Template talk:Infobox tropical cyclone/Archive 1

Automatic Unit Conversion
Note: Just so everyone is aware, the concept of adding automatic unit conversion from metric to imperial has been proposed as a feature request for the wikimedia software. The feature discussion would benefit from participation. Alan.ca 12:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Template:Convert should be implemented. ––Bender235 (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Referencing
This template makes it impossible to add refs to the max winds/min pressure/formation/dissipation etc. Mind changing it to allow that, Nilf? – Chacor 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the inflation values need to be rounded (for example, New England Hurricane of 1938 with Inflation=69 gives a number with far too many significant figures). – Chacor 13:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The references for those facts should be in the prose of the article. I'd treat the infobox like the lead section (ie the facts are not referenced there).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And the 69 is an absurd value for the Inflation parameter. The instructions for that are a bit unclear I apologise, but this is how it works:


 * If Inflated is not defined, do not include an inflated damage figure.
 * If it is defined, include it. The value of the parameter gives the number of decimal places that the number is given to. If the "exact" inflation figure is $12,345,678: Inflated = 0 gives $12 million, =1 gives $12.3 million etc. Likewise if the damage is about $12 billion - Inflated = 0 gives $12 billion.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Inflation
Hi! I'd just like to mention that I've made an enhanced Inflation template and some cool additional ones around it, such as Inflation-fn and Formatprice. And I plan adding a few more, such as a currency conversion one. So, I'd like to suggest you guys change this template here to take advantage of it. This way, US Inflation could be discontinued and updates on inflation rates done to a single template, not two. What do you think? -- alexgieg (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul
editprotected This template is in need of a major overhaul. I strongly believe that it should look much more like common current infoboxes like Template:Infobox Scientist for example. Note the layout, padding, font sizes, etc. If I had thorough understanding of this template, I would overhaul it myself but I think it would best be left to a professional in this area. -- TIM KLOSKE 22:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and an easier update... The template usage should be included on the template page (using includeonly), or be transcluded into the template page. I don't think this type of information should be on the talk page... TIM KLOSKE 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please use editprotected only for specific requests, indicating if possible what exact code you would like to have changed. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Code cleanup
I've done a large amount of work to improve the template codebase which can be found in the sandbox. Highlights:


 * 1) All parameters are fully optional. This is in line with WP:INFOBOX, and means that if someone forgets to fill in an attribute it fails gracefully in all cases.
 * 2) The image code has been improved to fall back to the user's default thumbnail size if an image size is omitted rather than hard-coding 235px. Not only does this better respect user preferences, it also ensures that images which are smaller than 235px are not upscaled (which results in artefacts).
 * 3) The inner table in the wind speed section has been flattened out. Not only does this help to avoid potential browser differences, but it significantly increases the accessibility of that part of the data.
 * 4) The overall size of the template has been significantly reduced. Check the test cases page out for examples.

Depressingly (although sadly predictably), there was a knee-jerk reaction to revert these changes with the unproductive summary "Horribly affects the beauty of the pages". This doesn't explain anything other than personal aesthetic preference, and in light of the still-unanswered section above it would seem that this isn't a consensus position. Comments on the new code are welcome before I re-sync it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you guys are not ready to listen to me, at-least try to make it look more clean. The text and stuff looks more dull! make it better.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "More clean", "more dull" and "better" tell us nothing at all. The changes to the font metrics make it look far more like every other infobox on the encyclopedia, which is an unqualified advantage. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing i would like to see is the box telling us what season it is in extended out so that all seasons ATL EPAC WPAC NIO SWIO AUS and SPAC all fit on one line.Jason Rees (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you mean in in the coloured rows about the image, or elsewhere? Could you add an example to the test cases page? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant where it says the season it is in down the bottom. i have added an example to the test cases page.Jason Rees (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand what you mean. The  row? What is wrong with the way it is presented now, and what change would make it better? From what I can see of your test cases edit you just changed the season to a different one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What i wanted was for the hurricane seasons to show all on one row rather than be split into two like the SWIO, SPAC and Aus seasons are currently.11:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

My main complaints are that the rows' padding is too small (particularly on the left-hand side; the row headers basically run flush to the table border, which other infoboxes avoid), and that the text size is almost illegible, particularly in the winds section. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 09:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For the most part the text size is identical to other text boxes: the exception is the "Highest winds" row where the explanatory text is smaller. I'd happily do away with that. The padding problem is due to using  in the table declaration, which was basically only so that the header didn't have a border added to it (which some people dislike). I've removed both of these overrides in the sandbox and the results are on the test cases page: comments? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think the other one looked better. The lack of padding in the header cell doesn't look right. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change due to the lack of project input. Please discuss this first. I'm putting a note on the project talk page. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel we dont need a change in the template, it is good as it is. The smaller version of the template appears as if the code has been used on it!--Anirudh Emani (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually prefer the new template for a few reasons. It's small, unlike the super long old template. It avoids all those huge spaces in the old template. The biggest change I actually want is that in color category box thingy, "Tropical Storm" and "Tropical Depression" aren't capitalized (present in both). Is there a way to fix that problem?  Darren 23 Edits 14:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Same feeling, also, the new template showed category 2hurricane and category 2typhoon (with no spaces between the number 2 and hurricane/typhoon). And also, the new one looks a little darker, i'd prefer having bright templates because they look good with the cyclone images. Since clouds are white, brighter templates look good. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Code restored
It's been a week and there have been no further objections from the project: as such, I have restored the new code. If there are specific areas which still require attention (such as the padding in the header) these can easily be addressed individually: however, a grab-bag of random disagreements (such as those by Anirudh Emani) can't be. Darren23: this template does not hard-code values for "Tropical Storm" and "Tropical Depression": that's a matter for individual articles to correct as far as I can see. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the comment. However, as you claim, tropical storm and tropical depression are not being capitalized though we are typing it right. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example page which exhibits this problem? As I said, there is no code path which would affect this in the template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here - the "t" in "tropical" should be capitalized. All in all I'm pretty happy with it, nice :) ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed (the template was, for some reason, deliberately lowercasing this: that precedes my changes). Can you confirm? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, all good, I love it! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This change has been reverted. No, I don't know why either. I assume will be along to explain why shortly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I still refer the old version, the new one is too small. YE  Pacific   Hurricane
 * Well, as Thumper said, the change was to bring the infobox in line with other infoboxes on WP. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to exclude in print (ie books etc) what season the cyclone was in?>Jason Rees (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't think so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So small font
The font size of this template is a bit small now. Could it be larger?-- Meow &#9993;  12:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This was a deliberate change to bring the font size in line with that used in infobox, as used by practically every other infobox on the encyclopedia. The test cases page has some changes to increase the line height (by uncollapsing the borders) which helps to make the text look less squashed-up, however. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Other storm templates
We're discussing some other storm-related infoboxes at Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 2. Our discussion might end up with a decision to merge them, and may impact on this one. Your assistance would be welcome Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does this template look so bad?
For a template used in nearly 1300 article (and dozens of featured articles) its surprising that some effort hasn't been made to make the template look better. Kaldari (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to clean it up a bit to look closer to other infobox templates. Kaldari (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually think it looks ok as it is. Especially we dont need to have a second intensity box on Hurricane Katrina for intensity purposes but you do on Cyclone Rewa, which is what you looked to have added.Jason Rees (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that there is virtually no white space between the text and the borders, which negatively affects readability and increases reading fatigue. Since I'm sure you won't take my word for it, here is a scientific study on the issue: What are the qualities of the old look that you especially like and why? Kaldari (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, the template use to be larger, so would reverting back to the old version help at all? YE  Pacific   Hurricane  16:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably. I can't imagine it looking worse. Kaldari (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox version
I created an Infobox-based version of this template in the sandbox. There are a few test cases here and while I didn't test it extensively yet, I think it would be a good substitute for the current version. , (top contribs);  (who tagged it for conversion).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer spiting the sections up, like the old version does.Jason Rees (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added back the top borders now.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding sooner but i would like to see a line, above the dates/below the picture blurb as it doesnt look right otherwise in my opinion.Jason Rees (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A tiny row at the top
A tiny row is at the top, below the title and above the category of hurricane. It corresponds to the following html code: undefined I cannot see why there is such row from the source code of the template. Can this row be removed?--Quest for Truth (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's from the  field of Infobox. I don't know the Infobox hurricane enough to figure out what is supposed to trigger it. Maybe there is a default-value missing? Or it needs to not-call   at all if no data (rather than passing a null value)? Or if Infobox is missing a null-value test when generating its output. DMacks (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, it's due to the way that the row which displays e.g. "Category 5 Hurricane (SSHS)" is constructed: it's stuffing a total of eight templates into the same above parameter of an . The above parameter expects plain text (with optional linking), with optional styling going through a separate abovestyle parameter), but doesn't expect any  templates at all, let alone eight of them. I think that it was done this way to get the coloured background to go full-width. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've put a possible fix into . Would appreciate it being tested by somebody with knowledge of how it's supposed to appear. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at - i can tell you that the infobox isnt meant to appear like that. This is because the rows for the intensity need the flexibility to have two colours in the intensity boxes in case one warning agency reports an intensity lower than another. I have added an example off what i mean here by adding Phalin to the testcases. It may be worth investigating, if we really need to have the systems title above the infobox.Jason Rees (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a solution when I was editing zh:Template:台灣軌道運輸車站. To get rid of the tiny row at the top, wrap the content of "above" in a pair &lt;table&gt; tag. Then set the CSS style padding to zero. Here is the [ the difference I made]. --Quest for Truth (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved, redirect created. &mdash;innotata 20:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox hurricane → Template:Infobox tropical cyclone – As with the small versions of the tropical cyclone infoboxes whereas and  redirect to, the same ought to apply here. Dustin ( talk ) 06:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support North American bias evident in the current name. The long standing name with the most historical documentation on storms is the East Asian typhoon. If this isn't called "typhoon" then it should use the neutral "tropical cyclone" -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't a redirect from infobox tropical cyclone to here work? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 00:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The more I think of it, having the template be at a neutrally-worded title would prevent people from thinking they have to create something like, preventing needless debates such as the one currently ongoing in (which should be moved or retained on its current title based on the result of this RM). Thus, switching to support. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – this is just make-work.  Template names are not visible content and don't need to be neutral.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We should just call it Infobox Typhoon then, it should not be called Hurricane, ans hurricanes are not the majority or plurality of such storms, and not the ones with the longest historical record. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Largely per Dicklyon. It's already here, no sense in making up stuff to do. United States Man (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider the reasoning provided by both of you to be largely invalid. It is not neutral for the editors, and it is foolish to use "Infobox hurricane" for typhoons. There would still be a redirect anyway, and there is no loss in transcluding redirects, and no extra work is required. Also, United States Man, I do not just "make up stuff to do". There is a legitimate reason for this, and the title is inconsistent with .  Dustin  ( talk ) 18:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment/alternative - Template:Infobox cyclone is basically free. It was merged to Infobox_storm, but the leftover redirect has no translusions nor any significant history or incoming links. -- Netoholic @ 02:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cyclone is a more general term than a tropical cyclone, and encompasses mid-latitude cyclones, polar lows, and other atmospheric circulations, so would be inappropriate. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that the term is more broad, but when there are subtropical storms and various regional names all using "Infobox_hurricane", then I think we're already pushing outside the boundaries of the terms. For most people, and most regions, I think, the term "Cyclone" is used primarily for storms originating over or near tropical waters. The other storms you mentioned may be cyclonic too, but most people just call them "storms" (which is why they arr merged to Infobox storm. -- Netoholic @  17:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Subtropical storms are closely related to tropical cyclones, having multiple tropical cyclone characteristics, being tracked by the same RSMCs that track tropical cyclones, and being named from the same lists of names that tropical cyclones received their names from. As such it makes sense to use the same template for hurricanes and subtropical storms. Mid-latitude cyclones and polar lows are fundamentally different from a meteorological perspective, so it would not be appropriate to combine them into this template, and moving this template to a name that would imply inclusion of those systems would cause confusion. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 03:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the technical aspects of an infobox, not the meteorological differences/origination of the storms. If you look at the storm infobox, what data is displayed is very much like the hurricane infobox... winds, pressure, damages, areas affected. There is nothing technical which would prevent merging all cyclonic storm templates together someday. Certainly, tropical cyclones are the best known cyclones, which makes is no issue at all to take that name. -- Netoholic @  04:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Dicklyon and United States Man. Except in cases where a template name is blatantly incorrect renaming them is a solution in search of a problem. In future, just create redirects and save everyone the time. Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This reasoning is all invalid the way I see it. Most of you probably just live in those zones, hence your bias. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, not all storms intensify to hurricane-intensity. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keeping this bad title is also inconsistent with other templates. Typhoons are not hurricanes because they do not occur in the CPac, EPac, or Atl. They are tropical cyclones though. Also, if you transclude a redirected template (which infobox hurricane should be to infobox tropical cyclone), it still works. This "extra trouble" does not exist in any shape or form. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

JTWC tropical storm sign
Where is the JTWC category sign of Nakri? I am sick of this now, someone should fix it. Halong has a sign but Nakri hasn't. Please reply immediately. ? Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Its all set now. -- Netoholic @ 17:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, because some people will think that only JMA is warning it and will be really confusing. Is this now set and won't come off? Typhoon2013 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Extratropical and Remnant low data
Seeing as how other users have creating a separate data bar for "Extratropical" dates, I also decided to create one for the dates when a storm(s) degenerated into a remnant low, to make our work easier in defining when/how tropical cyclones fully dissipated. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont think the remnant low bar should be included, since we are generally not told when the remnant low dissipates outside of the NHC AOR. I am also concerned that you are going against the official data in including this category at times.Jason Rees (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We may not always know, but whenever we do, we will have this new section to hold the data, which is much better than misusing the "Extratropical" bar (which I've seen happen repetitively and had to correct). As for your concern, I'm not going against any official data; I just simply didn't realize that the dates I was adding were right on the 0000 UTC mark. But now I'm much more careful, and I tend to peruse through TCRs and other similar bulletins before submitting such information. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest to you that you use what is in the text, rather than in the tables. But i will keeping an eye on you as time allows.Jason Rees (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"Major hurricane"
I disagree with the removal, because although the NHC does not use the term at the same time as the SSHWS category, the same can be said about severe tropical cyclones in the Australian and South Pacific basins, and it's a very concise way to let readers know that the NHC considers the hurricane to be major.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * – Thank you. I am not sure where he got that the NHC never uses "Major hurricane," because they do. Also, it is always included in news media once a storm reaches Category 3, and most all preseason forecasts separate between "Hurricane" and "Major Hurricane." United States Man (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. "Major hurricane" is a common terminology, and it is helpful in my opinion. Dustin  ( talk ) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hang on a minute lets remember here that the NHC does not change the overall classification of a system, once it hits category 3 like the Aus Scale does. They always formally call it a hurricane, even in their tropical cyclone reports. This is what we should be basing the classifications we use on in my opinion not what the media or preseason forecasts use.Jason Rees (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This doesn't have to do with changing classification. This has to do with whether the NHC uses the term "Major hurricane" (which they do). If you don't think they do, maybe you should look harder. United States Man (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hang on the classifications we use in this infobox should be the ones formally used by NHC, not one that is only used informally this is what the conversation is about.Jason Rees (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How are you defining "informal"? Dustin  ( talk ) 22:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically I am looking at the titles of NHC's advisories and reports and am not seeing the classification used. I realise its used within the body of the reports which is adhoc/informal in my view. This is in distinct contrast to BoM which uses its in its reports and advisories.Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Error in IMD intensity scale
I found out that all storms having "Very Severe Cyclonic Storm" intensity as per the IMD scale are being marked as "Extremely Severe Cyclonic Storm" by the infobox. I'm not familiar with the template's code. Can someone change this field? Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that, never knew the IMD changed its intensity scale. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Irma in Florida
is the list of related items at the foot of the infobox in Effects of Hurricane Irma in Florida supposed to look like crap? Frietjes (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Frietjes (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Add label & link to the classification?
Diving into TFA Tropical Storm Marco (1990), I tried to understand the hurricane classification system used. The infobox stresses "Tropical storm (SSHWS/NWS)". But I could not find the classification it came from easily if at all, nor the meaning of codes SSHWS/NWS. Some research gave Saffir–Simpson scale (still not sure if that one is applied here), and I did find Storm color but this did not solve it (no regular reader would get there). In short, the wording does not say much to me (jargon), and as a reader I cannot check it out easily.

My question/suggestion is, to add useful wikilinks for the classification(-system) used. For example, make the subheader like (mockup):


 * Class: Tropical storm (SSHWS/NWS)

-DePiep (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Something similar could be said about navbox 1990 Atlantic hurricane season buttons (add link(s) to the classification system & codes used). -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, in the infobox, a data row could be added below "Highest winds", "Lowest pressure" with "Class" info (possibly some repetition of subheader, but prevents the subheader having links). -DePiep (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wind speed issues
At WT:TROP, I have described some issues with the wind speed conversions. And improvements. -DePiep (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved, pending administrator action. The opposition to a move basically are concerns over the technical aspects of moving a template; from experience, there is no real technical bar to doing so. I've had a look at the necessary housekeeping that would need to be done immediately (i.e. updating documentation, semi-protecting the old name, and possibly resolving the double-redirect at Infobox Hurricane before the bots do), and it doesn't seem too arduous for the closer(s) to do as is standard (I had to do more housekeeping for the move of UAE Pro-League to UAE Pro League). Any other housekeeping can be done as and when it takes editors' fancy; a lot of articles still use the old infobox name. On the other hand, the argument of WP:CONSISTENT does have some precedent of use in template space to which I would defer. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With the protection lowered, I've been able to move the template myself. Sceptre (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox hurricane → Template:Infobox tropical cyclone – This Infobox is not just used for hurricanes in East Pacific and Atlantic, but also tropical cyclones in other basin. Also to be WP:CONSISTENT with Template:Infobox tropical cyclone small and Template:Infobox tropical cyclone season. A1Cafel (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  SITH   (talk)   12:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. As of this comment, to me, there clearly seems to be consensus due to silence. (I was considering closing this a few days ago when I saw this discussion.) However, Template:Infobox hurricane is move protected. Steel1943  (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ...Well, that obviously doesn't apply anymore. Steel1943  (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The template is utilized hundreds of times over and the suggested move changes nothing visually for readers. All the coding in the template accounts for the different basins already. WP:CONSISTENT applies to article titles, not templates. Pinging other WPTC members for their input since this has had no attention up until now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This infobox complies with every basin's individual requirements. I see no reason for a technical change that does nothing for readers and only causes work for members of the project. Additionally, if this is done, the project template (talk page) would need to be changed from hurricane to tropical cyclone as well. That would likely require thousands of edits that do nothing. Noah Talk 01:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Change to support since there actually won't be a need to change transclusions. Noah Talk 22:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This rationale makes no sense. If the pages are moved, they leave redirects, which prevents the very issue mentioned in the above comment. It also means that no pages even need to be updated at all since ... that's how redirects work. Steel1943  (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment So what has changed since the last discussion? Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral: In principle, I support the rationale behind the original poster's move request. I agree that the template really should be called "Infobox tropical cyclone" rather than "Infobox hurricane", and the template creator should have considered this originally. However, I don't know if there is that much use in actually carrying out the move, as it does not affect what readers see (as noted in other replies). I am also not familiar with how Wikipedia treats template redirects for articles which have the original template name transcluded. If a redirect is only used when searching for the template but not when the template is actually used, then this move would require hundreds of edits, which would be labour-intensive for little benefit. Overall, I would say I am neutral on this move, perhaps leaning towards opposing. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, a transcluded redirect makes its target appear. For example, if I were to add a transclusion of Infobox tropical cyclone, currently a redirect, the template that would appear is Infobox hurricane, the redirect's target. In other words, if this move were to occur, no template transclusions would need to be updated. Steel1943  (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a sensible move which may avoid confusion for editors in the future. Note that all opposition seems to be steemiing from concerns about breaking current transclusions or causing additional work. While caution is sensible when working with templates it is not necessary in this case since redirects handle template transclusions gracefully. No additional work is needed and no transclusions will break. --Trialpears (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trialpears ignores how we would have to update all the documentation that mentions this template. The new title is also longer. We don't want incur additional performance or editing overhead with the redirect or longer name, respectively.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Cyclonebiskit and User:Jasper Deng. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Hurricane redirects to Tropical cyclone. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I dont personally see what problem 7 extra characters per system are going to make to the pages. I also note that we dont have to update all of the pages to use the new title or can send a bot around to tweak all of the articles if we so wished.Jason Rees (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hidden text for units
It seems we fairly often have to correct edits by users who don't realize that the input for wind speeds is in knots and not mph. We have notes in the usage section of this page telling users to use knots, but most people are unlikely to see the page. Should we add hidden text stating that this template uses knots? TornadoLGS (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021
Please also added the parameter cycloneseason to data90, became, because there are still some articles using the old syntax and now they cannot display. 137.189.240.10 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. I replaced the original text in the parameter,, with {{#if:{{{cycloneseason|{{{Cyclone season|{{{Hurricane season|}}}}}}}}} , which I assume is what you were asking for.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There was another one there (responsible for showing the actual text), {{done|replaced}} as well. {{smiley}} Chlod (say hi!) 09:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Add parameter
Could you please add a parameter (e.g. |metric=yes or |basin=Atl-Eur) for a bunch of articles (such as Hurricane Vince and Subtropical Storm Alpha (2020)) that are Atlantic tropical storms but hit mainly Continental Europe and the whole article is metric first?--Carnby (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The related parameter does not belong in the infobox
The related section is not really how an infobox should be used. The infobox summarizes key points of an article. A "related" section is actually a "See also" section, which as its name indicates, is the the topic of the  article. Asides from not belonging, it also looks completely out of place visually and as personal opinion, it also looks bad. Gonnym (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What says; see MOS:INFOBOXUSE + the hurricane "related" templates could be used in a separate "this is part of a series on" kinda thing additional box under the Infobox, but they shouldn't be in it.   22:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Initialisms
Could links or be added for the initialisms like  "(SSHWS/NWS)"? Trivialist (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly should be.  22:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The links were removed after people found out that the links don't contrast well with the background color of the text. This has sparked a... uhh... lengthy (and ongoing) discussion with regards to the colors used on articles. Perhaps abbr could work, since it doesn't require the use of color. Chlod (say hi!) 01:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This infobox has issues that need addressing
as you're already involved, and since this is obviously contentious, I'm not going ahead with applying fixes, and am instead hoping to reach an agreement on how to bring the aesthetics inline with common practices. I noticed this mess when I was checking out Hurricane Sandy for a loosely related article and saw the result of the combination of bad choices in it's creation and deployment. 22:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The question is what changes are you proposing in order to bring this infobox into line with other infoboxes? Personally, I think that it would be good if the damages field could convert from local currencies to USD and allow the damages to be text such as moderate as well as numerical.Jason Rees (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent; we'll add that to the list ;)
 * As linked above; there's a very strange lack of padding for starters, then that related thing which is not only just flat-out wrong for an infobox, it's unnecessarily open to abuse. Then there's the suggestion to include and your suggestion; we can solve all the things in one fell swoop with agreement instead messing about.   23:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of the unusual CSS choices. I want it to be brought closer to standard infobox styles. SWinxy (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been developing Infobox weather event as an alternative to all of our existing weather templates. So far, the only thing left is its implementation. I've been trying to find a good time for starting an RfC to get feedback on the template(s) and possibly get the template pushed out on all our articles, but the entire WikiProject Weather/WikiProject Tropical cyclones has been in a dry spell with near zero users participating. Chlod (say hi!) 23:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, great :) I guess now's as good a time as any for that coming-out party.  23:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, it seems @Hurricane Noah started a discussion at but didn't inform me beforehand (nor after the fact, i.e. in that discussion). Chlod (say hi!) 01:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Insert Captain Jean-Luc Picard facepalming here.  03:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)