and so on. That's a wholly mess! --Matthiasb (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

WPac distances confirmation

@Jasper Deng: @Yellow Evan: @Jason Rees: @Meow: @ChocolateTrain: @Cyclonebiskit: @Supportstorm: @Hurricanehink: @Typhoon2017: Ok so since Pakhar is about to dissipate and Sanvu is yet to develop, I believe we should be more clear in what we should use as I would say it is an equal/tie in between users whether we should retain the JTWC distances or the switch distances to the RSMC by calculating from their coordinates. As I said previously, I don't mind which ones to use as they both have positives and negatives. Looking at the JTWC version, they already stated where a storm is located over in their advisories and yes that is a source for sure and is proven, though they're not the RSMC of this basin. Looking at the JMA/RSMC version, yes they are the RSMC and we should follow them, though they do not mention its distance in between locations (with the exception what Meow stated ^^), and especially saying "whatever source you like", I would consider this as OR, and distances may differ when using a variety of other sources. (see previous discussion)

I have used the NHC's distance calcualtor myself recommended by JR and started using that for the current infobox but I've seen my edit being reverted by someone else, whoever it was. Just to note I'm sorry for bothering other users if they find this "irrelevant" or "not important" but being someone who help update the infobox a lot and seeing part of my edit being reverted/disagreed really means that there is a problem of some sort by other users. Also why not have some changes around the WPTC and not doing the same 'thing' or layout we've been doing/following in the past years? To make it more clear, I will place either Option 1 or 2, to see who agrees and leave a comment why you support that option itself (note: saying "we've been doing this for years" etc is not acceptable). I will also leave a "Comments" section for users here who want to talk more about it. Thanks so much, and I would love to hear your opinions and thoughts. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Option 2: Switch to the RSMC

I support this option. There are a number of reasons for this, and are explained below:

• JMA and JTWC use different coordinates (i.e. they disagree about where the cyclone is located), which means we should use the official RSMC by default unless it is obviously wrong.
• JMA updates issues advisories on a more regular basis than the JTWC. Indeed, the JTWC's most up-to-date advisory is nine hours old just before they issue the next one. For a fast-moving storm such as Nanmadol, this means the distances they provide can be more than 100 km off.
• The locations to which the JTWC states distances are not useful to article readers. As the JTWC provides products for use by the US government (as stated on the website), they quote these distances to places useful for the navy, military, and other such government branches. Locations such as Kadena Air Base, Learmonth Air Base, etc. are mostly unknown to the public and therefore do not convey potentially important information about the location of the storm (I can safely say that, being an Australian, 99% of the population will not have heard of Learmonth Air Base).

So, those are my reasons. Hopefully people will agree. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

If a system is over the ocean and only JTWC mentions the distance— follow JTWC’s. Otherwise, follow the agency which is the closest. I think this should be an ultimate solution. Using a calculator would bring us troubles. 🐱💬 10:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: That's an interesting idea but it will be weird switching from a JTWC distance to a JMA distance when a storm approaches land. Also what are you reasons why "a calculator would bring us troubles"? Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: We may need to spend more time on calculating the distance, and this would make more editors feel stressful and hesitate to contribute. 🐱💬 11:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Well I'm fine with it. I actually find updating infoboxes fun tbvh :P. In fact I've seen @ChocolateTrain: doing the same. Don't worry we'll help! Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Yep, just like Typhoon2013 said—I love updating the infoboxes (especially upgrading the cyclones to new categories!). ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013:@ChocolateTrain: Well it is just my feeling.🤔 I feel bored easily. 🐱💬 12:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Depending on how you do it, the time taken is under a minute.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, yep. Also @ChocolateTrain: what source do you use for calculating the distance? I use the NHC calculator. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Four-day absence

I will have a 4-day trip on August 31 that I won’t be able to access my computer until September 4. It is going to be better if anyone can generate track maps for Sanvu or other Northwest Pacific systems before I come back. At least I will be still able to update JTWC track maps. 🐱💬 09:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Rapid deepening listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Rapid deepening to be moved to Rapid intensification. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Irma

Is it time to move Irma to its own article? CatcherStorm ^talk 01:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Already done as Hurricane Irma. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Storm (soon to be Hurricane) Maria

I've started an article at Draft:Tropical Storm Maria (2017). It's my first ever crack at a hurricane article, so yeah, apologies if there's any parts that you guys find unusual for an article of this type; I've tried my best by studying other articles about Atlantic Hurricanes. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 02:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It'll probably become notable eventually even though it isn't now, at least barring any sudden, significant forecast changes (they do happen). Probably not necessary at the current time, but I do (personally) appreciate that you placed it in draftspace rather than as a user subpage, though. At the current rate that the storm is moving, it probably won't be worth waiting for the page to be reviewed (too much of a backlog). Master of Time (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Modifications to Template:Current weather event

There is a current discussion regarding my addition of new parameters to {{Current weather event}}, which adds an external link to an official, constantly updating source of the latest weather advisory. Please feel free to make comments.

Here's the summary of this issue: This interim solution originally was the result of a discussion now archived at Talk:Hurricane Irma/Archive 2#Active hurricane disclaimer?, after someone added an "Active hurricane disclaimer" notice on that page.[1] In that discussion, it was concluded that this notice was primarily redundant, except for the addition of an external link to a primary, official source of the latest weather advisory. This disclaimer was then used in other recent active hurricane articles, in addition to {{Current weather event}}, causing more redundancy. This notice also prompted a user to attempt to copy it into the template namespace as Template:Hurricane disclaimer, but it was deleted on grounds of WP:T2 - no disclaimer templates.

Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)