Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

[[:|WT:TROP
WT:WPTC]]

I just created this wikiproject, after several months of contemplating doing so. I hope everyone working on hurricane articles will get involved. I went ahead and wrote a bunch of guidelines, basically based on current practices...naturally since this is something I just wrote it doesn't necessarily represent community consensus and needs to be discussed. That discussion should probably go here for now...although eventually we may make these pages a little more structured. For a general TODO list, see the "tasks" item on the project page. Jdorje 23:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

Warnings template

I'm putting this here so we can easily copy/paste when we need to put warnings up:

===Warnings and watches===
{{HurricaneWarnings}}
{{seealso|Tropical cyclone warnings and watches}}
As of X p.m. EDT [[June 1]] (2100 UTC), the following warnings and watches were in effect:
*Coastal watches and warnings:
** A '''hurricane warning''' is in effect for:
*** x
** A '''hurricane watch''' is in effect for:
*** x
** A '''tropical storm warning''' is in effect for:
*** x
** A '''tropical storm watch''' is in effect for:
*** x
*Inland watches and warnings:
** x
* See the NHC's [dummylink latest public advisory on Hurricane X]
<div style="clear: both"></div>

Remove the coast/inland part if no inland ones exist. --Golbez 21:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable tropical cyclones, List of Atlantic hurricane seasons, and other pages - a plan

Recently, List of notable tropical cyclones was moved to List of tropical cyclones. The same was done for List of notable Atlantic hurricanes, which was moved to List of Atlantic hurricanes. Personally, I don't think either are a good idea. "Notable" is completely subjective, and by including it in the title it leads to an ill-defined page scope. Omitting the word changes it completely, as it is certainly not a list of every tropical cyclone, nor should it be. Therefore, I propose changing it to become a page of records. This is where it gets interesting.

There is already a page at List of tropical cyclone records, and so the useful information on List of notable tropical cyclones should be merged there. Yes, I am proposing getting rid of the List of notable tropical cyclones page, which has had thousands of edits. The thing is, it's gotten pretty messy, while the List of tropical cyclone records is much neater and better defined.

There is no need to do the same for the Atlantic, however. A while back, there was some talk of revamping the List of Atlantic hurricane seasons page, as it is currently a glorified disambiguation page. The article would still remain as a list of seasons page, but it would also include some of the more important records, like most intense, deadliest, etc. However, its main job is to link each season. Another proposal was to give a sentence of information about each season, like how each storm gets a mention in the List of XXX hurricane pages. There are several options, and it doesn't have to be done at once. List of Atlantic hurricane seasons could be moved to List of Atlantic hurricane records, in the mean time. However, I just wanted to bring this up and talk about it. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analogues to Saffir-Simpson small for other basins

Template:Saffir-Simpson small, when used in an article, displays a compact version of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. There is no particular reason I see for there not being analogues for other basins. These could potentially be useful in past seasons, rather than having a lengthy scale on the side like active ones do. Hence, the following:

JTWC typhoon scale: Pacific typhoon seasons 1959-99

JTWC Typhoon Scale
TD	TS	TY	STY

JMA Typhoon Scale: Pacific typhoon seasons 2000-present

JMA Typhoon Scale
TD	TS	STS	TY

Tropical Cyclone Severity Levels: Australian region tropical cyclones

Tropical Cyclone Severity Categories
1	2	3	4	5

Meteo-France Scale: South-west Indian Ocean tropical cyclone seasons

SW Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale
TD	MTS	ITS	TC	ITC	VITC

IMD Scale: North Indian Ocean tropical cyclone seasons

N Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale
DD	CS	SCS	VSCS	SCS

Here is SSHS for comparison

Saffir–Simpson scale
TD	TS	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5

I made the scales by taking whatever was in Saffir-Simpson small and adjusting the text to fit a new basin. The names are basically "Basin name"+"Tropical Cyclone Scale", although the BOM actually does call its scale "Tropical Cyclone Severity Categories",[1] so I used that name.

The colours I chose are basically scope increases of previously used ones. If there was a level in one basin with the same name as one in another, and one already had a colour, I used the same colour for the new mini-scale. Using this scheme, colours do not match up with wind speeds (like SSHS vs. Australia) The NI colours were ones I saw used previously for a scale in one of the NIO season articles.

There is also the issue of appropriateness. I am not sure how long each current RSMC/namer has been forecasting its basin, so the analogues may be improper because a previous RSMC/namer may not have necessarity used the same scale.

Also, if we do actually make templates for these, we should probably consider the results of the Typhoon colour discussion. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty good idea, although the JTWC uses SSHS and wouldn't need a separate analogue (Category 4 would have to be divided into TY and STY, as well). --Core desat 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look?Mitch32^contribs 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JTWC Typhoon Scale
TD	TS	1	2	3	4	4ST	5

It looks okay, but again, I'm not entirely sure we need it. --Core desat 21:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tampico flood of 1955

Inspired by Dean and its remarkable similarity, I took a look at Hurricane Janet and started filling it out and sourcing things. The information in the MWR alone was enough to make the article tremendously better. In passing I found some references to what I hereby call the Tampico flood of 1955...which is rather remarkable and probably deserves some comment by others. Anyone interested should take a look at Talk:Hurricane_Janet about it. — jdorje (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation calculations

Currently, the template with the data powering the automagic inflation calculations in our infoboxes {{US Inflation}} is based upon consumer price index data. However, NOAA uses the implicit price deflator for construction (see NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-5). I'm looking to see if I can find IPD data, apparently from the DOC. Assuming I find it should I transfer the template to use that? Our figures should correlate better with the NHC ones then (we do have a bit of variation).--Nilf anion (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the best long term solution here - some input would be appreciated. However, I have finally updated the automagic to use 2007 figures. (Sorry for the loooooooow activity of late ;)--Nilf anion (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks to Eric Blake at the NHC I can now have the same data source, but due to a revision in the DOC data since TPC-5 was published the figures no longer correlate exactly. (The effect is our figures for pre-2005 storms will be higher than theirs). I'll look into how to dovetail it with the CPI for the older figures, the IPD runs out in 1915.--Nilf anion (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Estimated" central pressures

Over the last couple days I noticed a number of places claiming central pressures for certain storms were "estimates". One such place was fixed here. Another is in 1932_Bahamas_Hurricane. Using this term is in most cases flat-out wrong and in all cases misleading. Most places it was used in (in the retired storms list) involves not actual estimates but rather the lowest *recorded* pressure, with the understanding that that pressure doesn't come from the storm's peak strength; calling this an estimate is simply incorrect. Actual examples of estimated pressure include Hurricane Wilma and Hurricane Rita where the NHC made an educated guess as to what the minimum pressure actually was. I replaced the "(estimated)" in the retired storms list with ≤ which may also be misleading since it could apply to a very large number of storms (1935 Labor Day Hurricane, for instance, should also have a ≤ by the same logic). In the case of the Bahamas storm the value is unsourced so I don't know where the "estimated" term comes from. However in general, it's important to realize that MOST if not all modern-day pressures are estimated, even for the Atlantic, and certainly for other basins (*cough* dvorak *cough*). — jdorje (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point you bring up; modern storms are more "estimated" than the older storms. Having the ≤ works well for this purpose, as if we find a lower value (always possible, there are tons of archives that we haven't used), it can always be added without dispute. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question is: What does the source say? If its like Rita then may be an estimate, but it is an estimate of the peak so = not ≤ should be used. If the source does not say "this is the peak", then we shouldn't treat it as such. Ultimately all peak pressures are estimates, whether they are based on Dvorak, dropsonde, recon or ground measurements; so saying it is an estimate is superfluous.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes. All pressures are either estimated or measured directly, and rarely (never?) is the peak pressure measured directly. But by that logic one might apply the ≤ to many older storms that were measured regularly by hurricane - for instance Camille had a 905 mbar recorded, but who's to say that pressure was the peak? Compare to Rita where an 897 mbar was recorded but meteorologists estimated the peak was itself around 895 (IIRC). Even so I'd reserve the ≤ for cases where the data is incomplete; if the source (MWR/TCR) claims a particular peak pressure there's no need for us to go questioning it. — jdorje (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the use of "estimated" and the estimated minimum pressure should only be for older storms when it is sourced, but unofficial when there is no reliable official number available (i.e. no pressure readings or an unrealistic pressure reading taken when much weaker). CrazyC83 15:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions: unnamed/numbered hurricanes

Capitalization

Should the "hurricane"/"cyclone"/"tropical cyclone" be capitalized? I was always of the opinion that it should not. However we do have conflicting standards.

Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane are capitalized. This seems to be the old standard for the Atlantic.
1999 Orissa cyclone and 2000 Sri Lanka cyclone are not capitalizated. This seems to be a standard for the North Indian basin (see this discussion).
The track maps use uncapitalized names by default. This is mostly representative of me thinking such things shouldn't be capitalized.

— jdorje (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind if we shifted toward a set standard - Year Location cyclone seems to work well for unnamed storms. That would mean moving Galveston Hurricane of 1900 to 1900 Galveston hurricane, which I am in full support. The primary reason I would like the switch is for categorization purposes - currently the Galveston hurricane shows up in G, while the 1928 Okeechobee shows up with the other numbered ones. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue doesn't really affect category sorting - unnamed storms are in most cases manually sorted by *, and this has to be done manually for both of the current standards. See here where I just fixed the galveston sorting. — jdorje (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on the sources we have, IMO. If a source gives the hurricane a proper name (e.g. "The 1900 Galveston Hurricane"), then I say we go by the source. Otherwise, we go by the default "YYYY Location storm" titles we use. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how does that logic apply to the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane? Most sources call it the "Lake Okeechobee Hurricane". However I don't in principle have a problem with what you say, or even with having either way be acceptable. — jdorje (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could move that one to Lake Okeechobee Hurricane, if there are sources calling the article that way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. I think it is referenced more as Lake Okeechobee hurricane than Okeechobee hurricane. I like the idea of using names, even if unofficial, for storms before 1950, as long as the appropriate reference is cited. Why not, let's start the article names with the year. Thegreatdr 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers versus locations

In the north indian, some storms go by the number while others go by location. There have been discussions on each storm about which it should be. Is this something that should be standardized or decided case-by-case? — jdorje (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear...

Hi. Apparently User:Alastor Moody left a goodbye message on talkpage. User:Chacor left a retirement message on both userpage and talkpage. What should be done, if anything, to the list of participants pages? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had an idea once to create an inactive members section, which I liked. How about using six months of inactivity as the standard? If they left a good bye or became a retiree, then they should be considered former members of the project, as was done in their cases. Thegreatdr 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More assessments

I updated the WikiProject assessment charts, which I originally posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 9. Here they are:

Total assessments
FAs v. total articles
As v. total articles
GAs v. total articles
Bs v. total articles
Starts v. total articles
Stubs v. total articles
Unassessed v. total articles

Some comments about trends in the last six months:

FA production has completely stalled. We had a four-month stretch in which no article or list gained featured status.
GA production also slowed down. We are making a GA in the time it would take us to make two just a year ago.
The number of GA-Class articles is closely approaching the number of B-Class articles. If an additional ten pages are sent to WP:GAC, we should be able to have more GAs than B's in less than a month.
The number of Start-Class articles leveled off for a bit, and now is increasing again, albeit slightly.
The number of Stub-Class articles is constant. It hasn't moved away from the 150-160 range since June 2006.

Overall, some new FACs shouldn't hurt, nor should GACs. Also, reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessments should be a good thing. How can that page be modified to encourage participation? How can we recruit more users/reviewers? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good assessment as always. Your last comment seems to be the biggest issue. We lost some key members, and thus our production had dropped quite a it. One idea is to harness the activity on the talk pages, which is admittedly dwindling as the seasons are slowing. Perhaps one solution would be to send a notice to our members. Though a lot may be inactive, if we ask them in the right way, maybe we can get them editing and writing. After all, we have 91 "members" in the WPTC, of which maybe 5 to 10 are editing right now. Something is not right.... Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USRD recently did a cleanup of participants saying to either update their status, or they will be removed. Think we should do the same?Mitch32^contribs 11:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tied into the GAC for wind shear right now. My editing has dropped off due to work and home considerations, and embracing of a new, more tolerant, way of dealing with other editors. I think I'm past the 6th step of the 12 in my recovery. =) Once I'm done with that GAC, let me know which article you all think needs the biggest improvement. Do we still have a collaboration of the fortnight/month? Thegreatdr 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that thing never really got off the ground. I'm working on Hurricane Charley right now, and I'll be done with a major copyedit by hopefully tonight. A fact check and an expansion of the aftermath section would be really helpful... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name treatment re: likely retirees

During Dean and Felix, there was considerable debate due to the lack of a real standard regarding how to treat storms likely to be retired. In the past (up to 2005), it was up to us to make a guess using past precedent and move the page to the main article when we thought it was warranted. (It backfired for Emily, which we had to move back). In 2006, with the Pacific typhoons, we just left them with (2006) until they were officially retired or the retirement case was officially made. That seems to be how we treated Dean and Felix, but with no real Atlantic precedent for such.

Should we adopt an official standard? My opinion is that we follow the current precedent: All storms, no matter how bad, should have (year) added to them until either they are officially retired or (at least) the retirement case is made. However, the main article should point to that page as a redirect if so desired (especially for obvious cases like Katrina). Subarticles, if any, should not require a year modifier though. CrazyC83 16:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Thegreatdr 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That also creates a policy that works well in all basins, since the retirement criteria can be different. Of course, it will be difficult to deal with if there is another Katrina-like storm, but I think consistency is best. CrazyC83 02:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair, having (practically) all storms with the year with an optional main page redirect to there (having Dean 07 with Dean redirecting there). Emily is a good reason why we should do that. Perhaps there could be an upper cutoff for the "obvious retirees", something like if first insured estimates are over $10 billion or if deaths are over 500, then it could get the main article. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, agreed, but we should consider the case of the South-West Indian Ocean and North Indian Ocean. The RSMCs in question do not retire names at all - names are used once only. - SpLo T // 04:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those haven't used and will not need the year dab. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pointless discussion. We do not need to and should not codify things like this. We cannot make an official standard in any case; that is a contradiction in terms. A pagemove is cheap in any case, so if we make a "bad guess" it can be sorted. One thing to not do: If [[Example]] redirects to [[Example (1994)]], all the advantages and disadvantages of having a primary topic already apply. Therefore the redirect should be reversed.--Nilf anion (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only fuel behind this discussion is such that we will not debate the same issues again - only on tens of individual articles. - SpLo T // 10:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this means is we have to have the same discussion on a dozen articles explaining why we have adopted this method. If we got a storm that made Katrina look insignificant, a policy like this would result in: move warring, pointless debates and ultimately page protection. This is because we will always have people who will want to follow rules to the letter and other people who have a rare commodity online "common sense".--Nilf anion (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, from time to time I am caring on hurricane articles in the German WP. I made a picture for a better differenciation of strike, direct hit, indirect hit and landfall of a hurricane (see on far right). Did I understand correctly how the NHC is defining those items in its glossary. In my example, r means the radius of maximum winds and the hurricane is striking on all three islands (A, B, and C), while the islands A and B are directly hitten and the island C maybe indirect, depending on the surge or wind strength in that area. Only island B has experienced a landfall. Please corrct me if I made an error. Thanks. --Matthiasb-DE 11:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically that is correct. A = direct hit (not landfall), B = landfall, C = indirect hit/strike. An example for case A was Hurricane Ophelia in 2005 in North Carolina (northwest eyewall hit the Outer Banks but the eye center remained over water). An example for case C was Hurricane Rita in southern Florida and Cuba. (The "impact" area often goes far beyond that diagram as it also includes the areas impacted by tropical storm-force winds, as well as heavy rain, surf or tornadoes beyond the wind radius.) CrazyC83 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation and hatnotes

The style of TC dabs is very different from the MOSDAB and ignores a lot of the guidelines. Furthermore, the usage of hatnotes also goes far far beyond the scope of those guidelines. Please discuss issues relating to the dabs and the use of hatnotes here. As for the other issue that is getting conflated in with this: Are all storms of the same name related to one another? Are all the 19 storms named Alice sufficiently related to each other by virtue of the fact they share the same name, or would we be better off being selective about which of those storms have a connection? IMO, Cyclone Katrina and Hurricane Katrina have as much in common as any arbitrary pairing of tropical cyclones, such as Galveston and Kong-rey (2007).--Nilf anion (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and on a related note there are about 170 incoming links to project dabs that may well need fixing - see User:Nilfanion/Dabs.--Nilf anion (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

List of basic Earth science topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New small template

Currently the de-facto template for the storms in season articles is {{infobox hurricane small}}. This template has a few significant problems suggesting a redesign.

Repetition: it is always used next to a level 3 header with the storm's common name.
Inability to display more than RSMC info; only the SSHS category is shown. This is a particular problem for Australian storms.

I've created a new template using the fundamental layout of {{Infobox Hurricane}} and have an extensive test selection here. Due to the removal of padding around the image, the new template is actually smaller vertically even with two colour bars. It also uses the same parameters and scripting as Infobox Hurricane. The only thing of any substantial value lost is the ability to list all the storm's names in the header; but personally I think it is a change worth making.

Comments?--Nilf anion (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. We can live without not being able to list all the names in the header, and this solves the "single number dilemma" we had with the old template. --Core desat 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather liked the single number in the corner, but meh... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is how to deal with Cyclone Larry?--Nilf anion (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the meh. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Pacific typhoon season#Other storms This section in the typhoon articles is very clumsy. One way to resolve it is to put an optional note indicating where the measurements came from instead of calling it JTWC Tropical Storm Blah. Good kitty (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! While we're migrating we could finally finish deprecating {{storm pics}}. --Ajm⁸¹ 06:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-on: Further hacking at this deprecates {{infobox hurricane current}} too (in season articles), it also automatically switches the correct temp symbol now. I'll hack at {{Infobox Hurricane}} to add in the current functionality for storm articles.--Nilf anion (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NHEM Disimbiguation Page

I Feel That it would be benefical, if we had a disimbiguation page, that Contained Links to the Seasonal Pages on the main pages and all of the Advisories on the Talk Page, as im sure that other Editors do not realise when we have Storms in the Indian ocean and a storm at the same time in the WPAC for example. Also we have a Disimbiguation page for the SHEM storms so why not the NHEM Storms ? Jason Rees 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at our current state.

Article stats

Most of our high-priority ATL retired storms are in bad condition. Examples include: Stan (2005), Rita (2005), Wilma (2005), Lili (2002), Isidore (2002), Iris (2001) and Michelle (2001). Those are just the newer storms though.

The retired ATL storms (1970-1996) are also in bad condition. Some are B-class, but could still use work. Cesar (1996), Fran (1996), Hortense (1996), Opal (1995), Bob (1991), Diana (1990), Gilbert (1988), Elena (1985), Alicia (1983), Frederic (1979) and Agnes (1972) are among the worst.

From 1950 - 1969: King (1950), Edna, Carol and Hazel (1954), All (4) 1955 retired storms, Gracie (1959), Donna (1960), Carla (1961), Hattie (1961), Cleo (1964), Dora (1964), Hilda (1964), and Betsy (1965) are the worst.

Thanks to Hurricanehink, the EPAC is fine with retired.

WPAC: There are too many articles to account for working.

NIO: Good condition, could still use work.

SHEM: Somewhat better than the WPAC, but could use work.

SATL: Catarina, a possible FA, is still at B-class and could be a very good article if done.

Now to the point

We can fix these articles, but we need ideas of how to get a person or group to choose. So far:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclone/Adopt-An-Article - With our Article Requests dead, this may not be a bad idea.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Necessary articles - This could help people choose what articles are needed for high-priority.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Retired storm articles - This would help cleanup and figuring out what's necessary.

So far these are the three I can think of. Let's discuss these ideas and/or come up with more.^Mitch32^contribs 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that the project is inactive as of late. The first idea is like our collaboration, which failed due to lack of interest in cooperating (which has always been a problem). The second would be just a list of higher importance articles, which is already on the WPTC main page, although I think that the top importance list should be expanded to include the "necessary articles". However, the third isn't too bad of an idea. One problem is that, to my knowledge, there are no retired storms in the Indian Ocean (north or south), and it excludes unnamed storms, but I suppose it wouldn't be too big of a problem, since the most notable storms would either be on the highest importance list, or at least mid or high importance (although storms without an article that also weren't retired would be left off the list). Additionally, the Australian and WPAC sections would include several storms that were either just removed or retired for an unknown reason. Come to think of it, figuring out what is necessary could go on the retired storm articles (Atlantic, Pacific, and Worldwide). Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Vital articles. This should be expanded, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere section. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Galveston Hurricane of 1900

Galveston Hurricane of 1900 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Nilf anion (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JMA 2006 annual report

This came and went without fanfare here, but I'm posting this because there are a lot of articles associated with it [2] Good kitty (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPTC wikipedia ad

Does the WPTC have a wikipedia ad? Juliancolton (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're listed in the directory of WikiProjects. I don't think any projects have ads, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen wikipedia-ads for several wikiprojects, mainly state or road wikiproject. Juliancolton (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanes

Is it worth creating articles on all of the tropical storms that have developed? Juliancolton (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that every single tropical cyclone should get an article on their own, but I believe that every single tropical cyclone on record should appear in some sort of a seasonal article. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what about every storm back to 2000, as you have said? Juliancolton (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that should be the goal. Back to 2000 might be doable, but there would be little purpose in devoting significant efforts, just so we have another 20 or so articles on forgettable storms. However, I believe a much more worthwhile goal would be to get every retired hurricane to GA status or better. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so i should just creat articles on storms that did damage. Juliancolton (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, preferably, work on existing articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. My only problem is I a really not that good at improving articles...I don't think. Juliancolton (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for help regarding wind shear article

I would really appreciate someone from this project looking over the wind shear article and seeing if it's ready for GA. The previous reviewer has apparently left it for dead...it's been a nominee since early October and in limbo ever since. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is ready for GA, but that is just my opinion. And aside from that, I still am not quite sure who can and who can't asses articles as GAs or FAs. Juliancolton (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can. There are pages connected to the GAC statement on the top of the talk page to instruct someone on how to pass an article. There aren't that many steps. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I think that Wind Shear is ready for GA, I can just assess it as GA? Juliancolton (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I might have to look at it again. I am starting to think it might not be ready for GA. Well, I will look at it one more time. Juliancolton (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it passes. Juliancolton (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need a PD image for this

Could someone make a version of this map with one of those Blue Marble maps? Also remember to include TCWC Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea (Solomon Sea and Gulf of Papua). Good kitty 18:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought here

I think we should try to get all of the storm articles of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to GA, as most of them are. Then, we could get 2005 atlantic hurricane season to a....What do you call those? Juliancolton (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A featured article? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Julian means featured topic? ---CWY2190^T^C 02:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, a featured topic, that's it. Juliancolton (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that wouldn't be that difficult, as most storms are close, or have achieved already, GA status. However, the ones that lack it (Wilma, Rita, Stan) are not easy to improve. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I know. I can look through them and see what I can do, but I don't know how much that will do. I guess i could nominate them one at a time for the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive but I don't know what that would do either. Juliancolton (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Wilma, Rita, and Stan is that there is so much information to organize. It should probably be done internally, given our experience with the subject matter. Featured topics take a long time, but this is a doable long-term goal. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the List_of_wettest_tropical_cyclones_by_country list page

I just made changes to 11 articles: the current Cuban top 10 rainiest tropical cyclones (including our newest GA article) plus the ST of 1982. If a tropical cyclone went anywhere near any of the countries on the list, it is a good idea to see if there is a relevant rainfall amount on this list that may or may not be within the NHC/JMA/etcetera TCR. This list is very well referenced, in some cases using references from the impacted country's national weather service/weather bureau, which is as good as you can get. Thank you for your time and attention. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder - good idea, and keep up the good work. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hugo

Anyone interested in trying to bring Hurricane Hugo up to FA status? If so, let me know. Remember (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to help. I am sure we can get it to GA soon, and then put it to PR before the end of the month. :P Juliancolton (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will likely require subarticles to get to FA. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Juliancolton (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is the plan.

References in just about every part, especially the storm section, where there isn't even one.
2-3 paragraph lede.
More in-depth history section.
More Info

Lets work on those parts for now, and then we go to the minor details. Get to work. :) Juliancolton (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of category 4 Atlantic hurricanes

Could someone look at List of category 4 Atlantic hurricanes and see if it is B yet. Juliancolton (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the 'unnamed' hurricanes in the table need years mentioned in the table. --Golbez (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What about now? Juliancolton (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone1 retires.

I think it's time for me to retire from the WPTC and Wikipedia. It's been fun guys, and I've enjoyed it. But, I never edit anymore so, bye! Cyclone1(21:21-13-12-2007), see ya at Storm2k. —Preceding comment was added at 21:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll miss you :) Juliancolton (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cya man.^Mitch32^contribs 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Goodbye. Jason Rees (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan

Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Nilf anion (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Refresh

At this point in time there are 87 supposed participants in WP:TC. However in a quick review i conducted nearly three quarters of these no longer edit on this project. At least 10 havnt edited a mainspace article in over 9 months. The rest are editing elsewhere on wiki. what do you all think needs doing? do we do a recall almost and see who wants to come back to this project and get some good articles out again? Seddon69 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I think we should send a message to all of the members to see if they're still interested in the project, and then we could have a place for them to indicate they are still here (perhaps just comment on here). If they don't comment within, say, a month, then they'll be placed on inactive members of the Wikiproject (separate from former members). --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still interested. The wind shear GA continues to tie up the limited time I have nowadays for the project (at least it's related). Hopefully it will earn GA sometime soon and I can return to editing more of the TC articles than I have during the past four or five months. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we should send a message on the users' talk page, and see if they are still interested. Don't send me one of those, I am as active with the project as I ever was. :) Juliancolton (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active users

--Hurricanehink (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--^Mitch32^contribs 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- RattleMan (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Juliancolton (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Seddon69 (talk · contribs)18:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Marco (1996)

Is this article good enough to publish? Juliancolton (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not in its current condition. It needs an overall copy-edit and expansion.^Mitch32^contribs 16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]