Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 35

Poll: Current storm infobox
The previous discussion on this topic yielded no consensus, but rather a general air of "I don't mind either way". We need something more concrete than that since the current storm infoboxes have been a general staple of season articles for quite some time. Four options are present: 1) keep them, 2) remove the infobox but keep the prose section, 3) keep the infobox but remove the prose section, 4) remove both the infobox and the prose section. Add # [rationale] ~ to the section you agree with. Reasoning such as "I like it" (WP:ILIKEIT), "I don't like it" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) or "we've always had it, so why remove it" (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), are not helpful for this and won't be considered for the final consensus. If you think that it's useful, please explain why (WP:ITSUSEFUL), otherwise it will also be discounted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Option 1: keep both

 * 1) The notion that we should abolish the current infoboxes because editors do not consistently update them is quite ridiculous. By that logic, we should also abolish storm sections—such as those on a page as recent as the 2015 Pacific hurricane season—that are outdated and even unsourced. Instead of removing the infoboxes altogether, we should work to ensure that they are consistently updated. In addition, some readers prefer a more visual and consolidated way of interpreting information rather than having to strictly read it. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) My thoughts exactly TAWX13; the infobox adds to the section, and it is easy to read and navigate for quick information. The notion that these are rarely updated is ridiculous; very few advisories go by without someone updating the information. It does happen occasionally, bit not like it is being stated on here. I don't see why we need to fix something that isn't broken. United States Man (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Man, the decision on which one to pick is really tough. For 10 years and longer, we have kind of prided ourselves on always being up to date with each update by the respective RSMCs. I find the current storm infoboxes really useful because it keeps all that prose in a thing that's easier to read for those who understands the jargon. The prose is beneficial, but the infobox really keeps things easy to understand. Does it disappear? Definitely, but the pictures produced for it do not. We use those for the purposes of the future infobox hurricane small that changes. While I do no think people explicitly state this, I am sure there are people who rely on us to keep the information current. I understand the opposition's reasons to why to stop using it, and if it goes that way, I have no qualms with their decision, but you know what, my preference is to keep both. Mitch 32 (I can have oodles of charm when I want to.)  00:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) If it's too much work, use a bot for this. The "we are not an agency" argument is invalid, since we merely report what the JTWC and others post. Many readers come to our articles expecting the latest information. We aren't a paper encyclopedia, after all. --Jasper Deng (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) As I said before, I don't mind and 50/50 for keeping and removing the infoboxes. However, I still strongly believe that we should keep the infobox. Did you guys know that some people are keeping track on storms here in wikipedia because we were using the infobox? Also please, if there is no one updating it, I will do it, or someone has to do it. I have been updating infoboxes since 2014, every or most advisories for storms. It did really confuse me and kind of stressed me when some users said, remove because no one is updating it or remove because we are not an agency in the previous topic.  Typhoon2013  (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree completely with TAWX13. We indeed should try our best to update the infoboxes on time such that they do reflect the current information on storms. Also, the infoboxes provide clear and more easily interpreted information on storms—sometimes more so than the official warnings. This is a great help for readers who come to Wikipedia for storm updates and thus we should not abolish the infoboxes. If it happens that no one is able or has time to update the infoboxes, we can provide links to the RSMCs' websites, as we already do for the EPAC and ATL basins. However, I do agree that a bot would help a lot. ~ KN2731 {talk} 12:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) We may not be a news website, but we are an updating encyclopedia that presents up-to-date information to the thousands if not millions of readers that read articles on currently active systems; thus, I think the current template should be kept. Though the ineffectiveness of updating the current template is a valid concern, so far I've seen that our users are capable of putting in the effort to keep them updated. We don't have to have a current infobox (as we've seen in some basins that simply switch over to standard template), but we have users who generously put in the time and effort to maintain them, and I appreciate that.  TheAustinMan (Talk·Works) 20:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Honestly, writing a bot that handles this is not that hard. I don't really find the "not agency" argument very convincing. Tito xd (?!?) 23:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) I change my mind now. Keep both. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Option 2: remove infobox

 * 1) Infobox is redundant to the prose and unwieldy to update. We're not a warning agency so we're not required to blatantly display the current status of storms, and as such the standard prose section we have now suffices by itself. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) For the season articles, it's more important to have the prose. That is the first draft for the section we will use one day. The current infobox won't be remembered but for people going through the edit history. Keep the current infobox for current storm articles though. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I strongly feel that we need to remove the infobox hurricane current and all current storm information, unless it is a significant land impacting system. This is because it is rarely updated at times using the most current information and at times have had well out of date information sitting their because no one has been asked to update it. I also do not see it as our job to be the weather forecaster or safety expert warning on the systems, this is despite other editors potentially being in harms way.Jason Rees (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Option 4: remove both

 * 1) I am feeling lazy to update frequently... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a meteorological blog. If people need the latest advisories and warnings, please visit the websites directly. We should not take responsibility for providing outdated information that confuses people. --  Meow  07:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion
This section is for any additional comments regarding changes on how we handle active storms. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll bring back up the discussion of using a bot to auto-fill a template with current information. I don't know how to run a bot, nor do I know how challenging it may be to program one to run this task. If someone has experience with bots could be so kind as to inform me the practicability of this idea, I'd appreciate it. Supportstorm (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think this would be workable bearing in mind the format off all the hurricane advisories differ from centre to centre.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging members and frequent editors, hopefully this finally works, for the discussion (apologies if I forgot anyone):, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The current information Infobox would work out much better if they were regularly updated. They are actually updated quite periodically for the Atlantic and Pacific hurricane season articles. As for the other TC seasonal articles, the current information infobox actually wasn't used there until some users began implementing them there a few years ago. Since the hurricane season articles did so well with the infoboxes (probably because they were more frequently updated than those in the other articles) I see no need to scrap them. However, for minor tropical depressions/disturbances with no land threat outside of the hurricane season basins, I believe that the current information infobox should be dropped for those minor systems. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand why we have/need infoboxes here and why people don't want them now because no one updates them, but this is Wikipedia, we share and gather information! IMO we need infoboxes in every basin and include it in named storms. Same with LightandDark2000, we don't need TDs for minor TDs, however we should infoboxes for designated TDs. Typhoon2013  (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your concerns with information becoming out-of-date are valid. If possible, I think that having a bot auto-update infoboxes would address this issue. At one point (during Hurricane Sandy in 2012), Legoktm had been working on such a bot. I'm sure that it is possible, and if implemented, I feel like such a bot would be an excellent helper. Dustin  ( talk ) 04:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm completely in favor of that! I know we regularly have edit conflicts, and people love being the first person to update for a key advisory. I'd imagine that we'd have to do the first advisory manually, but it should be very easy theoretically to have it be updated automatically. This is the best idea I've seen yet. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that a bot would work and have you guys already tried one? Will it really update what it says on advisories of all known agencies? Typhoon2013  (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The IMD, unlike most other agencies, gives warnings in PDF formats. The warnings do not follow a specific format, and hence an automated bot, if even possible, would struggle to update data. The bot should sure be implemented for other basins if it is possible. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic and both north Pacific basins are the most actively edited, so it would be most helpful there. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I suspect that a bot would at least work for the United States-covered basins and possibly the West Pacific. Dustin  ( talk ) 21:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A bot for the current infobox will be great for the WPac, EPac and Atl basins. But how about the SHem basins? We have Victor right now without a current infobox template. Typhoon2013  (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's start one basin at a time. Given that we have five months until the official start of the EPAC season, we could use this time to develop the bot for the NHC basins. Of course, we would need agreement on having a bot automatically update wiki with the advisories. Does anyone disagree? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with the infobox not being updated is outside of the NHC Basins/Dreamworld, which is why I would rather see the bot if its workable be implemented for non NHC basins first. We can also not be reliant apon a single person.Jason Rees (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I'd prefer to see this implemented with the NHC first as it has already been subjected to a trial-run in the past, and the United States-monitored basins certainly receive more views on the English Wikipedia than any other single basin. It would also likely be easier to implement in the East Pacific and Atlantic than in some basins which don't release data in the same format (as hinted at by Rishabh Tatiraju). After addressing the NHC basins (as a sort of proof of concept), I'd support addressing the other basins in whatever order would enable implementation to be done with the most haste. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As for a bot, told me today that he has code for such a bot, but testing a bot is hard because it requires an active TC in an NHC basin to test its NHC advisory functionality. For JTWC, its data is usually made available in machine-readable best track files and should be easier.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So first, we are likely to have a bot updating our infoboxes normally by mid this year. However as I said in my previous reply, there are 3 basins where we don't (or should I say never ) used the current infobox and those basins are the SWio, AusR and the SPac. Are we going to start using current infoboxes in those basins? Typhoon2013  (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any opposition to having a bot, just differing ideas on how we would go about implementing it. Perhaps the idea for a bot should be moved to its own section? I feel that if properly implemented, this bot could be a major contribution to the project. Dustin  ( talk ) 05:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Develop a bot for performing infobox updates
I would like to solicit comments on this idea: What are your thoughts on creating a bot to automatically update infoboxes? Please post below. Dustin ( talk ) 20:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read comments bringing up problems with infoboxes and other current storm information becoming outdated. I have also seen all too much in the way of update frenzies where individual editors attempt to rapidly update current storm information, sometimes resulting in briefly messed up information, edit conflicts, and other problems. In response to these problems, I have in the past (since at least 2014) contemplated the idea of having a bot be created to update current storm infoboxes. At one point, Legoktm went some way toward achieving this goal as can be seen here. Having a bot to automatically update current storm infoboxes and current storm information would address many problems and facilitate editing while storms are in progress, and I think it would be viable for at least North Pacific and Atlantic storms, although I would like to see a bot created for other basins as well, if possible. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: I really don't want this proposal to just die due to lack of participation now, just as it did in the past. Perhaps I should notify the members / participants in this project again? Dustin  ( talk ) 03:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're all in a general agreement that if a bot can be made, by all means go for it. I don't have any knowledge of how they work to be of use here, though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is general agreement on this proposal, then perhaps a new question may be posed: Where do we start? Should I list my proposal at Bot requests? Are there any people with experience with bots who are already members of WikiProject Tropical cyclones (or who (semi-)frequently edit tropical cyclone articles) who I should ask instead?, based on your previous comments you have asked around about this, so do you have any suggestions? I really want to make this proposal work out. Thanks! Dustin  ( talk ) 04:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally I'd like someone with time who is also in WPTC. Legoktm would be good except that he has no time for this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BOTREQ would be the way to start, but we can help them out a bit. A bot operator will want to know from WPTC:
 * What data sources we want to parse
 * What output data to produce
 * Where to put the output data
 * If we have that, the bot operator has a simpler problem to tackle. Tito xd (?!?) 23:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I managed to forget about this for awhile, but I may take this to WP:BOTREQ when I have the time. If/when I do so, I'll make sure to mention it here. Dustin  ( talk ) 23:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Severe Tropical Cyclone Shiela-Sophie
This looks like a typo (inconsistent spelling at 1970–71_Australian_region_cyclone_season - should be Sheila-Sophie, probably - can anyone confirm? Colonies Chris (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be Sheila-Sophie. Thanks for finding that.--12george1 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Using MDY or DMY formats
In Cyclone Winston's talk page, an anon user pointed out about using either the MDY the DMY format in its template. Out of the 7 major basins' articles, only 1 uses the DMY format (which is the Australian basin). Here in NZ we use the DMY format as well, so why not use that too? Also should we do this to all basins including the NHem basins, or only in the SHem basins? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think DMY should be used in all of the basins bar those in NHC/CPHC responsibility, which should use MDY as per MOS:DATETIES. &mdash; Iune  (talk)  05:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why make a mountain of a molehill ? Jason Rees (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just be consistent. YE Pacific  Hurricane 18:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We already have a Wikipedia-wide guideline that covers this, so we should follow that. Tito xd (?!?) 19:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page. – This lends to maintaining MDY for most articles, sans Australia which had a formal discussion with the Australian WikiProject several years back. Guidelines are conflicting in this manner. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Massive URL change of Tropical Cyclones Reports at NHC
Moved from
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places&oldid=708236013#URLs_to_hurricanes.2C_too

Hi, could anybody resolve the massive external links' URLs change? The National Hurricane Center website has changed paths to Tropical Cyclones Reports PDF files, e.g.:
 * http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL012004_Alex.pdf

has changed to
 * http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL012004_Alex.pdf

– the file name lost its TCR- prefix and the last segment of the path /pdf got replaced with /data/tcr. Links list:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhc.noaa.gov%2Fpdf%2FTCR&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

Please consider templating the URL, so that possible future changes could be resolved with a single edit of a template. See similar problem at WT:NRHP (now in archive: WT:NRHP/Archive 63#All the URLs got changed). --CiaPan (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Special:LinkSearch
 * Provide a template name and I will make a suitable template and an AWB script to implement it.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry, but despite quite a long practice as a Wikipedian, I'm not experienced enough to design or implement a new template. Hope someone involved in this WikiProject would suggest something reasonable. :) Anyway I thank you for the prompt reply. --CiaPan (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * since all TC monitoring agencies issue or have issued individual reports.Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, created. See the template's documentation for usage.  Report any problems on the template's talk page.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's make editing fun again
The project is a little over ten years old, and it's showing some growing pains. I was inspired by this exchange on a talk page today, and it reminds me of what I like about Wikipedia and what I don't. As a project, I think we can be a little more flexible about "rules" or "structures". Obviously we have a good thing going – we regularly have featured articles on the main page. However, I worry about the long term potential for the project, especially if some of our more veteran editors quit ( and I might be talking about myself! ). I'm not sure how many project members still read this talk page, but for those who do, don't forget the #1 rule of Wikipedia - BE BOLD :D

That's why we all started editing in the first place. We had that thrill when we realized that we could actually change the pages we were reading. Every year we have dozens of discussions of whether to create an article. This is the perfect example of just being bold. If someone wants to make an article for an active storm, who knows, doing that could turn them into a regular editor, which we could not do if we spent so much time arguing why an article can't be made, or it's too soon, or there's not enough independent sources. Most of the time, no one really cares about an article once the storm dissipates (the exceptions being the major storms, which should definitely have articles). If someone makes an article and by the time the storm dissipates, it's obvious it can't sustain having an article? Then we'll have a merge discussion as usual, and who knows, maybe it could create a better storm section than what we usually have.

IMO, unless you're proposing a major change, just be bold and do it. If you're worried whether it will upset people, WP:BRD applies, but let's act first and discuss later. Let's make editing fun again! :) ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hink2016! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Edit first, clean up later. Remember that there is no deadline. And when you're about to write an angry screed to someone about a minuscule perceived slight, it might be better to not give a fuck instead. Tito xd (?!?) 17:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still here, although I'm viewing Wiki some days more than others. I will say I plan on editing a bit more the next few months and mostly importantly, I still wanna relax and have fun again and not get caught up in nonsense. We've worked hard enough for 11 years as a project where we can just sit back and have fun and work on what we want. As long as we don't get too carried away, I'm ok with it at this point in the game. YE Pacific  Hurricane 20:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Wendy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hurricane Wendy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Central Pacific Best Track


I propose that, when dealing with past Central Pacific tropical cyclone data, instead of using HURDAT data, we base us off on these two sources: It seems me that the Cental Pacific Hurricane Center reananlyzed past hurricanes and reassessed many of them, like I and Cyclonebiskit discussed some time ago, and there are many discrepancies between them. And since IBTrACS also use these sources in their database, I think that they are official, reliable and verifable enough to be our main sources.
 * ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ibtracs/original-bt-data-files/cphc/CPHC_Rebest_1966-2003-1.xls
 * ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ibtracs/.original_source/cphc/CPHC_Rebest_1966-2003.csv.htm

So, I propose that we substitute all HURDAT and CPHC's site's data for those ones stated in these sources above, regarding storm's data between 140W and the IDL. ABC paulista (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose anything bar a careful removal of data from HURDAT and the CPHC's website since im sure HURDAT is right and trustworthy at times. It is also worth noting that IBTRACS doesnt solely use those two sources but also uses HURDAT.Jason Rees (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that HURDAT isn't trustworhy, but I feel that when HURDAT differs from CPHC Rebest, we should favor the latter since it seems to be the official best track data from CPHC's CPAC TCs, and it seems that NHC didn't have the time/care/attention to update HURDAT for these updates, or disagree with some of them. Even IBTrACS calls it "cphc". ABC paulista (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * for future reference, pings don't work unless you sign your comment in the same line (none of the linked names above pinged a user). Regarding these updated tracks...it's a bit strange that the CPHC has these shoved off to the side, not readily accessible to the public outside of IBTrACS more than 8 years after the paper stating a reanalysis was conducted came out. As for using them for articles, I'd hold off on that for now. I'll see if I can verify them at the NHC and ask if a merger into HURDAT is possible. The vast majority of changes are minor and all the of "missing" storms are already mentioned in the respective season articles. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Tip. About Rebest, it's not unprecedent to a Meteo agency to not leave its best track for public access, for whatever reasons. If I'm not mistaken, we also don't have access for HKO, PAGASA and Nadi Best tracks outside IBTrACS. And CPHC isn't known to be the most organized RSMC, with its website very outdated. ABC paulista (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/May 19, 2016
Hey - I received following message few days ago:

Hi, I'll start work on this one today. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. This was promoted back in 2006; please check to see if the article needs updating. - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm too busy with real-life stuff to do anything with this right now.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop using MDY for these basins
Only major countries around the North Pacific Ocean and the western part of North Atlantic Ocean use MDY (May 18, 2016 for example), such as the United States, Japan and China. In other basins, most of countries definitely use DMY (18 May 2016 for example). Why should we use MDY to them? This should be fixed strictly. -- Meow  02:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Poll and info about: Season forecasts table
Hi all. I just wanted to point out that me and have decided to create a new seasons forecast table, but only to the WPac basin. However I decided to copy the format to the EPac and Atl basins too (as I did in those 2015-16 formats). Earlier, someone decided to rv back to the original format in the 2016 Atl article. So I would like everyone to contribute here and choose the best options, either: 1) Change to the new format, 2) Keep the original format, 3) Keep original format to some basin articles, 4) Change table to a different format, or 5) Discontinue adding the tables. Add # [rationale] ~ to the section you agree with. Reasoning such as "I like it" (WP:ILIKEIT), "I don't like it" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) or "we've always had it, so why remove it" (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), are not helpful for this and won't be considered for the final consensus. If you think that it's useful, please explain why (WP:ITSUSEFUL), otherwise it will also be discounted. Thank you so much guys for taking your time to contribute here and I wish to hear you guys' opinions! Typhoon2013  (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Option 1: Change to new format

 * 1) So the reason why I chose this option (to change to the new format) is because 1) it looks more clear when reading 2) more neat and 3) it mentions the year too in the record high and low activity seasons (despite it only mentions the recent season it happened). However I am kind of on to Option 1 and 4, keeping format and fixing the layout/format because IMO bold numbers are necessary for the Actual activity row. But mostly how it is, it is easier to read as it have columns and rows that separate each forecast.  Typhoon2013  (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Option 2: Keep the original format

 * 1) I see no reason for the change, the old design was more open and appealing as it is less cluttered. For the 2016 season I tried combing the old & the new to create one table, the added references were a good idea, but I preserved the open-ness. As for policy based arguments, is the old format against the WP:MOS? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) No need to fix this. Why create a cluttered, "blocky" table when there is one just fine (and that really looks better) already in place. Now, I may agree that the current table isn't the best, but I think it is certainly better if the aren't MOS issues. The problem I have with the new table is that it results in too many columns and headers and it is just a generic table with nothing to draw attention to it. United States Man (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion
Ok so only and  have contributed and voted to keep the old format. Even though none are coming in here, I want to add... How about (like in Option 3), to keep the old format in the Atlantic basin, but change to the new format in both the WPac and EPac basin articles. Because both basins have 1 or more TC monitoring areas and agencies (for example: CPHC, PAGASA). For more info, you can look at the new table in the 2015 and 2016 PTS and PHS articles. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no way to incorporate the old standout layout with the new info? I understand your point, but don't know why it couldn't be remedied, if you are looking for a compromise though given the hard work you have done then yeah okay I can accept this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We might wait for another several weeks until someone pops up, at least JR replied back in the 2016 Atl season talk page. Ok, so we agreed, keep the format in the Atlantic and change the format in the EPac and WPac. Typhoon2013  (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Bot updating advisories
Remember that bot idea I brought up back in January? How I was planning propose at Bot requests that a bot be created to automatically update storm information for current storms? Well, I was either lazy or forgot because I never ended up doing that. Now that we are heading back into tropical cyclone season in the North Atlantic and Central/East Pacific, I thought it was worth bringing it up again. Just as that discussion came to a close, Titoxd suggested that we provide "1. What data sources we want to parse, 2. What output data to produce, 3. Where to put the output data" -- If anyone else is willing to help me set up a request of sorts, I would really appreciate it. I've been floating this idea for years now (and the idea has 'existed' for >3.5 years), so I think it would be great to make some progress on this proposal. Dustin ( talk ) 19:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Tito xd (?!?) 20:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have we submitted any requests for this bot yet? Supportstorm (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's too early to do that. What do we want the bot to do? Do we want to have the bots edit a storm page directly, or have subpages in article space? Which public domain sources contain the data that we want in a format easily parsed by code? Do we start with all basis, or start with the NHC basis first as a trial run? Etc. etc. etc... Tito xd (?!?) 20:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the NHC, and to be safe, let's do a sub page. Once we know that works, we can bring it to article space. If we start small, we'll catch any errors while they're still small. I'm guessing we'll have to do the first advisory manually, but then we could use the current advisory, which would auto-update. I'm guessing use public advisories? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ATCF is easier from a bot perspective, but it does not store the "25 km from New York City" location blurb. We would need the public advisory for that. However the public advisory would be harder to parse, and would not have as much commonality with other products when/if the parser gets expanded to other basins. Tito xd (?!?) 21:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do we need the bot to do the x km from y place blurb? Why do we need that blurb at all anyways? The only reason to not use the ATCF best track is that official advisories often deviate from it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Typhoon Nepartak 2016 in DYK
Hi guys, I just want to say thank you for your help in contributing the article Typhoon Nepartak (2016), even though sometimes receiving some issues regards to that (i.e. bad start for an article, etc.). But today, I just noticed the following message:

May I know from you guys on what significance for this notice?

Regards and again, thanks for all your help. :D Hamham31  Heke!  KushKush!  00:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/August 13, 2016
Hey guys, I would usually ask the FAC nommer, but that person is long gone. I just got out of gallbladder surgery and need a few days to heal up. Could someone condense this to 1175 characters or less for TFA? Here's a character counter. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about wikipedia "Articles for deletion/Tropical Depression 01W"
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Tropical Depression 01W, which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. &#x0020;Would these be useful if they were moved into project pages? — Gorthian (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Move Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale?
See discussion on shortening the title for this vital article. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Cape Verde vs Cabo Verde
I noticed something interesting in the 2 pm TWO today, when the NHC said a few hundred miles southeast of the Cabo Verde Islands. As a project (and how the meteorological community has been calling it for decades, such as Cape Verde hurricane), we've been calling the archipelago off western Senegal Cape Verde (Islands). However, the NHC has been calling it Cabo Verde at least as of July 27, 2016, but as of last year, they called it the "Cape Verde Islands". Per the U.S. State department

In a diplomatic note sent on November 27, 2013 the Embassy of Cape Verde requested that the United States Government change the name of the country from ‘Cape Verde’ to ‘Cabo Verde’. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names approved the change on December 9, 2013.

As a project, we need to decide that to call the island group. I think we should go with what the RSMC of the territory calls it, as we would defer in other basins to maintain neutrality. As the NHC (and US government by extension) calls it "Cabo Verde", I think we should move all references to the country in WPTC to "Cabo Verde", with the exception of when referring to "Cape Verde hurricane". ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Im happy for this to go through since I believe that is the official name of the island nation now. It would also be inline with what happened when Andrah Prasdesh in India got renamed.Jason Rees (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and start using Cabo Verde then. YE Pacific  Hurricane 01:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As a minor note, I think you mean when the Indian government renamed the state of Orissa to Odisha. Andhra Pradesh was divided into present-day Andhra Pradesh (the coast) and Telangana (the northwest part of the former state). :P &mdash; Iune  (talk)  21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the blast from the past and correction .Jason Rees (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Before I go ahead and request a move, a quick thought. We currently say "the Cape Verde islands". IMO, that should still change to just "Cabo Verde". We don't call the Philippines "the Philippine islands", but if "Islands" is part of the official country title, we do (like Solomon Islands). Since their government indicated their request of what to be called in English, we should move "the Cape Verde Islands" to "Cabo Verde". ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would ocme down to what context we are saying it in, I mean I have used the Philippine islands or similar in the past.Jason Rees (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that historically this distinguation might come from the Cap-Vert, in Portugues Cabo Verde, which is a cape in Senegal and gabe the state Cabo Verde and before the Cape Verde Islands its respektive names. In the German WP, BTW, we have different articles for the state and the group of islands. (While we do not have different articles for the Philippines or der Solomon Islands.)
 * However, as Jason Rees said, it depends on context. Following are some examples:
 * Cabo Verde requested relief by the United Nations.
 * The northern Cape Verde Islands had been spared.
 * All of Cabo Verde received plenty of rain.
 * According to the government southern Cape Verde Islands had been affected badly.
 * According to the goverment the South of Cabo Verde was affected badly.
 * The latter two are de facto telling the same, but one refers to the islands in the South of the country while the other refer to the southern part of the country. --Matthiasb (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Considering that this isn't really just a WPTC issue, it might be worth asking this at WT:MOS. Tito xd (?!?) 23:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good call Tito! I'll do that. And thanks for the feedback MatthiasB. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

For anyone interested in the name change, I started a requested move discussion here. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/September 16, 2016
Hi, the nominator for this article stopped editing last year. Eyes on the article would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Set indices on storms
Today, Typhoon Koppu (disambiguation) was moved to List of typhoons named Koppu by, who argued (correctly) that the articles are Set index articles. All of them are organized in this category. We currently have the format of all named storms getting the format "Tropical Storm X (Year)", unless the storm was retired. And for these set index articles, they are at "Tropical Storm/hurricane/Cyclone/Typhoon X" (depending on the basin and usage), unless the name was retired, which is when we'd add "disambiguation" to the article title. However, they are not disambiguation pages (Mercury is an example of one). As this will affect 703 articles, we should have some uniformity on this, and make sure they are done correctly. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hurricanehink. Set indexes that aren't at the base name shouldn't be named "base name (disambiguation)", but rather "List of [type of thing] named [name of thing]". See WP:SIA and WP:NCLIST. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, all of these articles should be changed to "List of storms named X". This way we'd never have to worry about moving an article due to retirement or getting the main article. I'm not sure if it could be changed by a bot though, so it could be tedious to correct., any thoughts? This is up your alley. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tedious, yes, but some of us gnome on that. I was part of a team that downcased bird names on every. single. bird. article. Couldn't be botted because some parts of the bird names were geographic names and had to remain Title Cased :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The information on WikiProject Tropical cyclones should be corrected too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel that we need to decide once and for all what should be on these pages, how they should be presented and what sort of ones we have. Do we just stick to the named systems, if so then should Tropical Depression 01W etc - if not then which designators should get "set indices."Jason Rees (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, what are your thoughts on how to handle them once and for all? I think they are presented fine right now. If you know a storm was named Fran, then it would be quite logical to see it at "List of tropical storms named Fran". I don't think we need to worry about calling them "tropical cyclones", as that is the term in the SWIO for hurricane-intensity, whereas "tropical storm" is a good catch-all term for storms worldwide. I'm OK if all of them are moved, we just gotta figure out the exact wording for the new title. As for your other point, I think Tropical Depression 01W should be deleted because 1) Terminology is unofficial (coming from JTWC); and 2) Every single first storm of the year is designated Tropical Depression 01W, so there is nothing special about it. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it. YE Pacific  Hurricane 01:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

- if you want to move the titles, we're OK, so long as there is a process to get them all done, not just when storms are active. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The process will have to belong to this project, not to me; I'm happy to make incremental improvements gnomishly. If they all aren't moved at once, the encyclopedia will still be incrementally improved. What title pattern? "List of storms named X"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * List of tropical storms named X? I usually pipe it "List of other storms named X" when I link the other storms list in articles. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Appologies for the late response but I feel we need to decide exactly what details we provide on the Set Indices. Do we want to be including what country nominated the name for WPAC and NIO set indices and what about retirements do we note them especially if there is a double retirement? Jason Rees (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We already mention retirement for the NHC basins, so if any aren't, they should get mentions, but there are a lot of retired storms, so some might have fallen through the cracks. For WPAC, sure, especially as we're finishing third usage of these names since 2000, and it doesn't look like they're going away any time soon. I'd include the nominating country for WPAC and NIO, even if the name happens to be used in another basin. I think it's also helpful to indicate what the name means for foreign names, since it is the English Wikipedia. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do we need the word tropical in the title of our set indices? After all non tropcial cyclones are now were officially named by the UKMO and unofficially by the US TWC.Jason Rees (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Hurricane Matthew listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2016 Hurricane Matthew to be moved to Tropical Storm Matthew (2016). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Matthew (2016) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Matthew (2016) to be moved to Tropical Storm Matthew (2016). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Matthew (2016) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Matthew (2016) to be moved to Hurricane Matthew. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Template:Current weather event
Just a note that there is an ongoing discussion regarding adding a weather information disclaimer to this template at Template talk:Current weather event. Input would be appreciated. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane season on the Wikimedia blog
Hello everyone. I'm currently drafting a blog post about the annual hurricane season and its impact on Wikipedia. The post will be published on the Wikimedia blog. I would like to ask a couple of questions to Wikipedians who edit articles about hurricanes and use the answers in the post. If you have a few minutes to answer a couple of questions, please drop me a line. Thank you! --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane-proof building listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane-proof building to be moved to Hurricane building standards. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Category:Typhoons in Alaska has been nominated for discussion
Category:Typhoons in Alaska, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

article request

 * Could I perhaps persuade someone to write an article on the cyclone that occurred just pripr to the Bengal famine of 1943? Tks Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

To make images from EOSDIS Worldview not ‘fat’
Sometimes, pictures from the gallery of Rapid Response - LANCE are not satisfying to us (e.g. the eye not at the centre) that we want to build by ourselves from EOSDIS Worldview, but tropical cyclones at the subtropics may look fat.

Images from both the gallery and EOSDIS Worldview use the equirectangular projection so the following technique should be proper to use. Check More information on the image page of the gallery of Rapid Response - LANCE first and get the value of x scale factor. Later, download the same image from EOSDIS Worldview and then narrow down the width according to the value. Now the ratio should have followed the image from that gallery.

The left one is the optimised image using the technique and originally downloaded from EOSDIS Worldview, and the other one is from the gallery. The x scale factor is +0.8660254037844387 so I made the width become 86.6% comparing to the original one.

-- Meow  06:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

China Meteorology Administration tropical depressions
I notice that many Pacific typhoon season articles include sections for "CMA tropical depressions." These sections are pretty much always empty (I can't recall having seen one that wasn't). Should these all be removed? I don't like removing things, but a section isn't really useful if it doesn't contain any information, in my opinion. Dustin ( talk ) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They ought to be group together in a other storm section or removed. Most were minor depressions that the JMA also tracked. Supportstorm (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Leslie (2012) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Leslie (2012) to be moved to Hurricane Leslie. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) to be moved to Tropical Storm Stan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tropical Storm Vongfong listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Vongfong to be moved to Typhoon Vongfong. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tropical Storm Haima listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Haima to be moved to Typhoon Haima. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Typhoon Merbok listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Merbok to be moved to Tropical Storm Merbok. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Typhoon Noru listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Noru to be moved to Tropical Storm Noru. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane-proof building listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane-proof building to be moved to Hurricane building standards. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Hanna (2008) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Hanna (2008) to be moved to Hurricane Hanna. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Typhoon Haikui listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Haikui to be moved to Typhoon Haikui (2012). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tropical Cyclone Bot request
Remember that discussion back in January? The one where I brought up the idea of creating a bot to automatically update current tropical cyclone infoboxes / information? Well, I finally decided to make a request at Bot requests. If you have any ideas to contribute, please leave your comments there! Dustin ( talk ) 04:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since nobody is responding, perhaps the issue is that nobody is seeing this thread? Pinging Hurricanehink, Jason Rees, Jasper Deng, Tatiraju.rishabh, Titoxd, and Typhoon2013 as users who participated in discussing the bot the last time around. If you have anything to add to this discussion, I would really appreciate you bringing it up here. You don't have to say anything if you don't want to, but I just want to make sure you are aware. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm still interested. It would probably be easiest starting with the Atlantic, having a bot that would change the position, winds, pressure, and movement automatically with each advisory. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too. Parsing NIO data will not be possible because of IMD's bulletin file format, but I think there will be a great benefit for other basins. 12:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any particular thoughts to share that you feel would be worth mentioning at the bot request I linked? Even if you just have something minor to add, I'd really appreciate it if you would bring it up at the bot requests page. At the current time, there still aren't any responses, and I don't want my request to get stale. If you know anyone who you think would be a qualified candidate for carrying out this proposal, bring that person up! Thanks. Dustin ( talk ) 19:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Agatha listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Agatha to be moved to Tropical Storm Agatha (2010). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Lorenzo (2007) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Lorenzo (2007) to be moved to Hurricane Lorenzo. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tropical Storm Alberto (1994) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Alberto (1994) to be moved to Tropical Storm Alberto. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Gordon (1994) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Gordon (1994) to be moved to Hurricane Gordon. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Bret (1999) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Bret (1999) to be moved to Hurricane Bret. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Barry (1983) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Barry (1983) to be moved to Hurricane Barry. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Jerry (1989) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Jerry (1989) to be moved to Hurricane Jerry. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tropical Storm Larry (2003) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Larry (2003) to be moved to Tropical Storm Larry. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Grace (1991) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Grace (1991) to be moved to Hurricane Grace. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tropical Storm Tammy (2005) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Tammy (2005) to be moved to Tropical Storm Tammy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Leslie (2012) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Leslie (2012) to be moved to Hurricane Leslie. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Wiki Ed/Louisiana State University/Natural disturbance and society (Fall 2016)
Just an FYI, since the class's assignments involve some articles from this project. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Vongfong listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Vongfong to be moved to Typhoon Vongfong. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tropical Storm Haima listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Haima to be moved to Typhoon Haima. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) to be moved to Tropical Storm Stan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Typhoon Roke (2011) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Roke (2011) to be moved to Typhoon Roke. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Typhoon Son-Tinh (2012) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Son-Tinh (2012) to be moved to Typhoon Son-Tinh. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Typhoon Nalgae (2011) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Nalgae (2011) to be moved to Typhoon Nalgae. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Typhoon Tembin (2012) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Tembin (2012) to be moved to Typhoon Tembin. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Typhoon Bolaven (2012) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Bolaven (2012) to be moved to Typhoon Bolaven. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Typhoon Goni (2015) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Goni (2015) to be moved to Typhoon Goni. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Lorenzo listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Lorenzo to be moved to Hurricane Lorenzo. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tropical Storm Alberto (1994) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Alberto (1994) to be moved to Tropical Storm Alberto. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Gordon (1994) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Gordon (1994) to be moved to Hurricane Gordon. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Bret (1999) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Bret (1999) to be moved to Hurricane Bret. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Barry (1983) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Barry (1983) to be moved to Hurricane Barry. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Jerry (1989) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Jerry (1989) to be moved to Hurricane Jerry. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tropical Storm Larry (2003) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Larry (2003) to be moved to Tropical Storm Larry. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Typhoon Haikui listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Haikui to be moved to Typhoon Haikui (2012). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Leslie (2012) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Leslie (2012) to be moved to Hurricane Leslie. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) to be moved to Tropical Storm Stan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.


 * Is anyone here? The RM discussion is continuing, and it would be helpful to have some clarity from folks who are familiar with SIA and article-name standards in this area. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Gordon (1994) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Gordon (1994) to be moved to Hurricane Gordon. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Numerous requested page moves
There are a number of requested page moves popping up for what are essentially the same question. The discussion is ongoing at Talk:Hurricane Stan (disambiguation), but this should really be discussed as a WikiProject issue first. &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 06:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The user that opened the requested move for Hurricane Stan was shortly afterward blocked for socking. I see that the most recent move requests are from a new IP account behaving similarly to the blocked user, and I worry that they may be engaging in the same sort of frivolous "storm moving" behavior. I'm far from confident enough to take it to WP:SPI, but I wanted to give you and the project a heads-up. — Gorthian (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been numerous requested moves and page moves over the last month or so and several of us are getting fed up off seeing them. Over the years the general rule has been that an article is generally published at (Type) (Storm Name) (Year), with the year being dropped when the name is retired or has caused so much devastation that the name is unlikely to be used again then it gets the main title. I will say that some of the requested moves have been in line with this guidence, hwoever, most haven't been. I am personally pretty certain that the blocked user has been the one requesting several of the RM's, but i feel powerless as it seems to be a forever changing IP.Jason Rees (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns about the naming conventions for articles about specific storms. However, I don't think set indices for storms should have "(disambiguation)" in the title (and there shouldn't be redirects with "(disambiguation)" in the title to storm index pages). older ≠ wiser 14:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that is where some cleaning needs to take place, assuming that all of these disambiguation pages are now set indices but lets settle that debate first before we clean. Personally now that non tropical cyclones are being officially named on a regular basis - I do wonder if we really should be using TC terminology for the names of these articles.Jason Rees (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I did go ahead and open an SPI. If you see evidence of the same pattern of disruption, take it there: Sockpuppet investigations/N-C16. — Gorthian (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The end of the season
As we approach the end of the Atlantic and Pacific hurricane seasons, I see that an edit war has broken out between and a couple of IPs over the official end of the season. As one of the elder members of the project, I will remind you all that the seasons officially do not end until December 1 at 00z. As a result to say anything else, before then could be considered Original Research regardless of what the NHC is currently forecasting over the next 5 days. In theory this also applies to all of the other seasons which end at 00z on either January 1, April 30 or July 1.Jason Rees (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a difference though, the wording says "last storm dissipated" not "final storm of the season..." or "season ended...". There is no argument that the last storm for the Atlantic Hurricane season dissipated on November 25th (left the basin). If the NHC says that no more storms are predicted then this is from a reliable published source, and wouldn't fall under WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, if it worked that way, you would update the "last storm dissipated" to the latest dissipation date each time a new storm dissipated. However, that isn't done, so the date shouldn't be added until 0:00 UTC December 1, 2016. -MoneyHurricane (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)