Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 45

Hey, I don't really know where to post something like this so I'm posting it here. While I was working on Tropical cyclones in 2000, I found that Michael's section (which i'm 99% sure is accurate) says that it was 155 km/h and that it lasted from October 15-19, while the Season effects says it was 175 km/h, and the Seasonal summary says that it lasted from October 10-15. Apparently this has been around since around ~2007, I can't remember exactly. The 1999–2000 Australian region cyclone season as well has some inconsistencies with the stats on the storm infoboxes and the season effects differing slightly (I'm somewhat sure that the stats shown on the season effects are 1-min). I'm concerned because there may be more inaccurate information lurking on old articles that haven't been spotted and have been propagating through places like in Tropical cyclones by year where many articles are still incomplete. Akbermamps! 02:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there are some issues with the titles of articles summarizing Atlantic hurricanes prior to the year 1800. The titles of List of Atlantic hurricanes in the 17th century and List of Atlantic hurricanes in the 18th century disagree with their article contents. The 17th century comprises the years 1601-1700, but the article covers the years 1600-1699; the 18th century article has the same issue. Either the title should be changed to reflect the 1600s, or the content changed to exclude 1600 and add 1700. I prefer changing the title; I believe "the 1600s" is a more intuitive grouping of years than "the 17th century." Using "the 1600s" in the title makes it much easier to know at a glance what years the article will cover, and to select the right link from a list or in an autocompleting field. Just consider how much more quickly you could answer the question, "What years were in the 1600s?" versus "What years were in the 17th century?" and what the chances are that someone asked each question gets the answer wrong. To be more in keeping with articles about later time periods, like 1800s Atlantic hurricane seasons and 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, I would like to suggest 1600s Atlantic hurricanes and 1700s Atlantic hurricanes. But if people have a strong preference that the titles continue to start with "List of," I don't object. In addition, the article title "Pre-1600 Atlantic hurricane seasons" strikes me as incorrectly stating that the article is about hurricane seasons, when it is about individual hurricanes. This article is about a time earlier than the 1600s and 1700s, when less was known about meteorology and especially tropical meteorology, yet the article title seems to suggest that this article would be more meteorologically rigorous than those about later hurricanes. I suggest moving that article to Pre-1600 Atlantic hurricanes, again with "List of" being acceptable if widely preferred. A change along these lines for pre-1600 was discussed a decade ago here and seemed to build some consensus, but the conversation fizzled out and it was not implemented. --DavidK93 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support I've been at WPTC for a year and I've been wondering about these pages. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Abby to be moved to List of storms named Abby. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

I do not know if anyone has noticed this, unless this has been left on purpose. But the "Tropical Depression" (MFR) category in the SWio basin has a rather light-blue colour. I am sure that all "TD" category colour in all basin articles have a dark-blue colour. TD 09 for example just shows the difference. It would be nice to have consistency. I really just do not know how to fix this; the coding looks a little bit complicated for me I might mess things up. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I had looked at the colour but couldn't see anything different in the coding.Jason Rees (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed. A misused #ifexpr function call caused the color for SWIO depressions to render under the same color as SWIO disturbances. I've gone ahead and removed the offending arguments. It should render properly now. Chlod (say hi!) 15:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep it is! Thanks so much, Chlod! :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I wanted to bring this discussion here, as there is some trouble with two images of Cyclone Faraji, and which one should be used in the Tropical cyclones in 2021 article, and to a lesser extent, in the 2020–21 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season‎ article. The original discussion, at talk:Tropical cyclones in 2021#Image of Cyclone Faraji garnered little attention, and so I want to reach more of a consensus for which image would be better for both articles. It should be noted that I support the second image, as based on references and the image itself, the second image appears to show the cyclone closer to its peak, than image one does. However, I will leave the decision to others. Also, I did add the second image to the 2020–21 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season‎ article, but was reverted, with the person stating that the cyclone is not at the peak. However, I re-reverted and asked why the cyclone looks better in the image I added, rather than the image that they stated was the peak. I was re-reverted again, and was sent to a ref that states that it peaked at 1850z, though I also saw some refs that said that it peaked earlier in the day, However, I will not engage further until we know for sure which one is better. These are the two images in question: 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 18:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I support the second image, as it looks better, and I’ve seen some articles that do not show a storm at peak intensity. -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 20:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@CycloneFootball71: I really don't see what's the confusion here. MeteoFrance's best track (I don't know, or care, what "other sources" you mean) very clearly puts the peak at 18z on 8 February by a significant margin (15 knots), and what's more, maintains it through 0z. That places 20z squarely during the peak period and 0810z squarely outside it. There is no compelling reason to use a non-peak picture here except perhaps preferring an "actual visual" image, but even here, the 20z image is representative of the storm no less than the 0810z one. Thus the 20z picture should very clearly be used.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: This inquiry was written before you reverted my edit. I simply wanted to get a consensus on what the better picture would be, as some other users also thought that the second image was the better choice. Also, I saw the source now, so I see that it was at the peak. The image of the cyclone when it was at its peak, did not appear to be at its peak, so I wanted to make sure that it indeed was. Also, it was a simple inquiry, my apologies. The sources I was refering to were in the article, however I must have missed one, when it was actually at peak. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support the second image per Shift674, and the fact that the first one looks like someone poured a bunch of milk in the area around Faraji. CodingCyclone ^{citation needed} 04:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WPTC/S: "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 roughly within 5 percent of peak intensity (in knots)". Faraji's intensity in the second image was ~125 kts while on the first image it was around ~140 kts. The difference in intensity is ~11%, not enough for the first image to be used, though if there are any other alternatives to both the images they could be used. Just putting my 2 cents here. Akbermamps! 05:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to add that on the Tropical cyclones in 2021 article, putting the Eloise image which is also that strange milky filter on top of yet another image with that same filter just looks bad aesthetically. Either Eloise should be its true color image (which I doubt we will use since it's far enough from peak) or the Faraji image, which is if barely only a tiny bit past the peak strength and looks like a healthier storm. This situation is practically identical to the one to do with Hurricane Delta, and sometimes the image of peak strength just isn't good enough."We typically include whatever image has the better satellite presentation, so not necessarily at peak intensity", Hurricanehink concluded. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Tropical Storm Linfa has been brought back from the dead by @MarioJump83: following its retirement. I decided it was time I could give the article a second chance since the chaotic series of floods has ended (since 2020 is over, anyway). Throughout today I've been updating impacts and preparations and its become increasingly obvious to me there is plenty of Vietnamese media coverage on the storm that wasn't used and is yet to be used. The section of 2020 Central Vietnam floods only seems to capture a portion of the coverage from Linfa, even excluding the meteorological history and the records broken from the individual tropical cyclone, which is largely why the merge was flawed. And since the merge moratorium, I think its time to give Linfa a second chance instead of just covering a very small portion of the storm in a much larger article.

I am hoping other editors will help, since a storm which killed hundreds of people by itself and which in itself laid the groundwork for much of the later floods in Central Vietnam in 2020 needs a storm article.

tl;dr What I'm basically asking is if anyone will be willing to help me expand on this article and hopefully make it quality enough that it doesn't have to be merged again... Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've done my best to combine the best of both {{Storm colour}} and {{Tc nom list}} to create a exhaustive list of every single storm category code we use, mapped to their appropriate colors and category names. The result is this module, which I've checked with the aforementioned templates for compatibility (such tests you can find on its documentation page).

Since the state of {{Storm colour}} and {{Tc nom list}} right now is extremely messy (what can be used in {{Storm colour}} isn't the same as those in {{Tc nom list}}, vice versa), I wanted to change both templates to use this module, as this provides an easier way of adding in categories, and also allows both templates to use the same list of category codes. Since this is a (possibly) breaking change (although I don't expect anything to actually break), I wanted to request approval from the project to switch the templates over to the module. Which brings us here.

(tl;dr) Would it be alright to switch {{Storm colour}} and {{Tc nom list}} to use this module? It's better to keep things organized and standardized in a module like this than to have a giant switch statement independent of sibling templates, especially when the same "category" argument for both color and name. Chlod (say hi!) 15:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chlod: I have finally found a bit of time to take a look at the deployment of the template so far and would comment that we need to look carefully at how we are presenting the data and make sure its consistent. In particular, I look at the wind column which needs to be rounded off to the nearest 5 and ensured that we are consistent with what NHC etc say the winds are. (NB: The Convert template isn't good for winds, as we convert the knots as both mph & km/h from knots but don't show the knots). I would also comment that the pressure should be presented to 4 sigfigs not 3 and the comma above 1000 hPa should be taken out. (Add the options sig-fig=4 & comma=off).Jason Rees (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Hi Jason! I've made the changes to the SE charts template with this diff (chart) and this diff (cyclone) (forgive the incorrectly-formatted edit summary). You can see an example of it on Template:Tropical cyclone season effects/doc to confirm the changes. As for the winds column, the default unit is km/h, not knots, and this can be modified using winds-unit (although a wrapping template can be easily made to change the default units to mph). If an editor chooses to use pre-converted units, say 75 km/h (45 mph), the template will bypass the convert and display the text as-is. Would that be enough or does anything else need changing? Chlod (say hi!) 01:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I think I misread the note on your message. Did you want to use knots in the winds argument directly? Chlod (say hi!) 01:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that it wasn't in knots and was more referring to our general practise, but I would comment that it cant hurt to put the initial windspeed in knots and would be consistent with our infoboxes.Jason Rees (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it. {{Convert}} does have the option to only display output values, so I'll tinker around with that a bit and get back to you on that. I kinda have to modify a bunch of pages to change the default unit, but that's fine with me. Chlod (say hi!) 01:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jason Rees:   Done The column for winds now has the default unit of knots, and the knots are not displayed at all, only km/h and mph. An example can be seen at Template:Tropical cyclone season effects/doc/demo. Do note that I converted the existing km/h values into kn since I didn't have time to look up the actual wind speeds in knots, however that shouldn't be much of a problem.

Sweet. My next nicety would be to have the names, classification, windspeeds and pressure all on one line, but its more of a nicety then a must.Jason Rees (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

​The table would actually keep all things in one line if possible, but the wrapping is a limitation of a screen's limited space. If you set your browser zoom to shrink the page a bit, you'll notice that the table will use up one line as much as possible. Nonetheless, if you'd like to force this behavior (although I don't suggest it, due to accessibility issues), name, category, wind speed, and pressure can be forced to stick to one line when no-wrap is set to yes on each subtemplate. Chlod (say hi!) 02:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah when I thought back about it. I realised that you cant exactly tell the template how much space to give a parameter like the category or name as each basin is different.Jason Rees (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Amanda–Cristobal to be moved to 2020 Central America and Mexico floods. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Can anyone clarify the difference between a list of storm name article such as List of tropical storms named Soudelor vs a disambiguation page such as Hurricane Felix (disambiguation)? I don't see a difference, and one standard needs to be applied for all such cyclone names with multi-year occurrences. I did such a move for Typhoon Goni (disambiguation) only to find others just like it. So now, I am confused. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As time allows the YYYY XXXX (disambiguation) need to be moved to List of storms named xxxx, so that we can incorporate other named systems that arent tropical cyclones. It is also because the disambiguation pages arent really disambiguation pages but more set-index articles.Jason Rees (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I will start initiating the move requests so they can be processed more easily. Noah^Talk 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that we have lists for every letter, I believe that every set index article should be merged. There’s no need for the hundreds of dab pages, or moving all of these. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: There is serious opposition from outside the project to having those lists. I tried to merge lists into a completed letter and it got strongly opposed. People even stated the letter list should be nommed at AfD. Noah^Talk 19:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would you start a separate discussion for a random assortment of these? That splits up the discussion and is inefficient. The best way to proceed would be to establish project consensus for a naming convention (or alternative way forward) and then move all according to the naming convention (or merge, etc.). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tavix:THis has been discussed before with no action, like many other things. A RM brings people in to respond by flooding them with notifications. It's inappropriate to have a private discussion here that doesn't provide access for the entire community. If there is a consensus established for that set below, the rest can be moved as well. We need to have people inside and outside the project participating. I won't withdraw it so we can get a proper consensus established. I will add an "Et Al" for the other articles involved. Noah^Talk 20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

For consistency reasons, we can't have ad hoc discussions over a small subset of these, it's either all or nothing. It seems like you are wanting to have several discussions over this from the "Atlantic 1" comment. We can widely advertise a formal RfC if you think this venue is too small, but it is in no way "private" since these discussions are open to everyone. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tavix: All of the discussion will take place at the one spot. Every other article is included as Et Al via links. Noah^Talk 20:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m just saying, I’d oppose moving all of the pages, when I think all of that effort (which is considerable) would be better merging the dab pages to List of named storms (A), B, etc. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Even if they get redirected, the redirects should be correct. Noah^Talk 20:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the redirects would have to be piped to the right location. It’s big undertaking either way. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably better to just move them now and just redirect later if needed. Noah^Talk 20:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Noah, could you explain your thought process why you feel it’s better? I just think it’s a lot of work when there is perhaps a better long-term alternative. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I tried to have the SIAs redirected into a letter article and it got strongly opposed by people outside the project. Noah^Talk 21:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Where was that? Were all/most of the letter lists made by then? Now that we have every letter, we have a set place for all 600-some dab (but not dab) articles/lists. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• For these pages to be set index articles per WP:SIA, they all need to "follow the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists", which means they all need to be written as standard list articles, including having a lead paragraph. Otherwise, they aren't really set index articles, they are merely disambiguation pages in disguise. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rreagan007 (talk · contribs), how do you feel about List of named storms (A), and that type of article? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That article definitely meets the formatting requirements of a list article. But over the past few months I have run into people trying to claim that what essentially looks exactly like a disambiguation page is in fact a list article. If something is formatted like a disambiguation page, then it should be regarded as a disambiguation page. To qualify as a list article, and have the "List of" title formatting, the article itself needs to conform to the formatting standards of list articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Bkonrad, JHunterJ, Hurricanehink, Rreagan007, Hurricane Noah, and Tavix: The consensus in the past is that they are SIA's and should be moved to List of storms named X, as we have started naming non-tropical cyclones since these articles were originally developed. Now I don't personally care if they are SIA's, list's or disambiguation pages or merged with list of named storms (X), however, what needs to be decided once and for all is what format they should take. I personally lean towards merging them into merging into 26 single articles as otherwise, we get into all sorts of issues. For example how many systems need to be named x for a page, What about names that are very very similar: (Ann, Anne, Ana, Anna etc).Jason Rees (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Great example with those names. I would also suggest thinking about Lily/Lili/Lilly/Lillith. All very similar names that could be confusing to find. Having just 26 lists would be much easier to navigate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Hurricanehink: The proposal is now to move all associated pages to the correct titles and then redirect them to the letter lists. Noah^Talk 15:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• That just strikes me as a complete and utter waste of time, why not just redirect them straight? Jason Rees (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yea, I would oppose moving all of the pages, just for them to be redirected. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Jason Rees and Hurricanehink: Admins can move a hundred in a single click without leaving anything behind. If we just redirect, we run into the problem of having to move redirects every time a storm claims the main space, which requires a lot of cleanup and involvement from people with advanced permissions. We can either fix the issue now in one go or have a crapload of individual move requests that will waste even more time. Noah^Talk 15:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really. If a storm needs the main page, then the redirect would become the main article. There wouldn’t have to be the usual page move for the dab pages once they’re all redirected to each letter list. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: We still need navigational redirects that take people to the specific spot on the list they are looking for. If we don't have anything, there will be problems with people unable to find the storm they are looking for. We have "List of storms named Dorian" that redirects to the appropriate spot. That makes sure people can find the storm they are looking for. Noah^Talk 16:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That assumes people would look up that redirect in the first place. Also Dorian is a bad example since it was retired. Most people would be looking nice for the 2019 hurricane, where there would be a link for other similarly named storms. For some random storm like Arlene, they’d search for TS/Hurricane Arlene, and be pointed to its place on the A naming list. If there’s really a desire to have “List of storms named Arlene” and other equivalent redirects created, I won’t oppose, and maybe also just add in “Storms named Arlene”, since that’s just as plausible a search term as the full “List of...” I just don’t think readers will likely be searching for either term, that’s why I think the push to move them all first is a waste of time. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a double-edged sword as I can see that it would be nice to have a set of redirects that are consistent, but I do wonder if its not just a waste of time.Jason Rees (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The redirects are only as useful as people searching them. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Can/should I formally propose the merger of all dab articles? For when the storms need the main article (one of Noah's concerns), we can attribute the edit history on the talk page for the individual letter. That would save having to move every single dab page (sorry, not technically a dab page, SIA, whatever, ones like Tropical Storm Ana vs Anna vs Anne). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of set index articles on a per-name basis, for the following reasons:

• Tropical cyclones are a topic where more information than usual is needed for disambiguation, since readers often look for storms on basis of things like areas impacted (as opposed to persons, for instance);
• Each name generally has significant information irrelevant to any particular storm:
  • Etymology (definition, who submitted it, when)
  • Retirement (was replaced by what, if any, and replaced what, if any)

I'm not in favor of a more aggregated format with an indexing like first letter because:

• Any approach with only a fixed number of pages is not scalable, as names will keep getting added (particularly in single-use basins like the southwest Indian Ocean)
• There is no clear, obvious, choice of primary key for names and we should not be forcing one on our readers
• We cannot index based on any alphabetical criterion outside basins where Latin-script languages are predominant (like the Atlantic and eastern Pacific), because "starts with letter X" (for example) is meaningless for non-Latin-script languages, and we cannot necessarily assume that the romanization used will always be agreed upon (a notable example being Cyclone Amphan, where the slightly-incorrect romanization chosen by the submitter has resulted in multiple media sources using the wrong native word)

We should keep storm articles and broad-topic articles like tropical cyclone naming free of too many specifics on particular names.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I see a lot of instruction creep creeping around. I really don't see the benefit of merging all the disambiguation pages to a "starts with χ" series of articles. Additionally, I would make an argument that set index articles are not appropriate here, as WP:SIA states that A disambiguation page should not be reclassified as a SIA (e.g., on the basis that its entries all happen to be instances of a single type). As an example, Western State Hospital is, correctly, categorized as a disambiguation page even though each of the articles it links to is literally a hospital (rather than some other type of building – or legal entity, titled work, mental state, etc., ad inifitum). Yes, you have a lot of tropical cyclones named Anna (or Anne, or Ann, etc...). But aside from name, they are completely distinct and unrelated from each other. My preference would be to keep all as disambiguation pages.
• As for storms with similar etymology: You can easily IAR them into a single disambiguation page containing all the storms with the same etymology on a case-by-case basis, regardless of the exact spelling. Ana, Ann, Anna and Anne can all be combined into one page; so could Caitlin and Kathleen, but it's not as clear in the latter case. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Talk:Tropical_Storm_Abby#Requested_move_13_February_2021 Noah^Talk 19:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I strongly feel that we are doing our readers a disservice by developing individual tropical cyclone seasons in the SHEM, before the satellite-era started during 1969-70. This is because the tracking data is a lot less reliable, there are no reliable intensity estimates, the JTWC did not warn on the systems. I would also comment that the naming agencies basins were also not as clear cut as today, with New Caledonia naming systems while the Australian region extended to 80E. As a result, I would like to develop these as decade articles with say only a line or two about each system, while developing articles for significant systems and List of TC's for each country.Jason Rees (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s useful having individual yearly season articles back to 1950. There might not be that much information, but even if it is just an island here and they are being affected, I think it’s easier to navigate with individuals season articles. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Hurricanehink regarding this one. There is not much information about the storms pre-satellite era, but we have to give it a shot. MarioJump83! 12:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I fail to see how individual seasons would be easier to navigate then a decade article with a couple of sentences on each system, since we would not have enough information on the systems to justify individual sections for each storm. I also would oppose using the infobox hurricane small for the seasons since we do not have reliable intensity estimates or any pictures of the systems. Also @MarioJump83: I disagree that we have to provide information on the pre-satellite era systems in the same format, as we do the post-satellite era when the info is virtually non-existant.Jason Rees (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You could say the same thing for EPAC storms pre-satellite era. As long as there are storms in the year that affected land, then I think we should continue with the individual seasons back to a certain point, perhaps 1950, maybe even 1900. Having the yearly articles will help put each year into perspective when it comes to climatology, so if we only have the dates and the islands affected, ok, that’s a good start to a season article. I think they should only be lumped together en masse when there starts being major discrepancies when a storm even was, or where it even was. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That point should be 1969-70 in the SHEM since its pre-satellite era, there isn't a lot of information around about the majority of these systems and the majority in the SPAC were unnamed before 1969-70. As a result, I feel that it is better to have the limited data in decade articles rather than individual season articles. This viewpoint seems to be backed up by page 43 (41) of this PDF where the author comments that the classification of systems before 1970 is extremely difficult. As for your point about EPAC, I would note that HURDAT provides official data as early as 1957 which as far as I know IBTRACS doesn't do for SPAC systems.Jason Rees (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I am looking for the name of a typhoon to redlink and was hoping someone here could help me. I was using a source while editing Apra Harbor that states, "A full-scale typhoon passed near Guam between October 3 and 9 [1944]. Continued strong winds built up such heavy waves in Apra Harbor that they destroyed or severely damaged all the pontoon piers, carried away portions of the Cabras Island breakwater, and seriously damaged the sunken barges placed to form the breakwater extension." This appears to be one of the storms not listed at 1944 Pacific typhoon season and my searches for "1944 typhoon" are cluttered with Typhoon Cobra and Hawker Typhoon results. Can anyone point me to a source that can tell me what article name I should be redlinking to? Many thanks, Featous (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Featous, it's 1944 Apra Harbor typhoon. I am going to redlink it myself. MarioJump83! 07:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Recently, a new precedent was opened when it was decided that Amanda and Cristobal should be lumped together in a single article, so I'd like to discuss what should be the procedure regarding crossover cyclones from now on. There are many pairs of storms in NHC's AoR that had a similar history of Amanda and Cristobal (like Francelia and Glenda in 1969, Bret and Greg in 1993, Iris and Manuel in 2001, Earl and Frank in 2004, Ernesto and Hector in 2012, Trudy and Hanna in 2014, Earl and Javier in 2016, Franklin and Jova in 2017, Katia and Otis also in 2017, and Nana and Julio in 2020, just to name a few instances), and even some can be found in other basins (like Katrina and Victor-Cindy in 1998, Matmo and Bulbul in 2019, etc), but nowadays they're kept separated from each other. So, for the sake of consistency and WP:COHERENCE, I'd like to discuss with you guys (@Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, Destroyeraa, LightandDark2000, Skarmory, CyclonicallyDeranged, Jason Rees, Chicdat, and Noah:, who participated on that discussion, and others that might be interested on it like @Modokai, Meow, Yellow Evan, Krit-tonkla, Master of Time, Juliancolton, AC5230, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Jasper Deng:) what should be the citeria for merging/incorporating storms as the same system and what should we do with similar past and future instances. ABC paulista (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

One key question is how much the two (or three) storms have to have in common for them to be declared "crossovers". Is it enough if the TCR or equivalent says "storm A is derived from the remnants of storm B"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That was the main argument used to merge Amanda and Cristobal. ABC paulista (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMO, the key is whether storms in both basins deserve having an article. For Bret and Greg in 1993, only Bret was really article worthy. Greg reformed from Bret, but there was a couple day gap, and Greg was mostly known as being a hurricane in the 1993 PHS, not as a continuation of Bret. For Amanda and Cristobal, they both caused impacts in the same area, resulting in the same general disaster/topic. Amanda/Cristobal is much more like other basin crossers (Cesar-Douglas for example) than a storm like Bret-Greg, where only one of the two was a significant disaster in its own right. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Amanda and Cristobal also have a day gap between them. If the notability and shared impact are the main arguments, shouldn't the tropical storms Alma and Arthur of 2008 be lumped together? Even hurricanes Ingrid and Manuel of 2013 could be merged under this criteria, while finding hard to justify the basin crossing status for systems like Georgette, for example. ABC paulista (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Alma-Arthur? Perhaps. They caused the same overall impact event across Central America. Manuel and Ingrid, no - they were simultaneous storms, not two storms that shared the same MH. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

And what exactly means "sharing the same Meteorological History"? When should we consider that storms shared the same system? Where do we draw the line on this matter? ABC paulista (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think that our current policy (the status quo) is to give crossover storms that regenerated from the same Low-level circulation center (LLCC) or the same low-pressure area (LPA) one article, while crossover storms that were mid-level circulation regenerations are given separate articles. Quite frankly, I think that all crossover storms that were clearly cases of regenerations should be merged into one article, in each case. Hurricane Lee (2017) and Hurricane Beryl (2018) are clear-cut cases of storms that were mid-level circulation center regenerations, and yet, the NHC chose to classify each of them as one storm, which they clearly were. I don't think that we should let some ridiculous cross-basin naming policy of the NHC's stop us from calling these storms as they are. Especially when the NHC was very clear in their TCRs that one incarnation of the storm was directly responsible for the birth of the other. I think that we should merge all of the crossover storms. As long as the original low-pressure area or a part of the original circulation (LLCC or MLCC) was directly responsible for triggering the regeneration, it should be treated as the same storm (unless we run into cases of decoupling). However, if there is no consensus to do so, then I think that we should just stick with the status quo. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I've never, ever heard of such policy regarding crossover storms before. AFAIK, we followed whatever the meteorological agencies (RSMCs, TCWCs and related) stated, and we complied with their own criterias (to avoid WP:OR). But I'm not just asking on how should we deal with crossover storms, but also (and mainly) to decide on what cases are to be considered crossover storms, and what aren't, and what criterias should we use. ABC paulista (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that there is a one-sized fit all solution for this so-called problem, as in Amanda & Cristobal's case the NHC specifically said that Amanda remnants regenerated in the Atlantic. As a result, I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis, especially when the data isnt clear enough.Jason Rees (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe that the prior method of following everything that the RSMCs and TCWCs stated worked well enough to sort out these cases. But that method wasn't followed on Amanda/Cristobal case, then we need a new method that complies with WP:COHERENCE. ABC paulista (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Except it doesn't work when you are removing a [WPAC to CPAC crossover], because the CPHC didn't call it a tropical cyclone or we are not calling a tropical cyclone the same system when the NHC are clear that it is a regeneration. I would also point out that we do not need to necessarily comply with WP:COHERENCE as it is just an essay written by a couple of editors.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO it still works pretty well since we are following info that's endorsed by the WMO. And "regeneration" doesn't always means continuity, since the wording used by agencies seem to be "context sensitive", with the same wording having distinct meaning on different cases, like I pointed out before. ABC paulista (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Except by not including a tropical cyclone considered to be a WPAC to CPAC crossover by the JMA or a system that is a regeneration by the NHC, we are not using data that is endorsed by the WMO's RSMC's. Also if a regeneration does not always have the same context then thats even more of a reason in my opinon to go case by case. Jason Rees (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember that each RSMC and TCWC has its own designated AoR, and since JMA is not the RSMC for CPAC (CPHC is) its information outside WPAC is not endorsed by WMO's programme. So to be fully compliant with WMO, both RSMC/TCWC should acknowledge that a crossover happened, which CPHC didn't in that case. And IMO just some ambiguous, context sensitive wording isn't enough for this kind of analysis, for being prone to WP:POV, and more solid evidence (more direct wording, continuous tracking, etc) is warranted on such cases. ABC paulista (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

BTW, there is a new discussion here to split up the article for Amanda/Cristobal. Please comment there as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not think there is a one-fits-all approach here other than the (overly strict) one of requiring the name to be preserved (inter-RSMC storms) or there to be one continuous track (in IBTRACS if inter-RSMC). WP:COHERENCE does not at all require a one-fits-all approach when there are valid reasons for keeping separation in some cases.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

And what would be a valid reason to not apply a one-fits-all solution? ABC paulista (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

When the warning centres disagree about the status of a system when it crosses the international dateline for example.Jason Rees (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Each RSMC and TCWC has its own designated AoR and their boundaries don't overlap with each other, so the WMO's programme only endorses RSMC's/TCWC's data that is pertinent for their own regions. These kind of situations don't seem to conflict with a possible one-fits-all solution. ABC paulista (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"Coherency refers to an article providing logical, understandable and usable knowledge to the reader." I fail to see how deciding this on a case-by-case basis does not help achieve that goal. If we want consistency, we should formulate a guideline addressing the different cases and apply that consistently. We ought to be maximizing utility for readers tailored to specific storms.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm looking for in this discussion. Consistent guideline and criteria application, unless exceptional circunstances call for something distinct. "Coherency is about understandability, clarity and logic", so if we start applying different standards for similar situations, without a clear good reason, it would only serve to confuse the readers. ABC paulista (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe there was logically no reason whatsoever to combine Amanda and Cristobal articles. The NHC calls it as it is. If they were 2 different systems, they were two different systems. Before any of my #wiki-hurricanes [IRC] colleagues call me out on this for analyzing otherwise, I have no control over the NHC, and my analyses are likely worse than Force Thirteen. NHC is priority. Not me. Not F13. Not amyone else but the United States government. ~ AC5230 talk 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The NHC was pretty clear about the combined impacts, and that Cristobal was a regeneration of Amanda. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

.... Amanda did contribute to the formation of Cristobal, but we must remember that there was also a CAG present at the time that also contributed to its formation. The NHC was clear though on impacts, that Amanda, and Cristobal caused severe flooding in Central America, along with the aforementioned CAG. To be specific, this is what they said: Significant heavy rainfall occurred over portions of Central America and southeastern Mexico over a nine-day period (29 May–7 June) due to Tropical Storm Cristobal, eastern Pacific Tropical Storm Amanda, and the Central American gyre that both cyclones were embedded in. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 14:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I was looking through Wikipedia today and noticed that there are a lot of articles, that are missing corresponding timeline articles. Yes, I did nominate a timeline for deletion once, but now I realize why they are here... Before mass-creating these articles, I would like to know: Do we create timeline articles for all seasons or only for specific basins/years? Thanks! CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 04:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

If there is enough information to warrant a separate timeline — but only if there is enough information to warrant a separate article — an article can be created. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of arguments surrounding timelines being original research, content forks and arent really needed for a lot of seasons. Jason Rees (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Okay then, but how do we know which ones need it and which ones don't? I have TCRs from the IMD about NIO seasons from 2011-present day, would that warrant creating an article articles for those NIO seasons? Thanks for your input in advance. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 23:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@CodingCyclone: On a personal level I think that timelines are rather redundant to the main article and that you end up incorporating events that didn't happen at the times that we say they did because of BT etc. In the WPAC because every warning center is official you have a lot of overlap with information from the 4 main BT agencies the HKO, CMA, JMA and JTWC all needing to be included.Jason Rees (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia tropical cyclone community should focus more on North Indian Ocean cyclones, as I have seen tens of storms with >100 fatalities that have no articles in that basin. 2003 LN6 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@2003 LN6: Hi there. The point that you bring up is true; there is less coverage of NIO cyclones (and Southern Hemisphere cyclones). This is definitely something that needs to be addressed. Currently I am working on a timeline for the 2013 NIO season. If there's an article you're interested in writing, be bold and do it! CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 22:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we don't need to propose every single change on this page. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@2003 LN6: - if you know any storms that really should have articles, please add it to the article requests page. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Amanda–Cristobal to be moved to Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

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

A systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) was launched at the end of November 2020 at WP:URFA/2020. The goals are to:

• Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
• Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
• Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA)
  • List for the TFA Coords older FAs that are mainpage ready
  • Help TFA Coords check older FAs before they run TFA

With about two dozen editors regularly contributing to these efforts, it's time for the first quarterly progress report.

History

The last sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006; by the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed at FAR, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of older FAs had been undertaken since then, and the number of FAs reviewed declined considerably after 2010. Tracking FAs that received an official FAR notice began at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given and provided the momentum to get FAR moving again. The number of FAs being promoted is declining, so more re-runs of older FAs are needed to maintain diversity at TFA; with a ten-year hiatus in FAR activity, there is a considerable backlog of deficient FAs.

Progress

The URFA/2020 page is divided into very old (last FAC or FAR before 2010) and old (last FAC or FAR between 2010 and 2015) FAs.

With almost two dozen editors working through the list, good progress has been made on submitting the most deficient to FAR. More participation is needed to evaluate older FAs that may only need minor tune-ups. This would winnow the list so the most deficient can be more easily processed at FAR.

Since URFA/2020 was launched, 65 FAs have been Delisted, and 77 have been deemed Satisfactory or have been Kept at FAR. Underscoring the need to review the very old FAs, those reviewed from the 2010–2015 group have a ratio of 6 delisted to 22 satisfactory (79% satisfactory), while in the 2004–2009 group that ratio is 59 delisted to 55 satisfactory (only 48% satisfactory). Time is allowed at FAR when work is ongoing, so those delisted are generally for article reviews in which no editors engage, and those are typically the very old FAs.

The percentage of older FAs needing review has been reduced from 77% to 74%, with about 35 FAs per month processed off the list. This number is misleading because around 200 more have been reviewed by at least one editor as "Satisfactory", but not yet looked at by more than one editor so they can be moved off the list as "Kept" or FAR not needed. Another almost 150 notices that a FAR is needed have been given, although those articles have not yet been submitted to FAR (anyone can submit one on the list).

While the progress has been steady, at the current rate of 35 reviewed FAs per month, it would take over ten years to review all FAs that were promoted pre-2016. Many more FAs could be moved off the list if experienced FA editors reviewed a few old FAs per week, and enter feedback at URFA/2020, or submit noticed articles to FAR.

How can you help?

You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, and sometimes need only a minor tune-up; listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so a FAR can be avoided. Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory", while those that need a FAR can be added to the FAR notices given template.

Reducing the backlog of unreviewed older FAs

• WikiProjects can set up a process to systematically review their older Featured articles.

• Editors who have nominated Featured articles can do a tuneup of the articles they watch. If every experienced FA writer or reviewer looks at a few articles a week, and marks those that are still at standard as "Satisfactory", the list will be processed in shorter order.

• Any editor can review the articles on the list. Improvements needed can be noted in an article talk section with the subject heading == URFA/2020 notes == or == Featured article review needed==, and a diff to those notes can be provided at the URFA/2020 page for tracking. If article talk has been notified of deficiencies, after waiting a few weeks to see if anyone engages, articles can be submitted to FAR.

Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at URFA/2020 and FAR; the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed.

Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 1Q2021. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I need a help from the members of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones to complete the article "List of Indian-Pacific crossover tropical cyclones". This article was made solely by myself and I have already added the basic information but was moved to draftspace due to lack of references. If anyone of WPTC members voluntarily support and help me to complete this article by adding references, it'd be highly helpful to make this article a success. HarrySupertyphoon (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, @HarrySupertyphoon:, I think that this list is definitely something we need. It does, however, have no entries. I'll look around for references and cyclones, and add a few things. Best of luck with this draft! CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 18:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@HarrySuperTyphoon and CodingCyclone: I am not sure that I see the need or notability for a list of tropical cyclones that have moved from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. Remember that there are four ways a tropical cyclone can move from the so called Western Pacific Ocean into the Indian Ocean and visa versa. Two in the NHEM and two in the SHEM (135E).Jason Rees (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: I think that it would be useful. I don't see how there being different ways of crossovers happening really affects the notability of the subject. It happens between the Atlantic and the Pacific and we have a list for that -- why not for the Indian Ocean and the Pacific? CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I oppose his idea. Atlantic-Pacific is pretty rare. It's usually 5 to 15 years in between a true crossover storm. Amanda-Cristobal was not true – Otto was. On the other hand, Indian-Pacific is very common and happens several times a season. In 2019, just in the North, there were two, Pabuk and Matmo-Bulbul. If you want a long article, go help me with List of Atlantic tropical storms. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We have a move review in progress for the recent closure of the discussion at the Amanda/Cristobal talk page (the third one). As the discussion was in progress, I feel that it was grossly inappropriate and a bad move. Please comment there as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah, ABC paulista, JoeMT615, Supportstorm, Jasper Deng, ChessEric, Gummycow, AC5230, Super Cyclonic Storm Corona, Aegeou2, Skarmory, KN2731, Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricaneboy23, CycloneFootball71, AveryTheComrade, CodingCyclone, Chicdat, and Jason Rees: Since all of you have either commented in one of the three discussions or have an interest in topic, I'd like you all to voice your opinions on the move review page as well. Regardless of your opinions on any of the three discussions, the closure of the third discussion was grossly inappropriate and should have never been carried out in that manner. Closing an active discussion is unacceptable, IMO. Especially given the heated nature of the entire debate. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is a link to another survey on the WPTC newsletter, The Hurricane Herald, by another one of our editors. Please fill out this survey when you have the time. The information will be used to write an Op-Ed in an upcoming issue of The Hurricane Herald. As with the other survey, you will remain completely anonymous. Thank you. (PS, please do not archive this topic for at least 30 days.) LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• WPTC newsletter survey