Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Southern Hemisphere individual season article creation

In adding satellite images and infoboxes to the latter portion of the 1970-1975 Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Season article, I noticed that some of my edits were coming out poorly/just plain wrong since at least one name had been used twice (which confused wikipedia). I have temporarily split off the 1974-75 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season article because of this, though I realize this is not normally how the season articles are split off within the Southern Hemisphere portion of the project, but it is a preliminary step. Feel free to conform the article to project standards, but please, don't merge it back into the 1970-1974 mess. Thanks. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the easiest solution would be to just split all of the SHEM by the three basins and get it over with. It's split from 1990 forward. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there an easy website to use to help with this process? Normally, I'd use wikipedia. =) MWL has issues, particularly with the Southern Hemisphere. They don't always have the storm names which were used, particularly for the southwest Indian ocean. It doesn't seem like the track files have been created for many Southern Hemisphere systems, which is a definite wrench in the works. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

IDK. I'd use Unisys, but they don't have the names for the BT. And yea, I've noticed that some older SHEM (older than 90) haven't been made yet. I think International Best Track might be best, but unfortunately they only split it by Southern Indian and South Pacific, with no regard for Australia. Not sure, to be honest. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Go and find each basins BT! This is not 2005. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not helpful, YE. =( Thegreatdr (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Reunion, BoM, and the Wellington BT should help.Jason Rees (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User Iune has also got several sandboxes that i have used to expand the articles SPAC, Aus, SWIO. One other thing i will say is that we will have to look at the SWIO/Aus Border when we go back and decide where to place it as Aus used to go to 80E.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I will try to work on the SW Indian ocean seasons, from 1974-1975 forward to fill in the gaps, since that is the first season article seen within MWL. There is a 1974–75_South-West_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season article now. And interestingly, it has a season track image available. There's no way I'll be able to create all of these articles alone. Help if you can. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I was doing that until I was asked to stop. All three basins are split to 1986-87. I could split up 85-86 tonight if nobody minds. JR has sandboxes for the SPAC back to 1983-84. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I noted that for the SW Indian YE, which was a pleasant surprise. At this point, I'd say keep going back to 1970, at least. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll help split the SWIO. They're easy since they're named alphabetically. I'll start in the 80's and go back. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on 1977-1978 right now. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What about the AUS? I just did 85-86. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For now, I'm sticking with SW Indian. I might have another couple hours of editing today, and wish to stay focused. Others can work on the other sections of the Southern Hemisphere. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone with the track generator make tracks from IBTrACS? I'll contribute, but it will take me forever to do it by myself with my method of creating them. Supportstorm (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we know whats missing at the moment in terms of tracks, some of the ones might be hiding away on commons.Jason Rees (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I just think they haven't been done yet. For what it's worth, I improved one of the articles we split off yesterday and nominated it for GAN. Now there should be a good standard for an SWIO season article for that time period. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I can start to create tracks for the SWIO seasons probably beginning tomorrow. One thing to keep in mind is that the International Best Track data should be converted from 10-min winds to 1-min winds (to correspond with the SSHS) before generating the tracks. — Ines(talk) 23:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not unless you use Neumann wind intensity which is already in 1-min winds. I find it much more reliable for the older seasons. Supportstorm (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please keep it at 10-min if you were to use RMSC data. Just use the Australian/SWIO scale here. I am highly opposed to converting it to 1-min, it just leads to confusion. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But our track maps are always in 1-min. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

<--That you're proposing changing something right now to be a small solution that would create an inconsistency with the rest of the project. I think for now, we should convert it, since that is our standard, but if we want to keep it at 10-min, then that should be a separate discussion. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

True. We could create 2 track maps for the SHEM one with JTWC date and one with RMSC data, but that may be pointless IMO. I don't think inconsitency is a huge deal IMO here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ideally we would have trackmaps using the RSMC Data primarily, however that aint gonna happen so unless you use the JTWC or Charlie Neumann's BT set you need to convert the data.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I have a version of the track map reader that reads ATCF files, if anyone wants to use it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a version of the program that you gave me in June 2011; would that be the version? — Iune(talk) 21:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I created a rump List of South-West Indian Ocean cyclones before 1970, so now the SWIO is as "done" as the NIO, ATL, and EPAC. The older articles of course need work, but I think for now SWIO doesn't need any more articles. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've started working backwards on the Australian articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice, meaning the SPAC will mostly be the rump of the SHEM articles. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Australia is dealt with back to the 1970/1971 season. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I will try and get around to working on getting the SPAC back to 1969/70 over the next few days. I say 1969/70 since that is according to various articles that i have seen the start of the reliable satellite era in the SPAC, however 1970/71 maybe better since we have to tackle the independence of Fiji somehow.Jason Rees (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should get the SPAC split from 1970-71 and work from there. I would not mind the three basins being split to 1960, but let's get the SPAC done. I'm happy to help over there. Also, don't forget about the NIO folks. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Basin boundary separation?

80E or 90E between Australia and the South Indian Ocean basins? Or another meridian? Is it year dependent? Either way, the basin GA article should state the answer with a reference. I tiptoed around this issue when establishing the Aussie and SWIO articles using the basin map as a reference (should have asked last week), so someone needs to check this out in all the new articles, like Supportstorm has been doing. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Before 1985, the SWIO went to only 80º E, but that year was extended to 90º E, per WMO. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's good to have a second reference. The discussion on Supportstorm's talk page just provided one as well. I have fixed the basin article by adding this information. We should also keep in mind that the MWL should not overrule the RSMCs...I've just used it as a starting point with the "new" season articles. It's possible MWL just used the NESDIS-provided Dvorak T number for intensities and tracks, except when otherwise noted. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice :) Thanks for updating that. Yea, as we're focusing more on SHEM historical coverage, I'm sure we'll find some nuggets of info and sources we never knew existed. In turn, we gotta keep our other articles up to date, as you have done today. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It works best when everyone pitches in. It likely would have taken me a while to find the references which were provided. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record RSMC Nadi and TCWC Wellington moved from stopping @ 140W to 120W at around the same time but it isnt that significant since it is just simply absorbed within the articles themselves.Jason Rees (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How to decode HDF files correctly?

http://ladsweb.nascom.nasa.gov/browse_images/mid.html?date=03%2F04%2F2012+06%3A05%3A00&browseFileID=797568819&tile=NA&browseType=Granule&satellite=Terra&archiveSet=5&productFileID=797482460&parameter=BRGB I tried to decode the file by hegMACv2.12, but it can only produce a greyscale 1km file. Does anyone know how to produce an RGB 250m file? -- Meow 15:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Download all 3 HDF files from the FTP site (Must register here to access the archive). Might want to use HDFLook instead if that fails. Supportstorm (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure where the three HDF files are. -- Meow 09:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's the archive. You need the 1km, Hkm, and Qkm HDF files in order to create a 250m projection. TERRA is MOD, AQUA is MYD in the archive. Supportstorm (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I give up. I really cannot figure out where the folders should be, and I cannot spend hours on finding the correct files. -- Meow 02:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I should spend a few hours setting up a tutorial on how to process HDF files, because it's not as difficult as it seems, but does require some knowledge of Cygwin commands. In the mean time if you haven't tried HDFLook it's the program I use and it has a simple guide to follow along to for set up and use. Supportstorm (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it not just be easier for Supportstorm to find the images for Gafilo and then teach Meow?Jason Rees (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that what you guys need? I thought Gafilo already had MODIS images. Supportstorm (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I assume thats what Meow is after per her talkpage.Jason Rees (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know methods instead of requesting pictures. Yes Gafilo does have MODIS images, but there are only two for this long-lived and strong storm. -- Meow 00:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added two images (plan to add more), but hopefully I'll have the time this week to have something up so other users can use this resource, also have a better setup than the track generator tutorial. Supportstorm (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, but I suggest that you could write something about HDF first. -- Meow 04:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Put this together this morning, it should get you through to making images, but any hiccups you might encounter please message me on my talk page. Supportstorm (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles

I recently discovered a new reliable source The Global Extra/Tropical Cyclone Atlas that contains amongst other things reports from Nadi and the Mariners Weather logs, which is fine since the atlas published by NCDC and nadi sent reports to NCDC, but how do i cite them up?. If i can prove that the report is from the MWL or Nadi do i cite it as the MWL report or Nadi report or do i just attribute it back to the Alas? Thoughts.Jason Rees (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would think you should attribute it as published by NCDC, and then use the Atlas URL in the archiveurl parameter. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Inks i dont think i made myself clear there: Do i cite those reports up using the original citation ie: or do i just cite the atlas ie: .Jason Rees (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you know it is from MWL, cite MWL. That should be easy enough, since only 3 2/3 years (1957-1959 and 2/3 of 1976) remain unscanned. The XT Atlas doesn't contain MWL articles, as far as I know. Indiana U must have done that themselves. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I would think the first one is correct. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Button Bar Part 2

This new bar makes the page on my iPad weird, as the bar is too wide. -- Meow 02:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

So what ever happened with this? We still have a bunch of Atlantic and EPAC button templates using the old style. Do we want those changed to the new style? If so, I can do that. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

They are being changed gradually and they will all eventually be changed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Is there a reason for the gradual change? This is something I can do on WxBot if we want to get it done. Inks.LWC (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ideally we would change them all at the same time but we have to be careful with how we change them since we dotn need the storm inital paramater anymore and need to introduce a map paramater. Jason Rees (talk)15:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The map parameter is a non-issue, I can do that with some changing to the coding. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Id rather see some changes to the coding so that we can see the scales rather than messing about with coding for the track maps.Jason Rees (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well we can delete the storm initial parameter, and the map is already part of the {{Hurricane season bar}} template (so I don't understand what you mean when you say we need to introduce a map parameter). As well, the "storms" parameter can be deleted from use in the Hurricane season bar section of the template. We can add coding so we can see the scales to the Hurricane season bar, but that will be automatically transcluded into the button bars. At this point, I see no reason why we should have inconsistent button bars within basins. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the coding for 1988-89 SPAC - you will see that i have had to shove in a map paramater and am having to put up with the Aus Scale not showing up - as is the case with other bars outside of the NHC AOR. And yes while we can prob programme AWB to delete the storm initial parameter we have to remember that not all storm initials are A, B, C etc and thus i feel it would be easier to remove by hand rather than automatically removing it via a programme.Jason Rees (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, the SPAC will need the map parameter added, but I thought we had already said we were only going to implement the new bars on the Atlantic and EPAC basins right now. We need to get something that can handle SPAC, but right now, I'm just talking about getting EPAC and Atlantic on the same page. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

As will all o

I've got a rule up and ready that will edit over all of the EPAC and Atlantic templates. I just need the go ahead from the project saying that we're ready for all of these to get moved over. If we're not ready, then we should change all of the templates back to the old style. Either way, there's no reason to have different styles within the same basin. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Lets be clear here, to me the unacceptable thing is to have one style of template for one basin and not another, that is why amongst other reasons i ignored the agreement to do EPAC/ATL first when the basin switcher got added. At the minute what we need to do is too add get the button bars outside of the NHC AOR to recognize the scale that they are using and then we can get the rest of the button bars sorted. Also id rather not see it done automatically unless you have a way of removing the storm intial=A1 stuff without leaving the A1 stuff. Also its worth noting that the map parameter is required on all maps outside of the NHC AOR and nto just in SPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I do have a way of removing the A1 (and A1* and D and anything else for that parameter) as well as the storminitial=. Also, I would've agreed with you that we should've waited until we were ready to launch the whole thing before doing it (apparently I was MIA in that discussion... not sure where I was... I don't remember seeing it), and I don't think there was consensus to go ahead and do it. But what we have right now, quite frankly is absolutely terrible. Whoever went through and started seems to have just picked random templates. There's some from the 1950s that are done, then it skips a few years and then skips a decade... it seems completely arbitrary. So, in my opinion, we either need to get at least entire basins in sync, or we need to revert back to the old template until we're ready for a complete rollout. Like I said, there wasn't consensus before... the "vote" was 5-1, but that was only in 48 hours. Being bold is one thing, but that doesn't mean that we need to half-ass it and implement it on a handful of templates and then just stop. It either needs to be all or nothing. And right now, it'd be a lot easier to revert the dozen or so templates and just wait until we're fully ready to implement it. In the very least, the templates intra-basin need to be consistent, because there's no reason from a technical standpoint that we shouldn't do that. So is that what we want to do? Inks.LWC (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the SPAC and NIO ones are fully done basin wise but just need to find the right coding for the scales - i suspect Aus and SWIO are not to far behind but the biggest problems are the WPAC and ATL due to the shear number of systems we cover and the shear number of button bars we have. If you wish to start going over the ATL and EPAC ones then you have my blessings.Jason Rees (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I did a few recent templates manually until I heard it would be done soon with a bot...three weeks ago. Go right ahead, Inks. It was supposed to have been done already anyways. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Inks, why does it have to be consistent? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Why wouldn't we want consistency? There's not much rhyme or reason to what we're using where. 1955 has the new template; 56-57 switch back to the old; 58 is new; 59-60 is old; 61 is new; 62-89 are old, 90-97 are new... etc. It just looks odd jumping back and forth like that. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed somewhat, but to say it should be reverted if nothing is done, is a very bad idea IMO. Some improvement ins better than none at all. That's like saying we should revert improvements to an article because it's not as good as similar articles. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

I got everything going (it took a bit longer to start up than I initially thought, as I had forgotten that we needed to add the storm parameter to the {{Hurricane season bar}} and delete the closing set of brackets from the old bar start template, and that rule was a lot more complicated than I thought it would be), but then I came across a problem in the new bar template. The if statements exist in a way that if there is a png and jpg version of the file, the template includes both of them. I've got a sandbox version up that we can work on: User:Inks.LWC/Template:Sandbox and being tested User:Inks.LWC/Sandbox6. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It figures right after I post this, I get it to work :P (I swore I already tried this version too)... I think I have a working version up at User:Inks.LWC/Template:Sandbox, tested at User:Inks.LWC/Sandbox6. If someone wants to double check my brackets, it'd be appreciated, but everything looks good to me. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

We have a new problem. Template:Hurricane status small is not configured to handle parameter input of "depression", which was fine with the old templates, because we had the storm initial parameter to allow for text to manually be added in. Now without that, we're missing text for anything labeled "depression". Most of the older templates have been switched over to the newer templates, but I had to stop in the 1970s upon realizing this. If anyone has ideas on a remedy, help would be appreciated. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

D is for depression since its used in the NIO i had to include it when typing up the list.Jason Rees (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, so D can't be used as the parameter input for the intensity parameter on the Hurricane season bar/button template, and neither can "depression", as "depression" does not render any text, because it does not have a value in Template:Hurricane status small. Is there a reason that the entre "depression" in the status small template can't be given a value? Inks.LWC (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I dont why you can not just use D to be honest, while yeah its got a slightly lighter bluey colour to it, to reflect that really depressions are Disturbances in the NIO i dont see the problem as we dont want to become to bogged down with code surely?.Jason Rees (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm not nitpicky about colors at all. I just figured that since it was a different color, it was that way for a reason. Why exactly is it that there are some EPAC/Atlantic storms labeled "depression" instead of "Tropical Depression" anyway? Is that just an arbitrary difference that didn't matter when we had the old templates? Because if so, I can just switch those over to being listed as TDs, and that'll solve the problem as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In the EPAC/Atlantic i would guess that it is because the standards were a lot more inclusive but i dont really know and thats a guess.Jason Rees (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I did some digging, and there doesn't seem to be a clear definition of what a "depression" was in terms of being in the button box. In 1973 Atlantic hurricane season#Other storms, some of the depressions are non-tropical, but were identified by NHC. Contrast that with 1979 Atlantic hurricane season#Other storms, and we have some tropical depressions that were labeled depressions, I'm guessing simply since NHC didn't number them. Thoughts? Inks.LWC (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Im not gonna guess but will tell you to ask User:Thegreatdr who should know the answer.Jason Rees (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

OK - thanks! Inks.LWC (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that all of the EPAC and ATL have been sorted can we get the rest of them done?.Jason Rees (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm finished with law school exams now, so I'll get working on it. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How were we going to name the cyclones in basins where they may have multiple names from different agencies? Here's an example (ignore the fact that some of the boxes don't show up yet - that's an easy fix: User:Inks.LWC/Sandbox6. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are only 3 type of examples i can think off: Examples 1 & 2: AUS --> SWIO just add a dash in between the names (eg: Koji-Joni), this will also serve well for systems which were double named for watever reason (eg: Wasa-Arthur or Fiona-Gwenda). Example 3: Take a look at the 2012 PTS buttons for an example of how we generally do it.Jason Rees (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That brings up another issue. I don't know what most people use as their screen resolution (I use 1280 x 800) (is there a way to see the stats for Wikipedia?), but the way we do the bars now, if you dash names or have them in parenthesis, the template goes too wide compared to the rest of the screen. And we can shrink it down by adding the gap template, but where the gap "should" be will vary based on screen resolution. I'm fine with doing the dirty work of writing the template, I just don't want to go against consensus or do major changes without consensus. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe we say that the gap should be plonked in after 10 systems unless their an obvious reason not to (eg 11 systems), that being said though the WPAC will be the one needing the most dashes and brackets as it is getting rarer and rarer for a system to be given a double name (esp after Mauritus agreed not to assign an SWIO name to systems crossing). Anyways if you find soem that are too wide still after converting them shout and then we can take a look at that season and see if we can get the width down somehow.Jason Rees (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

But what is "too wide"? What looks fine to me could be too wide for someone with a 1024 x 768 resolution or an 800 x 600 resolution. Is there any guidance for what to do in situations like this? We can't be the first project to face this problem. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont think there is tbh.Jason Rees (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Remember that even if you have a 1280x800 screen, the browser window will not necessarily cover the full screen. As such, I'd base it around a 800-pixel width, or if that seems too restrictive, 1024 at most. Yes, it looks weird on a 1920x1200 screen, but having such a wide window in a widescreen monitor is a waste of space anyways. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy in Template:Hurricane season bar/button

I wrote this on Titoxd's talk page before realizing he hasn't been on the site in a month: What exactly is the purpose of the type parameter in Template:Hurricane season bar/button? It seems to me that we could just accomplish everything through the use of having more specific parameter entry into the intensity parameter. For the most part, everything is already in place to remove the type parameter; the only thing I'd have to do to make this fully ready to do is go through and replace where the templates use type=storm (to type=TS, for instance). Eliminating the redundancy would make the template buttons a bit cleaner, and would force more consistency in the formatting of the button bars. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm around, just busy off-wiki. Poking my talk page will typically get a reply (unless it's stuff I wouldn't have replied anyways, like bot notifications about the WikiCup). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, now that I have Titoxd's blessing, I'll hopefully work on this tomorrow. It'll make migrating the remaining button bars over much easier, as with the redundancy in there now, I actually have to go and "break" some of the coding to prevent duplicate abbreviations showing up inside the buttons. There may be a brief period during the transition where some of the button bars don't show any abbreviations, but the only way to prevent this would be to create a new dummy template to use in the interim, and I don't expect the "down time" to be that long, so that's just not worth doing. I'll keep the project updated. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've migrated everything over. We now have a single parameter (the intensity parameter) that feeds into Template:Storm colour and Template:Hurricane status small. This means that the type parameter is no longer needed. I've also updated the doc file for Template:Storm colour, and I'll hopefully be making one for the HSS template (although the abbreviations are all of the abbreviations that you currently see in the doc for the SC template. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Standardizing image dimensions and resolutions?

Since regular Terra/Aqua webmaps are available for the 2013 season, maybe we should stick to a standard dimension and resolution for hurricane images? The downside to having inconsistencies in image sizes is that they inaccurately portray the storm sizes relative to others. We could have a Marco-sized storm appear similarly in size to a Ike-sized storm, so to speak. Since the defacto resolution for images is 250m/pixel (highest resolution available), the best image size would be either 5000*5000 or 7500*7500. Of course there can be exceptions for larger storms. On a side note, does anyone know what dimensions fit best in storm infoboxes? - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 20:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this is that when we get storms that are really sheared, we run into problems. I'm not saying that I'm against your proposal, but it's something to keep in mind during the discussion. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a way around the issue of portraying storm sizes relative to others. If you did, either storms like the most recent Marco, Bonnie (2004), and Alberto (2012) look like tiny dots, or storms like Sandy end up being the size of the computer screen. In my opinion, the thumbnail option remains best. However, I do see the benefit of defining an image size standard (Pixels x Pixels) for images submitted to Commons for this project . Thegreatdr (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, but I think the images sizes should be semi-close. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a really big fan of making a "template" for the dimensions of MODIS images. Though yes, storms appear bigger or smaller relative to others than they should be, we don't really run into the problem of incorrectly portraying a storm's size. This is particularly true when tropical cyclones are near land masses. You said that there should be an exception for large storms, but if that was the case we would need an exception for small storms, because they would appear small and the necessary details would not be relayed to the reader at first glance. We also run into another problem since Terra/Aqua passes don't image every portion of the Earth, so making a consistent image size would end up including blank spaces which are otherwise unneeded in an image. Unlike DR, I don't like the idea of making a standard pixel x pixel for uploaded images, due to the aforementioned reasons. As a result, a consistent aspect ratio is not a good idea either. As such, consistent thumb-nailing remains our best option, even if it does not solve the issue of portraying "true" relative sizes. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 01:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, maybe it is best to leave storm images flexible. But I would like to point out something else out. Look at the WikiProject's "General Guidelines" section. "To make uploading and categorization easier, season and storm articles should have consistent types of images and those images should have consistent names." The thing is, compared to other parts of the project, storm images are loosely organized and do not follow any conventional standards. Names vary from |Stormname|Year|.jpg to |Hurricane|Name|at Peak Intensity|IR/Visible|.jpg Some images are oriented north while others are not. Take a look at 2010 Pacific hurricane season. There is only 13 storms yet you've got one of every kind. Agatha, Six-E and Eleven-E stand out as different GOES images. Eight-E orients to the northwest. Half of them got saturated with contrast and color correction. All I'm saying is that there should be some sort of standardization of images to make them more consistent. Or there should be at least a rule of thumb towards images of storms. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 04:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is good to have some variety, it is boring looking at 30 pictures of the same thing and if this got implemented, it could become an issue here. However, I do think this a good idea in theory. As for the General Guidelines section, I really don't think anybody notices them; after all, they are eight years old. I do agree that image titling should be more consistent, but it does not really matter IMO. Like I told TAM earlier, this is not Commons, we are not an image gallery. I'd rather see a landfalling storm get an article than see images be fixed :P YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

IMO I don't like standardizing images in this fashion, mainly because the satellite swaths are not equal with each storm in terms of how much of the storms radius is captured. I instead like to focus more on the color, contrast, and resolution to remain constant in all the images. I'm strongly against having all the images in a square crop ratio. It looks better to have them cropped to a rectangle that loosely follows the golden ratio. We are creating a portrait of the storm essentially. To add to that, if you crop to show only the clouds of a system it makes it difficult to find land markers to identify where the storm is. I like the standardizing of image names which was going on in the earlier years of this project. Example: |Name|Month|Date|Year|UTC|.jpg. In recent years there have been many more users contribute with images and that lead to many variations of image styles and naming. Supportstorm (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

An opportunity for those who like to digitize

There are many government-created maps and government documents out there which remain unscanned. Some are in book form, others in microfilm form, still others in microfiche. As the recent MWL scanning (which is nearly done) has shown, there is significant interest in such information, once it is scanned. Considering my job, you might think I have some type of advantage in regards to this. It is not true. Every state in the Union has a federal repository of government documents, by law. Some of those might have microfilm scanners. It would help wikipedia, and the government as a whole, if like-minded individuals collectively did some scanning. It takes a village. =) I am off the soap box now. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How i wish i could digitalize things, unfortunatly though if i did id run the risk of a hefty bill and being thrown into Jail, so you do have an advantage over me. Thats not to mention that the nearest meterological libary to me is about 200 miles away and located within the UKMO.Jason Rees (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. seems special in this regard. It makes sense that we would allow our government work to be in the public domain, but the UK certainly does not. For documents more than 50 years old though, it is an option. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the U.S.: only works of the Federal Government are in the public domain. There might be states considering public records and/or other public works to be in the PD but aside of Florida I am not aware of. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Formation date

If JTWC analyses a tropical depression formed on 23 September, but RSMC analyses it formed on 24 September. Which should be the formation date for Wikipedia? -- Meow 13:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The standard is to go with the RSMC. BTW, JTWC in the best track usually includes the invest stage. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know JTWC usually does that, but I actually meant the date when JTWC upgraded it to a tropical depression in the northwest Pacific.-- Meow 13:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Even then, we just use the RSMC data. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I dont see why we have to be such a big stickler to RSMC Data since its usually only 12 or so hours.Jason Rees (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the event when it's more than 12 hours off, we should defer to the RSMC, since they're the official agency. If we take JTWC's data, why not HKO, or CMA, or PAGASA? Due to the wide potential for varying dates, I think for the infobox, it should be the RSMC. Granted, if PAGASA upgrades separately from one of the others, that should get a mention in prose since that would be a new name, ditto JTWC (which would give it a classification). Infobox though, let's keep it simple by what's in the BT/RSMC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Storm tracks

FYI Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 12 has several storm tracks up for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Those seem to be fake tracks from the 2006 Atlantic season. They are not being used and I have no clue why someone would upload fake images anyway. United States Man (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

1999 Odisha cyclone

I'm trying to clean up some things in a German WP article about shipping disasters atm. That article claims unsourced that a storm on 28/29 October 1999 destroyed about 50 ships in the harbor of Paradip. That should be the 1999 Odisha cyclone, according to the article also known as Paradwip cyclone, though it appears that Paradwip is a tippo. Does anyone have further information on this?

Further, shouldn't 1999 Odisha cyclone moved to 1999 Orissa cyclone since the name as changed officially from Orissa to Odisha in 2011 only? --Matthiasb (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the Paradip part. As far as the name, we recognize retroactive name changes (hence why we use 1931 Belize hurricane despite it being British Honduras at the time). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion for timeline articles

Looking through some timeline articles, a thought struck me. I could not fully comprehend the continuity of the season, since the images that were listed was simply an alternation between storm images, tracks and rainfall totals. Would it not make much more sense to feature satellite images of the entire basin, frame by frame? Perhaps it would symbolize the important intervals of the season based on time, not storm. After all, we have a separate article documenting each storm, right? We could go by frequent intervals as the season picks up and have interludes that fill between as the season paces down. This would provide the reader a much more keen sense of time, as opposed by storm. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 05:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, if applicable. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

THE issue

If the object is only an acronym of an agency, ‘the’ will not be really necessary. It is quite official and widely used throughout all meteorological agencies.

http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Background/history.html http://www.usno.navy.mil/JTWC/frequently-asked-questions-1/frequently-asked-questions

If there are objects after an acronym of an agency, we must put ‘the’. -- Meow 03:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, a sentence would flow better with "The" (The JMA issued vs. JMA issued; The NHC issued vs. NHC issued). United States Man (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Acronyms are meant as short-hand to frequently used phrases, not as a replacement word. They're read as if the phrase is still there. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the JTWC and the JMA and the BoM but dont agree with the PAGASA since PAGASA flows a lot better and is a word unlike the BoM etc.Jason Rees (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What JR said. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you guys decide to ignore what the World Meteorological Organization uses, keep adding ‘the’.[1] -- Meow 05:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Meow - We use whats gramatically correct and not whatever you think is accurate based on any source you find that reckons its just JMA rather than the JMA. Also Meow the WMO does use the JMA at times i suspect the differences creep in when converting from Japanese Jason Rees (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I checked the file you linked. Yes, we can see ‘the JMA’, but the object is not ‘the JMA’ alone—it is ‘the JMA something’. You could still find that they actually use JMA in the document. -- Meow 19:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, it is grammatically incorrect to not have "the" before acronyms if they are not pronounceable, such as the JMA, the JTWC, and the NHC. Acronyms that are pronounceable, such as PAGASA can be used without "the". Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is also not correct to say National Hurricane Center or Japan Meteorological Association without "the". United States Man (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. When referring to them, it's best to put "the" in front of them. "On June 17, the National Hurricane Center classified..." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what I said. Maybe it wasn't clear enough. United States Man (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Hink's a little late to the party :P Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops o.O --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Tropical storm dabhats

I was just looking for information on Tropical Storm Barry via Google and the top Wikipedia result was our article for the 2007 storm, which had no dabhat. I went ahead and added dabhats to all of the Barry tropical storms with standalone articles, and also did so for the Andrea subtropical storm. I've never done dabhats for hurricanes, but I used the verbiage from the dab at Hurricane Katrina. I'm not sure if there's a general style or any guidelines on this beyond what's mentioned at the template's page, but I just wanted to post here in case I do any more in the future (or in case I did the last few wrong). user:j (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixing Template:Infobox hurricane season

Can someone with template knowledge fix this? Currently, when clicking "Atlantic hurricane seasons" in the hurricane season article, it redirects to "Atlantic hurricane", with no links to the hurricane season article in sight. I'm aware this could bring up a bigger discussion on the article location for the various basin's season lists, but for now, could it be fixed for the template? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It links to Atlantic hurricane climatology#Climatology for me. What exactly is it that you want it to link to? Inks.LWC (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Atlantic hurricane season. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Since it links to a redirect anyways, I just switched Atlantic hurricane climatology to point to Atlantic hurricane season. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong Typhoon of 1906

Hong Kong Typhoon of 1906 may need extensive rewriting, and may have been translated from the chinese wp. im not a participant of this project, but it seems like an important event to get right. i added images and categories, and rewrote the lede which was still in chinese.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. It's close to a plagiarized article, but is still appropriate. It's essentially a rehash of the report The Calamitous Typhoon at Hong Kong (the give-away is all the section headers are the same). It needs a total overhaul... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Track map sources

Following from a discussion at Supportstorm's talk page, I noticed that the tracks for some storms are being generated using invest files, as opposed to running best track files. (Btw, the newer versions of the track map generator handle ATCF and HURDAT v2 formats, for those who are interested.) Still, should we prefer best track files to invest files? Do we pick the ones with the longest track, even if the RSMC is just tracking a naked swirl? Different editors are using different criteria, and it might be a good idea to reach some sort of common standard. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we should include the invest stage. The tracks should just be of when they're a TD+ (in the case of Atlantic, include the HPC points). A long track isn't necessarily ideal, particularly if the invest stage was a long time but it was only a TD for a short amount of time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well as I see it, some storms have had exceptional impacts while not being tropical or above tropical depression in intensity. We should convey the storms history in the tracks as well as in the article. What I don't get is why we want to exclude this stage of the storms development since it is still technically the same system and is very much important in understanding the complete history of each cyclone. Another problem is the sources that are used, especially in the West Pacific, and the fact that each storm can have up to six or seven tracks from different agencies and some very in quality that are sometimes more complete than the RSMC. Like the CMA is better at tracking storms in that basin than the JTWC, yet the JMA usually has a more complete track of the extra-tropical stage of a storm, and that the HKO was the only agency to provide 10-min winds before the JMA became the RSMC in that basin. A controversial way of remedying this is to use IBTrACS which has merged the coordinates of each agency into one track that favors a smoother transition of the storm's motion and is not bias to one agency unless there is only one tracking it. In the Southern Hemisphere, I've notice that in the earlier years, 1960-1980's, there are little to no wind eliminates for the cyclones. Mr. Neumann, a professional meteorologist, has worked on giving wind estimates for storms using RSMC data as well as the JTWC data. In turn his tracks are the most complete in terms of providing wind estimates that the RSMC neglected to include in there best track database. So again would we favor the database with wind estimates that were not include by the RSMC or one with none at all. This doesn't mean that we can take the source from anywhere that provides it, but since both NOAA and WMO have supported the IBTrACS project as an "official archiving and distribution resource for tropical cyclone best track data", I feel like any source from it can be used to substitute incomplete tracks. Supportstorm (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with using IBTraCS data for storm tracks, but if we do so, we need to maintain source integrity by citing the source somewhere—i.e. in the individual storm track image descriptions. We have {{WPTC track map}} in Commons; if it needs any modifications to correctly handle IBTraCS, let me know. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If you feel it's necessary go ahead, but it's not going to have much use until the track generator can read IBTrACS format. That or until it can be converted. Supportstorm (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am still slightly confused about what exactly we want to get from IBTrACS; I got the impression on your talk page that we would obtain the position data from the IBTrACS data, and winds data from somewhere else; that is likely not possible to do in the foreseeable future, at least without a full rewrite of the track map generator. I can parse an IBTrACS parser, but it would use the wind speeds that are listed in the IBTrACS file. (That said, I could be totally misunderstanding the IBTrACS format, or what you want to do with it, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Moratorium of current storm articles

Hi all,

Looking at the edit history of Hurricane Cosme (2013), I see that we're back to the old antics of trying to be the first ones to create an article, just to merge it after a few hours. As such, I would like to propose a moratorium on current storm articles, primarily for the basins covered by RSMC Miami (since they seem to be the ones with the most split/merge activity). In particular, I would recommend:

1. Do not create a mainspace article for a currently active named storm unless at least two of the following occur:
   • The storm makes landfall, or has a cone of doom that sends it over populated areas;
   • The storm has caused considerable damage (relative to other storms that have impacted the affected region);
   • The storm is covered by multiple reliable sources, outside of the RSMC/TCWC and news releases that only regurgitate the warning center's information;
   • The section of the storm in the season article is overwhelmingly larger than other storm summary sections for the same season.

The moratorium would be in place until the tropical cyclone report (or equivalent) for the storm is released.

The main reason behind this is to avoid pointless revert wars worthy of WP:LAME. What does everyone else think? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Largely agreed. It's specific enough to provide some ground rules, but isn't so specific that it violates WP:CREEP. The bit about "populated areas" should be clarified to be a major city or such, though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh, then we start arguing which seaside communities are "major cities", though. Does a storm have to damage Guaymas to trigger article creation, or is Bahía Kino enough? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

True, all of them work together well enough so the obvious choices are still fine, and it limits the marginal storms like Cosme. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this moratorium.--12george1 (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I have one small concern, but I think it's best waiting till the time comes. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. Good proposal. United States Man (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support more bolding before support proposal. Aside from that, WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply nicely. Charmlet (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No complaints from me. My only concern is that users outside the project wont give a damn what we say here. IPs usually just go and do whatever so we'll likely still see these articles pop up, especially in the Atlantic basin (like we do every year). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is worth a shot. We already have that issue, so I doubt we'll be any worse off. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I had this concern as well. But it is still a good proposal. United States Man (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we go ahead and add it as an edit notice to the current seasons? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It can't hurt, but Cyclonebiskit hit it right on the head. United States Man (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but for the EPAC one mention that is applies to RMSC Honolulu to prevent smartallecs when the next Tropical Storm Kika forms. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I'm late to the party (and now I'll just look lame if I try to make a Nixon joke in response to Hink's mentioning of WP:CREEP), but I support this. Although, like Cyclonbiskit said, the effectiveness of the moratorium may be less than we hope. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think "considerable damage" should be clearer. Does it have to be widespread devastation (like Jimena) or just Barbara-like impact? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I tried to do like proposed in the German WP for years and what happens are article starts like [2] or Sandy. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • With regards to Yasi, that could be a problem. Typhoon Durian comes to mind. Perhaps the proposal should only be for NHC/CPaC? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I am opposed to this in the NIO/SHEM. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Just to throw in my two cents, Hink's proposal sounds good to me. United States Man (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support – I've argued this for years. (I support both Tito and Hink's proposals.)Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 21:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I created editnotices for the 2013 AHS and PHS pages (those seem to be the only basins where this problem is manifested). Check it out: Template:Editnotices/Page/2013 Pacific hurricane season (same for Atlantic). Anybody can take a crack at improving the wording, but I think it works for now. Juliancolton (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviations for South Pacific

It appears that several South Pacific cyclone articles have this phrase - "Fiji Meteorological Service's Nadi Tropical Cyclone Warning Center (TCWC Nadi)" in it. This came up in a good article nominee discussion, so I thought I'd extend it to the project as a whole. I argued that, since Fiji Meteorological Service has been around since at least 1985 (per its article), and it's essentially akin to the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), that the abbreviation should be FMS. It's nice and simple, similar to NHC and JMA. User:Jason Rees disagrees, but I'll let him argue it here (if he wishes).

Mostly, we should have some sort of standard there (and this discussion only affects the south Pacific). Any thoughts? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just use FMS. Why should we use TCWC Nadi other than it flows better? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to use TCWC Nadi and RSMC Nadi because it flows better and sounds better when reading articles out loud to oneself IMO while i know Hurricanehink and YellowEvan unsurprisingly have their objections id like to remind them that we dont always do things to be concise. I would also like to remind people that just because one basin has one set of rules it doesnt mean that we have to plant them on to another basin which has been coping just fine with using TCWC Nadi RSMC Nadi and TCWC Wellington. Also just to bat away the conciseness argument even further i would like to point out that uising FMS on its own is ungramatical and requires a "The" which thus brings it up to 6 characters so thus im sure 2 extra characters really isnt worth tipping the apple cart over.Jason Rees (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding "the" isn't really a problem. I would go with FMS. United States Man (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"The" is not the issue nor is conciseness really. Just becuase something flows better and sounds better does not make it a better argument/ FMS instead of RMSC Nadi. FMS get plenty of results compared to RMSC Nadi. RMSC Nadi is called FMS according to its website. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The number of Google hits something gets doesnt really make a good argument either though, since it doesnt really include reports that not available to read online including hits from news archives and the Global Tropical Cyclone Atlas.Jason Rees (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yea, but if it's a project consensus to use FMS, we should do that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I don't why we should use TCWC Nadi in one basin and MFR in another. I do not see the advantage in using "TCWC Nadi". As for the sounding of the two terms, I don't think they sound all that great to be honest. And for the record, I've seen news reports (Google News reports do appear in Google results and FTR does not likely help your argument here, JR, all the Google news results I see call it the fiji meteorological service or something like that) and the Global Tropical Cyclone Atlas in Google searches before; I imagine deep down in the google search, it is in there. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There are sources around that use TCWC Nadi, but i would like to point out that comparing Google Hits of TCWC Nadi and FMS is useless since you are being biased and including all results from after TCWC Nadi was made an RSMC within the FMS results. Also since you wish to go down the line of what we use in one basin against what we do in another - we use TCWC Jakarta to describe that warning center since the Badan Meteorologi Klimatologi dan Geofisika or the Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics. We also use TCWC Port Moresby rather than the Papua New Guinea National Weather Service and TCWC Wellington rather than the Meteorological Service of New Zealand or the New Zealand Meteorological Service.Jason Rees (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

So JR, basically your argument is that you prefer TCWC Nadi for linguistic purposes, while I prefer FMS, since it's akin to NHC and JMA. Is that correct? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep.Jason Rees (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, a project consensus would definitely be the way to go then. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone other than JR still opposed to using FMS? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

FMS seems better to me, but I really don't have strong feelings either way. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed if I change all of the uses of TCWC Nadi to FMS? Since it appears we have a consensus here. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

While I do have to concede that "RSMC/TCWC Nadi" sounds somewhat more glamorous than FMS, there's really no other reason to not use FMS. Consistency is important. Juliancolton (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Image galleries?

When looking at the Japanese Wiki, I noticed they use galleries a lot for TCs so I started wondering if we could implement them in a useful manner within the met history of our own articles. Normally we can fit one or two images in there and that's about it. But if we use a gallery at the bottom of the section, maybe we could start doing something like daily satellite images to give a visual representation of the storm's development and that can back up what is represented within the text.

(For Tito's sake these are his comments already)

"Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject."

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Rather than galleries it might be an idea for us to start using the HURSAT Movies?Jason Rees (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I like JR's idea, but the downside is that they're not up to date. Galleries could work for more recent articles, or longer-lived storms. Keep in mind, for either way, that a large portion of viewers are mobile users. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't see why we should have galleries? There is no need to clutter an article with images. Most EPAC storms look the same, so, an image galley for all the storms that have article in the 2012 PHS would be pointless. However, I sorta like the HURSAT movie idea. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I have found a fresh link which allows us to get movies up till 2008, however i would like to remind people that we could always make them ourselves using data from NCDC etc.Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I wanna see how this HURSAT movie idea looks on a wiki article before I become convinced we should have it in our articles. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I have my back alleyways to get high quality imagery. I can get animated GOES gif loops/videos for all the recent storms. I think they might serve a more encyclopedic value rather than a straight up MODIS gallery, which is what Commons is for. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 04:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I've got high quality animations for Tropical Storms Andrea and Barry if you want to give it a test. Supportstorm (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
              • I like that animation but I'm not a big fan of NRL imagery. I think it would look better if it used data from class.noaa which can customize the size and resolution for imagery, not mentioning being colored. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 08:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
                • You realize how long it would take to submit the order for the data, download the heap of data, then process it in McIDAS to assemble the animation? I can't order a simple AVHRR image without it taking a day for them to deliver. Supportstorm (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
                  • Given how the satellite loops aren't really that necessary, I would rather, if we do this, do whatever is easiest for whoever is making the videos. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
                    • Sorry if I confused you, but I was referring to the gallery, not the animation. AVHRR imagery tends to be higher in quality than GOES imagery, as most polar orbiters are (hence its name "Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer"). MODIS isn't always available in many intervals of the day unlike the AVHRR, which has much more orbital periods compared to VIIRS. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 21:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not a fan of galleries. As others have mentioned, an animated gif can take the place of a gallery, if need be. No reason to degrade an article's format just to add more images into it. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Circle use as a TD symbol

Something NHC has been doing since Dorian has come up as a curiosity during August at work, including NHC itself. Does anyone know, or has run across, when or why circles began to be used as symbols for tropical depressions? While NMC/HPC/WPC has never used it, I used them on my hurricane tracking charts from the age of 10 (early 1980s), ATCF has used it since the early 1990s, and NHC's TAFB used to use it on their surface analyses around the year 2000. It's a curiosity which could find a home on a few of the project's articles. I've posted it on my facebook wall and sent some targeted e-mails, just in case someone there knows. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you got your answer or not, so I'm responding. Late..yes...but better late than never. :) From what I've seen Eric Blake say to others, it serves no significance other than the fact that it's supposed to represent a tropical cyclone with no spiral banding. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

New article on ATCF

...located here. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Alternate Names for Hurricane Sandy at Talk:Hurricane Sandy

There is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Hurricane Sandy about the placement of alternate names for Hurricane Sandy in the article's lead. Since the article concerns this project, I figured I would post this here to inform everyone. All views on the issue are welcome, and I would encourage those interested to participate in the discussion. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was recently closed by me, but has since reopened. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Damage

Does "total damage" include economic losses? Insurance losses? I don't think this issue has been 100% clear over the years, I've been told form different people different things. I think we all agree that property and crop damage should be part of total damage. Also, does "officials estimated it would cost [X] million to repair the damage from the storm" count as total damage? I say no, for instance, the government could be leaving certain damage unrepairable, so it may IMO not be best to consider that the "total damage". Thoughts? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No. For Effects of Hurricane Mitch in Honduras, I had a breakdown of economic and total damage. The infobox was only what the actual damage was. Sometimes, if we don't have a breakdown, then we just include whatever the best damage total was. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Hurricane Season

i have been wondering about possibly including the coding for Template:TC Decades in with the paramater 5 seasons= on Template:Infobox hurricane season. In brief the coding for Template:TC Decades allows us to deploy the template, by just simply typing in the following coding {{TC Decades|Year=2010|basin=South Pacific|type=cyclone|shem=yes}} or {{TC Decades|Year=2010|basin=Atlantic|type=hurricane}}. Obviously while it gives links to the ten seasons of that decade, i am pretty certain we could work the coding out so that only the five seasons (current +2 either side) could be deployed in infobox hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow. That would've saved so much time when I've gone on season article sprees. And since many non-NHC basins still have more season articles that could be created, there would be benefit in seeing if this works. My only concern is the first and last year of a decade, which only has the one prior/after. Of course, we could have a discussion as to whether we need the two seasons forward and back in the infobox (I'd bring favor of getting rid of the 2nd year, as it adds a bit too much all at once). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I could see us going down to one season either side as i dont see the need to go 2 years back/forth.Jason Rees (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this should be implemented then. First, I'd say make it optional, so that way we don't have to replace every single infobox. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding extratropical date to infobox

So, there's been a general trend to indicate the dissipation date as one thing, and put in <small>([[extratropical cyclone|extratropical after [Date]</small>. I figure, can we just add something like

extratropical = 

And that would add that coding in? This way, it's less coding to worry about. We'd keep the dissipation date as when the circulation officially dissipated, especially since some storms have significant ET histories, but this way we indicate when it was no longer tropical, which we are doing anyway. Don't think this will be controversial, mostly wondering if anyone knows how to add it in. Thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This will be a very big help to boxes for storms like Sandy, as you said. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about that type of coding, so I can't add it in. United States Man (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I added an Extratropical= parameter to infobox hurricane. Just add the parameter and a date to the infobox, and it should work nicely. Cheers, LittleMountain5 22:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I love it!! Thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Equatorial tropical cyclones for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Equatorial tropical cyclones is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Equatorial tropical cyclones until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Standard format for alternate names for northwestern Pacific tropical cyclones

I think that a standard should be set for the display of alternate names and designations for Pacific typhoons. In the past, the standard was to include the international designation, JTWC designation, and if possible, the PAGASA designation in a text-string in closed parenthesis in the lead sentence.

Example (text-string version)

Typhoon (Name) (international designation: xxxx, JTWC designation: XXW, PAGASA name: Name)

However, more recently, it has been pointed out that JTWC and international designations are not truly common names and only can be found in meteorological databases and season summaries, and rarely in the news, if not at all. Despite its implementation in years past, there has still been back and forth edits in regards to whether or not to include these alternate designations, most recently on Typhoon Haiyan. The JMA/PAGASA names-only version is as follows -

Example (JMA/PAGASA only)

Typhoon (Name) (known in the Philippines as Typhoon (Name))

As mentioned previously, I think that a standard format should be set from now on as to what the guideline for display of alternate names and designations for northwestern Pacific tropical cyclones. This may also apply to some storm articles in the southwestern Pacific, which in some cases has articles with RSMC Nadi and JTWC designations in the text-string format (e.g. Cyclone Jasmine), and perhaps other basins. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Maintaining my stance on JMA/PAGASA names, not numbers, only. Using the numbers is quite pointless when we have a common name available. Additionally, it would be akin to having "Hurricane Ingrid (NHC Identification: 10L)" in the Atlantic articles. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with cutting numbers. I've only done it out of consistency. A number is not a name. Perhaps so the info is listed somewhere, the number should be listed in the infobox where we list the name. For example, Hurricane Katrina's would say Hurricane Katrina (12L) or something. The number is something that should be included for historical purposes (and should only be the official number, not the JTWC numbering), but the first sentence of the lede isn't the place. I like the formatting TAM proposed for the Philippines, that works well. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Goals for 2014?

Project Goals for 2014

Area of Interest	Current standing	Goal
Good Articles	739	1,000
Average worldwide ω	3.14	<3.00
Average ω/basin	±.25	<4.00
Average ω: ATL post-1950	2.07	<2.00
ATL post-1950 to GA	44	63
Good/Featured Topics per Basin	33 total	???
Added by TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Just thinking, should we set any project goals for 2014? Put something in writing to help us along? Some ideas include:

• 1,000 GA's (currently at 739)
• Dropping the Wikiwork for worldwide storms and seasons below 3.00 (228 WW points left)
• Getting all basins below 4.00 Wikiwork (36 WW points left)
• Getting Atlantic Wikiwork from 1950 to present below 2.00 (34 WW points left)
• Getting all Atlantic seasons since 1950 to GA status (44/63 right now)
• Adding X number of topics to each basin worldwide?

It could be fun having some official goal for 2014, something to work to. Any thoughts? :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think some of these are reasonable goals. That first goal (1,000 GAs) is going to be a toughie to reach by the end of 2014, but I think it's quite possible if everyone puts their highest amount of input into the project. The second goal (-3.00 worldwide WikiWork) seems more achievable, but would also require a lot of input into our start- and stub-class articles. So far in 2013 worldwide average WikiWork dropped by approximately 0.135 points. Getting all basins below 4.00 seems to be one of the easiest of these goals – excluding the south Atlantic the WPAC, NIO, and AUS are within 0.25 average WikiWork points from getting below 4.00. Atlantic WikiWork 1950-present below 2.00 doesn't seem difficult either. In January 2013 that WikiWork average dropped by 0.15 points, right now it's at 2.07. All Atlantic seasons since 1950 to GA status is not a very far-fetched goal but nonetheless it's a daunting undertaking particularly with the string of start-class season articles in the 60s and 70s. As for number of topics per basin worldwide, not sure how many. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

1,000 GAs by January 1, 2015 requires each of eight editors to successfully nominate between two and four articles each month. That's doable, but it would require us to step up our reviewing game a bit! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see the SPAC, get to the 1969-70 season by the end of 2014 while investigating several of the historically seriously deadly tropical cyclones. If i did get on to my latter topic, i think we would be in for several surprises, especially the 1912 Philippines storm that supposedly killed 15,000.Jason Rees (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should work to eliminate every stub we have, with storms and season articles, anyway. It's a quick and easy way to lower the WW totals and averages, which, of course, will improve our project. I did that with some AUS seasons, which allowed caused the WW totals to decrease past our levels in April (right before the mass stub creations).--12george1 (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)