Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Proposed protocol for {{Infobox hurricane}} and {{infobox hurricane small}} images

In light of various image edit wars over which images should be used as the image of choice in storm infoboxes over the past few months, I am proposing the following protocol that may aid in a more objective assessment of what image should be used. The following users have been pinged as they have been frequently involved with editing in or out infoboxes; if I did not include others, please notify them @B dash, CooperScience, Xyklone, and Master0Garfield:

In general, consider whether or not the image used is representative of the storm and its impacts.

Geographic context is important for storms if they are near land. High-resolution satellite images with political borders or nearby landmasses visible are preferred over the same images without borders or landmasses visible, with the exception of "Meteorological history of..." articles. However, where possible, images without latitude-longitude grids are preferred. In addition, if a satellite image used for an infobox has labels, those labels should be clear enough to be at least somewhat discernible in a thumbnail. Clarity of the storm and its context should be emphasized over closeness to peak; images that show more of the storm and its surroundings are preferred over those that are more zoomed-in and consequently show less.

• Where possible, the picture of the storm used should be a satellite image at or near its official peak intensity as determined by their respective Regional Specialized Meteorological Center. "Near peak intensity" refers to any point where a storm has winds within 5 percent of peak intensity (in knots). The following indicates the order of precedence for these images.

1. For storm articles, astronaut photography from low-Earth orbit. These include images of storms taken from personnel onboard the International Space Station, for example. Although these images have highest precedence, they need to feature the storm clearly in full or nearly in full. However, the images used should be free of spacecraft components like modules or structural components.
2. High-resolution true-color visible imagery. This includes but is not limited to imagery from the MODIS instruments aboard the Aqua and Terra satellites, the VIIRS sensors on Suomi NPP and NOAA-20, the AHI sensor on the Himawari satellites, and the true-color approximations of the ABI sensor on GOES-16 (the GeoColor enhancement used by NESDIS and Colorado State University, for instance). This does not include simulated true-color images created by overlaying grayscale visible data on a colorized basemap. See below for those.
3. Infrared or visible imagery overlaid on a true-color basemap. This includes any grayscale visible or infrared imagery that has been superimposed on a Blue Marble or similar basemap. Images of this variety may also be generated by EUMETSAT, NESDIS, or similar agencies.
4. False-color visible imagery. This includes synthesized AVHRR data (producing the familiar blue/yellow clouds).
5. Grayscale visible or infrared imagery.
6. False-color infrared imagery. This includes any infrared data that has been mapped to a color ramp.

• If no satellite imagery can be found at or near peak intensity, satellite imagery at some point of significance (such as landfall, closest approach to land) or meteorological significance (secondary peak) should be used, following the order of precedence above. Satellite imagery from other points in a storm's lifetime can be used, so long as they are still somewhat representative of the storm (for example, an image of a super typhoon as a tropical depression should probably not be used). Otherwise, either surface analyses of the system at or near peak or its impacts should be used
• If satellite imagery cannot be found, surface analyses of the system at or near peak or its impacts should be used.
• If there are no image of the storm or its impacts, its track should be used as the infobox image. This will typically be track images generated using the WPTC track generator, but may also be unofficial tracks from studies such as those associated with tropical cyclones outside official track databases.
• If there is no picture of the storm or its impacts, a relevant map of an affected area can be used as the infobox image.

-- TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 17:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Neutral - it’s about time we have some standardization on images. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• See below discussion why I changed my support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Support - I think it's a great idea! However, I would like to make a change. If the intensity difference between a VIS image and an IR image is great, and/or the structure is much better in IR, as such is the case for storms like Wilma 2005, I would put the IR images as the higher priority. Cooper 22:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

100% support – Desperately needed to stop the silly image editing wars. Points are clear and easy to understand. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Support - However, I would like to hear from @Typhoon2013: @MasterGarfield: and @Meow: before this is closed.Jason Rees (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong support Almost all edit wars involving these pictures are lame. Any type of protocol involving pictures are welcomed. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support seven or eight years ago I started staying out of image wars on grounds that any argument for or against a certain type of imagine was WP:ILIKEIT but this is the first good faith proposal to at least give some order to the arguement-less image wars I see on my watchlist like all the time now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unless it is made explicit that visual images are to take precedence over infrared regardless of time from peak intensity. We want to show the storm as it would have looked to an astronaut. Reality is always better.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Items 1 and 3 show that the proposer does not really understand how to choose better images for tropical cyclones. For Item 1, images from ISS are unique but not very clear at all, so they are unsuitable for the box. For Item 3, we should not encourge people using a stock background which means a fake background. The proposer also misses images from the day-night band that I feel very pitiful. 🐱💬 01:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Point 1 does restrict low Earth orbit photography to those that only show the storm completely, but understandably they are at a rather oblique angle and I would be fine with removing them from the order of precedence. Item 3 also covers some material from NESDIS which has historically overlaid single-band imagery on stock backgrounds. Stock backgrounds may not be the most photographically up to par but they can provide clear geographic context (viz encyclopedic value), which on an encyclopedia should be given higher precedence over aesthetics in my opinion. Day-night band images are included in the envelope of visible imagery. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 18:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• 100% support - finally someone is listing out all the order of importance of the images used on tropical cyclone articles. Now all is clear and no more pointless edit wars! Xyklone (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I simply support the proposal. Although in terms of Bullet-point no.3, ("If satellite imagery cannot be found, surface analyses of the system at or near peak or its impacts should be used"), I'd recommend if for instance we could not find an image that is around its peak strength time, then I'd suggest to use an image that is literally a Category below its peak. For example, no images found when the storm is at Cat4 intensity, so instead use an image that is at Cat3. Moreover, I don't know if it's just me, but I'd prefer the storm to be in the center of the image as it looks more neat and tidy. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to note and ping a new user here. @Yukaribba: This person is new to the project and has recently been uploading beautiful images. So this is to let that person know on this discussion. Along with @Nino Marakot:. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Typhoon2013: Appreciate it! I'm planning on a simple tutorial of polar2grid. @Typhoon2013: @Nino Marakot: This is the software I use for satellite image production. So where can I share it? On this page, or others? yukaribba (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that Jasper Deng had raised, that visible imagery should be preferred over IR imagery regardless of time from peak. — Iunetalk 14:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

After seeing the constant "VIS > IR in any way regardless of peak", I now have some doubts over this. Firstly, IR easily trumps VIS images if the storm in question has a significantly improved intensity or structure. Secondly, IR images are satellite images too, they provide imagery of overnight passes through infrared. As a result, I would propose to make an exception to this rule. When a storm peaks overnight, and/or its structure is signficiantly improved overnight, the IR image holds priority. Cooper 18:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support with no addendum for Vis > ir preference. That's completely arbitrary. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose while I shared the same view as Jasper Deng, VIS > IR in any way regardless of peak. --B dash (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That creates a problem with storms that undergo explosive intensification. For example, you could have a tropical cyclone ranking as a Category 1 hurricane on a day pass, but overnight it undergoes explosive intensification into a Category 3 hurricane, and it then quickly weakens the following day. In those cases, the overnight (IR) images would be preferable. Cooper 03:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I really don't think it matters what type of imagery is used for peak (whether it's IR or vis), if the storm's peak was at night IR should be able to be used as it shows the storm at peak. I've also been seeing lots of ugly Vis crops lately and I think that's a problem. Regardless, I support this idea. - Master0Garfield (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Thanks for pinging me here, @Typhoon2013:. I support it because I always want to have a clean peak intensity regardless of any reasons, but as @TheAustinMan: said, peak intensity takes priority. Nino Marakot (talk page) 02:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Support: Finally a protocool. I edit and translate TC articles for Spanish Wikipedia and occassionally upload TC images. My question is: should be formalize tropical cyclone images naming on this proposal or was it established before? --🌀 Byralaal ♎ (contact-a̶-me...) 06:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I dont think the naming of images has ever been formalised and it could be an interesting discussion to have.Jason Rees (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Since this proposal is still in discussion, what's been written up here does not constitute project policy at the moment and should not be currently used as the rationale for changing images. In the meantime, if you are changing an image please consider using the edit summary to explain reasons for changing those images. There have been way too many unexplained image changes without any edit summaries, which just makes fertile grounds for edit warring. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 18:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Pertinent to this discussion is this edit by CooperScience (talk · contribs), which follows the protocol suggested here. However, I think the original image was better (which is more defined and shows Florida). This policy doesn't take into consideration images where we might have a better visible image within a few hours of the peak. Can we clarify within six hours somewhere in the image policy? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

We have to remember though Hink that peak intensity isn't at 12z when the NHC/JMA/JTWC issue their advisory.Jason Rees (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Leaving this message to stop the bot from archiving this since it's been nearly 12 days since the last comment but the discussion here doesn't appear to be over. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 08:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please assist with Tropical Storm Son Tinh

Please assist with new page Tropical Storm Son Tinh. I am not experienced with storm articles but have nominated it to be included in WP:ITN/C#Tropical Storm Son Tinh.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The folks at ITN/C don't like incomplete articles (especially the fact it doesn't even have impact in the article), so you should've worked on it before sending it to be an candidate. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis:Don't worry about the ITN/C people. I have some experience there. I will make sure it gets a fair hearing. Can you help me get the article to meet your standards here.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones in 2010

I wanted to bring to light the Tropical cyclones in 2010 article. It was never properly developed back in 2010 and 2011 when it was created, but it is definitely worth exploring. I have been adding content to it over the last few days. It would be nice to discuss the development here. I am interested to see what content everyone would want in the article. I would appreciate it if others could help with expanding the article. If this article goes well, we can make similar articles in the future. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yea, I'm wondering, what would be an ideal structure for this type of article? It should be similar to a season article:

• General forecasts for global activity (if that exists for the year)
• Meteorological conditions (such as El Niño, notable volcanic disruptions, water temperatures)
• Month summary - go basin by basin, give the highlights

• Here is where I believe we should have an effects table, like the one linked here, so you don't have to mention deaths or damage in prose (unless relevant). Write out (briefly) any storms that caused deaths (where they passed by), damage. Summarize in each basin, if possible. For example - "In the Atlantic basin, a record 7 named storms developed, tied with 2002 and 2007. Tropical Storm Hermine caused flooding rains from Central America to Texas. Category 4 hurricanes Igor and Julia existed simultaneously in the Atlantic Ocean while Category 3 Hurricane Karl was in the Bay of Campeche. Hurricane Igor became the costliest storm to strike Newfoundland, and Hurricane Karl caused flooding and heavy damage in Veracruz. Flooding rains from Tropical Storm Matthew affected Central America and Mexico. Tropical Storm Nicole caused extensive flooding in Jamaica. The other storms – Gaston and Lisa – were short-lived and did not affect land.

Do the same for every month, have a section for retirements, make sure everything is referenced. It could be a nicely developed article without being too long (leave the content for the season article), and does a good job summarizing global tropical cyclone activity. Thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have already added a summary section which contains a timeline with EVERY cyclone formed during the 2010 year (excludes storms formed in 2009 and 2011). Also in that section is a table that shows the number of TDs, TSs, C1s, C2s, C3s, C4s, and C5s (other classifications were converted to the Saffir-Simpson scale).

In addition to that timeline, I made a 2010 systems section that contains a paragraph discussing every system of notability around the world (based on damages, deaths, impact, and/or records set). The paragraph about a system is a much abbreviated meteorological history along with an abbreviated statement about the impact the storm had. These paragraphs are generally 2-3k bytes with citations which is pretty good considering some of them have articles over 100k bytes that go into much greater detail.

Finally, I made a 2010 Storm Effects section that has a table with the columns 'Season Name', Areas Affected', 'Damages (USD)', and 'Deaths'. Rather than having something with individual storms in it, I felt it would be better to simply have the totals from each season in the table. The seasons are added together to form a global total.

That was what I did. I don't know how you feel about that, but that was my idea for initial development of the page. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 00:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

My problem is that it’s too long. Make it as concise as possible. No need to mention fish storms when the table already lists status, deaths, damage, and name. Make the article 50 kb, otherwise it doesn’t serve a purpose. One sentence for every storm of note, generally every named storm that affected land plus others. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry you feel it is long, but it really isn't that long compared to many other pages. Even quite a few season articles are much larger. Size really has nothing to do with serving its purpose. Once fully developed, I would imagine an article like this would be between 90 and 100k bytes once it is fully developed. The table lists statistics for each whole season. No individual systems are listed in the table. For the systems section, Im only adding a brief, much abbreviated segment about each storm of notability. The segment is much smaller than what would appear in any season article. The main content is saved for the season article/storm article. Every storm that I mentioned caused many deaths, damages, and/or had a large impact with the exception of Celia which simply set records. I didn't really mention any fish storms. However, one sentence isn't enough to cover a system of notability. I would rather have nothing at all about any of the systems than do a single sentence saying it was notable for this. If we were to remove the content related to the 2010 systems, we would need a consensus to do so because otherwise it is vandalism. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 12:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It isn’t vandalism if it’s methodical. I stand by the article being too long, and I don’t buy that you cant summarize in a single sentence. For most of these important storms, there is a season article in the basin, a storm sub-article, and maybe even effects articles. A storm as big as Katrina can be summarized like this-

Powerful Hurricane Katrina became the costliest United States hurricane when it struck southern Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi in August 2005.

Essentially, leave the details for the other article, and make this one a worldwide summary. The more info you have, the less effective it is. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a few more people in the project before going ahead with any big changes like that. Changes will probably be made later today or tomorrow. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 14:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I just wiped the whole section and will start over. Im not even going to try and work with shortening any of the existing content. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 16:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the general points outlined by Hurricanehink. The monthly recap should exercise brevity. Not all storms need to be mentioned in prose; that's for the individual season articles. Even the most impactful systems can be noted in 1–2 sentences. In my opinion the article should be treated as an overview of tropical cyclone activity in 2010 rather than a highlight reel of individual storms. Tropical cyclones in 2010 is a venue to synthesize information across basins and broach global weather patterns that aren't as applicable on basin pages to present them collectively, so picking and choosing storms already presented in similar formats on their seasonal pages should not be the article's focus. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and to echo TheAustinMan, compare the summary with a season article. Come to think of it, should the article be by month, or by basin? If it's by basin, you can literally copy the lead from those season articles (until you come up with something flashier). That could be of more service to the readers. If they're looking for a storm that affected their area in a particular year, they're more likely to know the basin (general geography) than the exact month (especially as many storms existed in two months). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to list it by month than by basin. In my opinion, a chronological order would be better as this is a global summary. It shouldn't be organized by each basin as that is what the season articles are for. When talking about something happening globally, it is much easier to do it by month. To be honest, if someone were looking for storms that impacted their area in a specific year, they would search 'Hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean in 2009' or 'Hurricanes in the Pacific in 2012' which would take them to a season article. We could talk about how many systems formed in the month total and then say how many formed in each basin (I don't know exactly how detailed we should go here). We could have a section highlighting the global tropical cyclone activity. That would include what areas had high, above average, average, below average, and low activity. We could possibly have an image displaying that too. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

True, a global monthly track map would be nice, but more work for the track map editors. Ok, so if it was monthly, I’d still prefer minimal info for each storm (1-2 sentences max), listed individually. It would be interesting to see the longest period of time each year without any tropical cyclones, or of continuous activity. Just some thoughts. I’d be curious what YE, Jason, or Juliancolton think. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What storms do you want to be mentioned? I obviously know that most of the TDs were insignificant, but some were of significance. Were you thinking of all the ones that impacted land, all named storms, or both? Figfires^{Send me a message!} 20:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Might as well mention every named storm, since that's a useful metric for comparing global season activity, plus global accumulated cyclone energy each year, if anyone does that and we have a good citation for it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright... I will get started on it later today and some tomorrow. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 21:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Would something of this length be acceptable for you?:

"Edzani was the first cyclone to form worldwide in 2010. Edzani was a powerful cyclone, reaching category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson scale with 1 minute sustained winds of 220 km/h (140 mph) and a minimum central pressure of 910 hPa (mbar. Edzani formed on January 1st in the Australian Region and dissipated on January 14 in the South-West Indian Ocean." Figfires^{Send me a message!} 01:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

One sentence too many. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Some people are also saying 2-3 sentences. 3 shouldn't be that big of a deal though. It is much shorter than what was previously there. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 14:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

True, but you don't need to mention the minimum pressure and the exact dates, since each month will have a table of storms, correct? Also, since you're going worldwide, you have to go with the RSMC intensity, not what JTWC says. Here's a two sentence version of Edzani:

Very Intense Tropical Cyclone Edzani – the first cyclone to form worldwide in 2010 – developed on January 1 in the Australian Region. It became the most powerful cyclone in the south-west Indian Ocean since 2005, reaching 10 minute sustained winds of 220 km/h (140 mph), before dissipating on January 19.

This is short and sweet. Streamline your sentence writing, and try and sum it up in two sentences if you can. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. However, I don't really see the need for each month to have a table of storms. If you feel it is needed, please elaborate as to why. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I figured you'd have a giant table somewhere in the article. It would be more useful having that table in each month than to have it at the end of the article. This way, you can see stats like death and damage without having to have it in prose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay... basically have the same table that a season article has? Or make a custom table? Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Same table for the season article, but separated by month, and including every storm worldwide. At least, that's how I think it should go, and I am open to outside opinion. I just think it would be good to model it as closely to the current format of articles that we have. Season articles have sub-sections for every storm, and for notable storms, those sub-sections function essentially as the lead of individual storm articles. Think of it the same way for a global tropical cyclone summary. You're just giving the barest taste of each storm. I don't think individual tropical depressions should be mentioned in prose unless they were destructive or deadly, but they should still be in the table. I'm torn on short-lived fish storms, like Gaston 2010, but I think all named storms should at least be mentioned. It's a good metric for comparing activity by years. Eventually we can have an article for Tropical cyclones by year - I already added 2010 in there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Are we just going to use the Saffir Simpson scale for all the storms in the table? I think it would be very time consuming and confusing to have multiple scales. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Strange I was just about to post the following argument about the scale used @Figfires:. I would personally prefer to see the Australian scale used on the timeline image as the SSHWS since it's only officially used in the Atlantic and Northern Pacific to the east of the dateline. Yes you can argue that the Australian scale is only officially used in the Australian and SPAC basins (90E-120W), but the winds supplied by the JMA (WPAC) and Reunion (SWIO) can be applied to it without resorting to converting any winds or using unofficial windspeeds which is why i think it is better for an article like this.Jason Rees (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Only issue with that is multiple scales being used would be confusing for readers. I have noticed with a lot of cyclones in other basins, a SSHWS classification is shown below the official one for the basin. If we add the Australian scale, we would need to add all of them. To be honest, it would probably be best to stick with SSHWS to prevent confusion. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to use multiple scales, I'm proposing to use just the Australian scale for the reasons I outlined above. SSHWS is only offically used in two basins and we have to say that its Jason Rees (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

A lot of articles are already adapted with converted wind speeds. For example... Typhoon_Chanthu_(2010) and 2009–10_South-West_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season#Subtropical_Depression_Joël are already adapted to SSHWS. Almost all other articles are adapted. I just don't see why it is necessary to go through the pain and suffering of changing every single item on that table to the Australian scale. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 20:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not see why we should use the SSHWS when it is only officially used by RSMC's in 2 main basins and can only be applied to 2 main basins, when we have a scale that the majority of TC's can use without having to adapt their official windspeeds or use unofficial windspeeds from the JTWC which most articles do.Jason Rees (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to use any scale in the table. or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tropical cyclones by year, I had the table as "Tropical cyclones", "Named storms", and "≥64 knots" and convert it in a special note for the laymen. All basins have a special designation for storms of 64 kt winds, with varying scales and categories above that strength. Likewise, there is uniformity for when TC's are named (sustained winds of 35 knots), with some exceptions. In the monthly table for each basin, just remove the "retired" names category, and change "Notes" to "References". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, we were talking about the scale used on the timeline. Secondly, we shouldn't have a monthly table for each basin. That would be too many tables and very odd. I might as well remove the intensity column from the table. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 20:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. Perhaps have the timeline for each month, and just have the yearly table? I think some sort of demonstration for the monthly activity would be useful for the readers, beyond just a textual summary. As for the intensity in the timeline, Jason Rees or Figfires, what do you propose? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion was to use the Australian scale rather than SSHWS, since we are using RSMC intensity in the article and most TC's can be rated on it without resorting to JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

How about we have a yearly timeline in the summary section and then have a blown up version of each month in the monthly sections? I think we should keep the timeline for the whole year since it shows the differences in activity throughout the year. We could do a table of storms for each month as well. Personally, I think the SSHWS is better for the timeline because it is highlights the strength of the storms with winds higher than 157 mph. If we were to do the Australian scale, a lot more storms would show up as C5 which would make them a lot less rare. Additionally, a lot of other storms would be bumped up to higher categories which would make them appear to be stronger when they really aren't. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 21:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Figfires: I disagree that a lot more systems would show up as Category 5 if we used the AUS scale, in fact for 2010, I can only see one system as a Cat 5 in the Western Pacific that would be classified as a Cat 5, which is after all the main region for TC formation. Also I feel that most of the basins provide a divider at 50 kts, which i feel is nicer than having one at 115 kts, since 50 kts is the divider between gale and storm force winds.Jason Rees (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: >198 km/h is category 5... Danielle, Earl, Igor, Julia, and Karl would become Category 5 for the Atlantic. Karl is a category 3! The scale would shift for storms in other categories too. Category 2s could become Cat 4s and Cat 1s could become cat 2 or cat 3. Also, weak TSs would become tropical depressions/tropical lows which conflicts completely with the status of the storm. That is why I don't like the idea of using this scale. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The same can be said for using SSHWS over in basins where the SSHWS is not officially used, especially if you take the JTWC estimates over the RSMC for the basin. It is also worth noting that the Aus scale can be directly applied to systems in 4 out of the 7 basins where as the SSHWS can only be applied to 2 out of the 7 basins. Also Danielle, Earl and Karl would just be cat 4s on the Aus scale since we would not directly apply the windspeeds that NHC/IMD gives without converting them using WMO standards.Jason Rees (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Fine... I will convert them right now and end any debate over which we will use for the 2010 timeline. However, we still have the issue of whether or not we will have a blown up version of the timeline for each month. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify one thing, SSHWS has no formal use in the SHEM so there is no point in using them when it comes to prose. Just be sure to be clear what scale you are using (for instance, clarify you're referring to the SSHWS for an ATL storm and AUS scale for an SPAC storm), when necessary, and please wikilink the relevant scales on their first instance. Honestly, I have reservations that a timeline graph entirely, largely due to lack of space. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Should we simply add which basins use what scales in the introduction? Elsewhere? We will have the season articles linked in the prose. Also, you feel we should remove the timeline altogether? Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Just on first mention in the prose, when applicable. I'd rather see the lead covered with global stats. As of right now, the timeline graph in the article is a mess. At minimum, the timeline graph itself probably should be made taller, if possible, so the text on the table is illegible, but in your defense, I'm well aware these things aren't the easiest to work with. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't even looked at the lead. It was written by @TropicalAnalystwx13: back in early 2011. As for making the graph taller, can do. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 08:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A blown up version of the timeline could look something like this:

What do you think? Figfires^{Send me a message!} 01:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks still quite messy. Maybe just do two timeline graphs? One for the first six months and one for the second sixth months? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The big timeline doesn't even look messy anymore. None of the bars or names are touching and it can be easily distinguished. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 11:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Well... I am going to do work tomorrow on the article now that I am invigorated once again. I needed a couple days reprieve as I was getting burned out on this after many hours of constant work. The storm intensity on the tables will be based on the Australian scale so it is just like the timeline (except with the exact winds). I will switch the winds in the tables to a km/h (mph) format this evening and make a mini Australian scale (just like the mini SSHWS) to go along with the tables. I will fill in the first few months tomorrow. Any named storm at category 1 strength will be mentioned in the text as will the few significant TDs. All other TDs will have no mention in the text, but appear in the table. There shall not be any monthly timelines to save space unless decided otherwise by consensus. The yearly timeline has been fixed... I made it somewhat taller and added 50% more cyclones to each column in order to fix the overlapping names and bars. It now looks great and shows an accurate picture of the cyclone activity throughout the year without the issues of having 10 storms per column. I would appreciate it if someone could add some text to go alongside that table I made with the number of cyclones. The table contains TDs, C1s, C2s, C3s, C4s, and C5s. It is based upon the timeline. Let me know how that sounds. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I must apologize... I had some stuff come up that prevented me from doing any editing on this page. I made the template for the Australian scale, but was unable to get any further. I will work on this page some tomorrow. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Article Improvement 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)

Atlantic Record

Todaym Subtropical Storm Debby formed 38.9 N and I was wandering " Is that the record?" So, my question is what (sub)tropical cyclone formed the farthest north? If so, what latitude did it form at? Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like an excessive statistic to me, it can be mentioned in the article though if there is some third party coverage that isn't just a tweet from a WP:SPS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

In December 1975, a subtropical storm formed at 41.5N while it was diving southward. Debby isn’t that unusual. Plus, it’s track will likely be extended back by a day. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

How to become a member

Hi all, just wondering how I can become a member of this project. I honestly find it to be a little bit insulting that after nine years of dedication and hard work that I have put into articles in this domain, I still haven't been invited to join this project. --Undescribed (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You’re already a member of the project! Even if you aren’t one officially :) All you have to do is add your name Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Members here. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, just add your name to the bottom. It's an informal thing so there probably wasn't an incentive to invite an already recognized editor. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Small favor

Since technically I can't self-assess and I think this can allow some younger editors to familiarize thereselves with my work and what to do past WPTC articles in general, I'm gonna make a list of articles that I've written recently I'm going through that need to have a {{WikiProject Weather | tropical-cyclones-project=yes}} banner with a rating on it.

• Typhoon Holly (1984)
• Typhoon Cecil (1985)
• Typhoon Alex (1987)
• Typhoon Warren. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Hector (2018)

Just wondering what thoughts are on Hurricane Hector (2018)... I know some people felt the article was jumping the gun/rushed, but we have a decent article developed at this point which required several people working on it. As it currently stands, it will be primarily a meteorological history article as there is a lot of content for this system since it has been active for 9 days. Also, I have a question about the storm... As it appears Hector will cross the international date line on Monday, would it simply become Typhoon Hector with the JMA wind classification? Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Ello Figfires, thx for the invite earlier, and yes it would be renamed typhoon hector. One example of this happening is Hurricane John in 1996. As it crossed the prime meridian, it had to be renamed Typhoon John, as questioned.

happy learning

Derpdadoodle (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Beryl B-Class Review

• B1: Decent number of citations/references throughout the body of the article.
• B2: Good in coverage of the areas primarily impacted by Beryl (Lesser Antilles, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic), but mentions nothing about other listed areas such as the Bahamas, Bermuda, and Atlantic Canada.
• B3: Has a good structure with all areas filled out decently.
• B4: Has good grammar and style... few to no mistakes.
• B5: Has an appropriate quantity of images and an infobox.
• B6: Article is pretty understandable. There is no over usage of technical terms that would lead to confusion. Where there are technical terms, they are internally linked so one could find out what it means.

Basically, from what I saw, B2 needs work in order for Beryl to become B-Class. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 15:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Discord server

As requested by some users on IRC, a server dedicated to the WikiProject has been created. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This was created after I noticed that I was unable to PM non-registered users on IRC (making stuff like fixing GAN comments more difficult). Hopefully this helps revive the project somewhat. Come on in everyone! YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones in 2018

Why do we need this article full of incorrect information?-- 🐱💬 07:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

1) It isn't all incorrect but is still in the development stages. 2) It uses the Aussie scale rather than the SSHWS, since it can be applied using official data rather than unofficial data. 3) It should in theory when its developed further contain more information about what was going on during the season in the atmosphere than the season articles like the PTS can.Jason Rees (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this chart unnecessary?

Maximum sustained wind speed and minimum pressure of Hurricane Florence

Please join a discussion held at Talk:Hurricane Florence#Is this chart unnecessary?.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777: For your graph, I really have no preference either way right now. I don't have much to do with that article. Others may be more passionate as to whether or not it should be included. Be warned, it will be meaningless if the tropical cyclone report makes changes. You probably should make redirects to the discussion on article talk pages more clear in the future because I thought it was spam before asking for a second opinion on the matter. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 02:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that we update track maps and article text (among many other things) after post-season reanalysis, so that shouldn't be a huge issue. I'm just not sure the charts are of broad enough interest to be useful for general readership. As a weather editor I like it, but it might just be an overly technical data dump to everyone outside that tiny subset. I'd definitely like to solicit some input from non-weather people. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Time line graphics

Forever since I am editing hurricane season articles – what, in case of the German WP, would be 2006 – I am wondering for which case we defined "GP" in plain red, and it is still in, for example in this year's PHS article. I remember that in the German WP we used it once to mark a storm which still is active but this fell out of use several years ago. Any veterans remembering this? --Matthiasb (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Matthiasb, I don't ever remember indicating in the timeline that storms are active, and in 2012 we didn't do it either. We usually indicate it in the "Storm names" section, which I think is rather redundant and should be merged with a "season summary" section (where the timeline is usually located). But that's for a different discussion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yearly tropical cyclone articles

I figured we needed to have a discussion here about what content should be included in yearly tropical cyclone articles. As it stands right now, we have the following structure...

• Global atmospheric and hydrological conditions

(what caused tropical cyclone activity)

• Summary

(timeline of all TCs)

• Systems

(monthly break down of TCs and impacts worldwide with notable TCs getting a brief prose mention)

• Global Effects

(seasonal effects for X year added together for a worldwide total & discussion of TC impacts in a global view)

• Notes
• See Also
• References
• External Links

I would like your opinion on what should be in articles of this type. You may find an example of one here that has a decent amount of work done. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 21:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Are these articles even a good idea? I am concerned that "global atmospheric and hydrological conditions" would violate either WP:BIAS (i.e. we regurgitate everything from the RSMC Miami basin Monthly Weather Review articles), or WP:OR (as I'm not sure long-term synoptic/climatic summaries are produced in other basins), while the "global effects" sections would be a nightmare to maintain at an adequate level of referencing. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally I strongly feel that it is worth developing them as we would be able to cover bits and bobs that the season articles cannot. As for concerns over sourcing, I personally believe that they are unfounded as most of the RSMC's produce reports on the seasons that go into details over why a TC developed etc. I also note that France develop seasonal summaries for most basins on an annual basis with a slight bias towards their territories. I would also hope that we wouldn't be regurgitate everything from the seasonal summaries and would help our readers understand why TC's developed, where they developed or not and why not etc. I would also hope that we could use news articles and other sources where appropriate, especially since BoM provide weekly notes on the tropical climate. Jason Rees (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's worth developing them, and global atmospheric conditions (such as El Niño or volcanic winter) would be mentioned here. Having a global article for tropical cyclone activity can help reference stats such as the number of storms per year, named storms per year, damage/deaths. It's a good way to cross-reference between the season articles and individual storm articles, particularly in regards to death and damage totals. The yearly article would be a parent article to all of the seasonal basin articles, along the lines of Category:Tornadoes by year. I think it's a good idea, and it'll fill a gap on Wikipedia. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

We simply need to get people working on this and it won't take long at all to get individual articles filled out. I do like the idea of having an article with the all-time stats. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See also section of Hurricane Florence

I would like to inform everyone of the discussion here. The issue is about whether or not individual storms will be in the see also section of the article. As we have no official consensus on this matter, the outcome of this could have a ripple effect and result in the removal of individual storms from EVERY see also section of cyclone articles if the argument passes. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 01:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Alpha (disambiguation) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Alpha (disambiguation) to be moved to Tropical Storm Alpha. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Windspeeds

I have a question that I think I know the answer to but is worth revisiting to see where the land lies. If we have someone do a reanalysis on a system by an independent author, a good few years after a system existed and was warned on and BT'd by the warning centres. Whose data do we go with? The more reliable one, the BT or the reanalysis.Jason Rees (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

We should always follow RSMCs and TCWCs for the official values but we could mention something else in an article if that is trustworthy.-- 🐱💬 03:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I second Meow's comment. The primary info we show will always be RSMC/TCWC but we can mention reanalyses in prose. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Would the same rule apply for 1-min winds from the JTWC/NPMOC? Jason Rees (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think if a reliable source has an independent reanalysis, we should include it, but for official purposes (infobox and discussing peak intensity in the MH), the official RSMC data should be included. Say something like "Although RSMC X estimated peak winds of Y, an independent analysis by Z suggested higher winds of Q". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Like Hurricanehink said, use the official RSMC data, and notice any discrepancies that can be sourced to reliable sources in prose. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Uploading track maps

Unless there is disagreement within the project, I would suggest that from now on, when uploading the NHC's forecast track for ongoing tropical cyclones, we leave the center line track turned off. There have been ramblings on Twitter and other avenues from NWS meteorologists who believe the center line unnecessarily contributes to certainty in track when uncertainty almost always exists, and I don't believe Wikipedia should be adding to that confusion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agree ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should just upload the 34 knot wind speed probabilities? There are problems with the forecast track as well given it deson't take into account storm size. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles needing attention

If anyone would be interested in helping to expand Hurricane Walaka, it is desperately needed. My idea for that was a Celia-like expansion. Additionally, the impacts for Hurricane Rosa (2018) could use some work too. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 01:54, 8 October 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 07:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Typhoon Jebi (2018) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Jebi (2018) to be moved to Typhoon Jebi. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Suspension of infobox hurricane current and current information for several basins

Although the template is suitable for Atlantic/Pacific hurricane season articles, it brings troubles to other season articles. The primary reason is simple: We do not have enough editors to maintain Pacific typhoon, North Indian Ocean cyclone, South-West Indian Ocean cyclone, Australian region cyclone, and South Pacific cyclone season articles. As the template is implemented to them when a tropical cyclone is active, those editors, who have already been extremely few comparing to editors of Atlantic/Pacific hurricane seasons, must spend more time on maintaining current information that is soon to be replaced and removed in the end.

Despite a promise from a few editors for being easy to maintain, it is difficult to maintain the season articles well as two or three tropical cyclones often develop simultaneously in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. This situation always results in outdated information that the efforts from editors to maintain become useless, completely discouraging editors to participate. It also leaves sections blank as editors have no time to write seriously at all. Moreover, outdated information could mislead readers, which may cause a potential life-threatening risk to them.

Therefore, I officially propose the suspension of Template:Infobox hurricane current for those season articles that do not have enough editors to maintain. The current information section should also be simplified to the links of meteorological agencies only, so readers can still get the updates immediately. These two proposals mentioned above should be effective until there are enough editors in the future.-- 🐱💬 03:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd rather cut down on the information in the infobox; in my humble opinion, position vectors are excessive information (not to mention being nontrivial to manually calculate). The long-term solution is to use a bot, which has been a wish of WPTC for something like a decade.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

What is your short-term solution? We still have to manually update everything which gives us high pressure to maintain. You should give us some solid solutions before a simple oppose. That is why I propose a temporal suspension as we currently do not have any proper solution.-- 🐱💬 05:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Let’s formally apply for that bot. It shouldn’t be difficult to automate. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, if you are complaining about the infoboxes not being updated, {{sofixit}}. Also, "temporal" is not the correct word for what I think you mean.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You were not providing any proper solution at all. The only solution is not to use the template until that so-called bot is officially introduced.-- 🐱💬 12:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Meow, you make a really good point. I think the bigger issue is that users are spending more time updating the infobox than writing content. I’m sure much of the infobox can be automated once it gets regular advisories. I know the NHC has a fixed link for active storms. Do other basins have a link that automatically refreshes? If so, then creating the bot should be easy. If the links to the advisories change every time, then I don’t think a bot would work for that basin. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

JMA does provide advisories with a fixed format. Advisories from others are not that fixed, especially IMD. For hurricane season articles, the template is okay to maintain, but it really devours too much time for editors of other basins. In the typhoon season article, many people provide invalid information that editors have to take more time to check the facts.-- 🐱💬 19:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Posting a question at WT:TFA

Hi guys. There have been some questions recently about what does and doesn't count as redundancy in TFA blurbs, and I'd like to try to tie up all the loose ends at once by presenting a list of examples tomorrow and asking for feedback. I'm rewriting a lot of these so that people can't tell which articles they come from ... but one of my examples is "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an above average Atlantic hurricane season", which comes right out of the article. (I actually have no idea how people will vote on this one ... it's fine in a Featured Article, I think.) If there are any objections, I'll remove this example from my list. - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Cyclone Xavier (disambiguation) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cyclone Xavier (disambiguation) to be moved to Tropical Storm Xavier. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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 02:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Names in parentheses in SHEM seasonal articles

I would like to propose either changing or eliminating a practice that has been going on with SHEM articles for some time. In SHEM, people have been adding parentheses with a name to tropical disturbances and depressions that formed in a basin and were named in another. This practice is entirely incorrect and should not have even happened to begin with. Firstly, the lows and TDs were never assigned that name before or during their existence in that basin. Also, by having a title like the one seen here, it implies that the system was named by an unofficial agency in the basin. In WPAC, PAGASA names are put into parentheses as the agency is unofficial. We can't have names in parentheses mean two different things. It needs to have one set meaning. Otherwise, it is confusing for unfamiliar editors and readers. My recommendation is to have a note in the infobox or something above the text stating it was named in another basin if the clarification is needed. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The way we apply names to systems that are named after they have moved out of their original basin is a tricky one, especially since the BoM/PNG are technically official for the SPAC and visa versa for Nadi/Wellington. I would personally prefer to keep the names as it allows the reader to be able to trace the systems easier.Jason Rees (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Could we change the system to be less confusing? I'm not saying to remove all mention of it, just do something different than the name in parentheses so people don't assume it was named by an unofficial agency. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 15:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Meow: I think this could work as a solution to the issue... could be added to season storm sections so that way people aren't assuming the system was assigned the name in that basin. It will still let people know that they are the same system without causing any confusion in regards to the naming of the system. We can still have the name in parentheses if you want. Just want this set apart from everything else to clear it up. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 21:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think we should make the rules more complicated. Brackets could be enough to indicate that name is not officially recognised in the basin. Besides, some officially named systems are downgraded to tropical lows in post-analysis, but they should not be added with brackets.-- 🐱💬 07:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This wouldn't really complicate things. All the template would do is put it right in front of them that is was named elsewhere and have the link to the other season. If we do that, it should clear up confusion easily. We wouldn't have to change the parentheses. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 11:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd say just remove the parentheses. It's the same storm, so you could just call it Tropical Low Bouchra. BoM and TCWC Jakarta are certain to recognize the name because if the storm were to move into the Australian region it would retain the name. The current (11/12 18z) GFS run re-strengthens Bouchra to a TC as it returns to the Australian region. If that plays out, they won't rename it, and this instance of the issue would be resolved anyway. atomic7732 17:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)