Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 8

Tropical wave article
Would an article on a tropical wave be counted in this Wikiproject? The article tropical wave does indeed have the hurricane template on it, but what about a specific tropical wave that caused enough damage to warrant an article? There's a few that come in mind; November 2003 in the northeast Caribbean, May 2004 in Haiti. What would happen for the infobox? I am asking this because I am considering making an article entitled Caribbean Flooding of November 2003. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if your wondering what color strength thingy to put there, I would put TD strength. And I guess it would be part of the WikiProject. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 23:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess, but what about categories. Would it go under Category:Tropical depressions or Category:Tropical waves? Also, it fails the definition of a tropical cyclone (no circulation). I'm not sure if it should be included or not. Anyone else? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tropical waves are "a dime a dozen". The Category, if an article was created about a signifigant storm event would not belong in the tropical cyclones portal IMO. It's not a tropical cyclone, but a storm system. Kind of like those Supercells that wreak havoc in the midwest. I think there would have to be another category to find for what you are considering wrtiing about. TimL 03:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I was hoping for. However, I was confused that the tropical wave article is in the WPTC. Maybe it shouldn't be, seeing as a tropical wave is not a tropical cyclone. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tropical waves, unless they formed into at least a depression or are the remnants of one, do not belong in the articles. If their effects are notable enough for an article (like last week's flooding), it should be treated as a non-tropical cyclone. CrazyC83 23:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. However, should the article "Tropical wave" be part of this Wikiproject, or part of the Meteorology Wikiproject? --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Worldwide tropical cyclone season?
I was just thinking, would there be any use in having a worldwide tropical season page? It could serve as a disambiguator, as well as give worldwide statistics. For example, if it were expanded, it could indicate what worldwide season had the most tropical storms, along with retirements, deadly storms, etc. The 1992 season, for example, could mention that each of the major NWS officies was struck by a major hurricane. Maybe it would be a little redundant, but it would give a chance to expand season articles past their basin. Other sections could include cross-over storms from one basin to another (1996 would have Cesar-Douglas, Tropical Depression 34W, and the southern hemisphere multi basin ones) and a list of names worldwide (no summaries, just names). I don't know. Comments? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa! That's a great idea! But before we do this idea, the southern hemisphere seasons were supposed to be split up, but the job was never executed. I can't wait. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yea, that can still happen, but the worldwide seasons would be different from them. Anyone else? --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article idea is good, yet I don't know anyone would actually search for the article under that name. Perhaps naming it 2006 tropical cyclone season with 2006 hurricane season as a redirect? (To do so, move the current dab page at 2006HS to the 2006TCS page, then expand it.) This would also be a good time to make 2006 typhoon season a redirect to 2006 Pacific typhoon season as well. Tito xd (?!?) 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great idea. However, to avoid the chaos that occurred with Zeta in the Atlantic, I propose that the name simply be 2006 Tropical Cylcones or 2006 Worldwide Tropical Cyclones.  After all, what passes as a "typhoon season" in the Northwest Pacific does cross into January on a regular basis, and the southern hemisphere season is "split" by New Year's Day.  I believe this will avoid semantic debates, for the most part, if we avoid the "hurricane season" trap. Thegreatdr 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reason I suggested 2006 Worldwide tropical cyclone season was to copy the standards by the other basins. However, you raise a good point with the southern hemisphere seasons, for which the season is from July 1 to June 30. 2006 Worldwide tropical cyclones could work, but it's not just tropical cyclones. It discusses tropical activity as a whole. Hmm... I don't know what would be the best title after all. Also, I'm not sure if people would even search for it, come to think of it, but oh well :) Some redirects would be required for sure. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tropical cyclones in 2006? Tito xd (?!?) 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That works well, nice. What would the List of page be? List of tropical cyclones by year? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds ok to me. Tito xd (?!?) 04:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Global track map

 * Oh and an odd one if people are interested. I ran the entire NHC and JTWC best track data set through into one (big) .png. Should I upload that?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And there it is. Perhaps that would be a useful image for Tropical cyclone?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh, pretty colors :P Yea, that'd be pretty cool in the tropical cyclone article. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While the world track map image:Global tropical cyclone tracks.jpg is very good and well done, it is like comparing watermelon to raspberries because the tracks in each basin start at different times. The way it is it makes the Atlantic seem more active than it really is because it has over 100 years of tracks whereas the others only break 50. It would be better if all of the basins had their input tracks start in the same year, 1949 in this case. That way no basin gets a "bonus" due to there being more track data. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, is it possible to draw the TDs first, then Tropical storms, then Cat 1s, etc? That way, the Cat 5 points are more visible. Otherwise, if you decide to regenerate it, send it to WP:FPC. Tito xd (?!?) 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, both of these make sense. If we are going to have an arbitrary start date I think I'll start from 1950 (round numbers and all that...). Drawing the storms in strength order will also be possible, but fairly tedious. I think I will tackle that after the refresh of the existing track maps. Of course, there's no reason we cannot have similar track maps for each basin eventually. An FPC out of this sounds good...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I really want a copy of the huge 8191x4121 image, but when I try to view it on my 7 year old computer, the shell crashes. Can you upload a smaller version somewhere, say around 2047x1030? Thanks :D -- RattleMan 03:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll get it made up sometime just for you :P--Nilfanion (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a lower-res version of the image, having made the coverage on the track maps from 1950 on. I've also redone the track map so that the storms with highest windspeed are on top. That isn't perfect, but its the best that can be done without a substantial rewrite of the code. I've uploaded a lower-res version, as its not finished (I need to get the track data for the more recent storms sorted). One specific question though, there is a track for Cyclone Catarina available here. Should I add that storm into the global track?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! And then you should also upload only Catarina to its own map to have a track map for the article. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed both Madeline's and Tito's comments and sent it to FPC.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone
Since this is the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject, I move that we make getting Tropical cyclone up to FA quality top priority. It is the foundation of this project IMO, and should be absoultely the best article in the project. TimL 07:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very true. Sadly, there's just too much information out there, and it's hard to organize such a large topic. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gary Padgett
I think we should give ourselves a collective pat on the back. Gary Padgett's April 2006 Monthly Tropical Weather Summary has this in the lead section: This is as good a place as any to announce a change in the focus of the monthly summaries. My time is extremely limited, and what time I do have is often quite fragmented due to various commitments and the time required to help care for my elderly mother. If the tropical cyclone summaries are to continue, some time-reduction techniques are necessary. Last year I discovered the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, and the storm reports which were being written and archived there. In fact, I included links to the Wikipedia reports for Hurricanes Dennis and Emily last year and perhaps for some others. Based on the fact that reports for Atlantic hurricane seasons dating back into the 1950s have been archived on Wikipedia, I perceive that the summaries will be available there long-term. Some of the Wikipedia reports are rather brief, and in some cases (such as TCs Elia and Hubert following), I will write a more detailed summary. But when the Wikipedia report is rather detailed (such as for Mala and most of the Atlantic storms), I will for the most part just reference the online report and include some supplemental information. Since the May and June summaries will be rather brief due to few TCs worldwide, I will explain there a little more fully how I plan to structure the summaries in the future.

For example, he has made extensive use of Cyclone Mala but adds some stuff of his own. That gives WPTC some real credibility I think. One con of this of course is we can and do use his summaries for referencing. We have to be careful with those as a source in future, knowing that Wikipedia is one of his main sources.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, congrats to everyone! I just can't believe linked to an article I wrote! Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, this is a huge boost for the project. Chacor 02:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I emailed Gary last night and got this reply:

Thanks for your letter. I've been wondering who the 'mysterious' authors of Wikipedia were. :)

I'll write you more later--don't have much time this morning. By 'referencing' Wikipedia, I meant that mainly I'm going to include the link and only write some general supplementary material. I did glean some deaths and damage stats for TC Mala from the Wiki. Report, and in the future when I do that I'll make it clear.

I'll be getting in touch with you later.

Have a good day!

Gary

I'll let you lot know if anything interesting comes up in my correspondence with him.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

HurricaneActive and Infobox hurricane current
I have two things to note about these two templates, HurricaneActive and Infobox hurricane current.

Chacor 09:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If there is more than one use of HurricaneActive or Infobox hurricane current or both on a page, the link to will always point to the first "Current storm information" subsection.
 * 2) Should we get rid of the stuff that says "Category 2 typhoon (JMA 10-minute winds)"? As far as the JMA is concerned, a Category 5 super typhoon to the JTWC is a typhoon to them. It should just be, for JMA, "TD", "TS", "STS" and "TY, while the 1-minute area can retain the equivalents. A problem with this, though, would be like in the case of Tropical Storm Bilis (2006), where the JTWC's peak wind was 55 kt and the JMA's was 60kt. 60 knots 10-minute winds, when converted on a factor of 14%, produces 68-knot 1-minute winds - a Category 1 storm. In such a case, would be list it as "Category 1 typhoon (1-minute winds)" or "Tropical storm (1-minute winds)"? And in this case, should the infobox's "Winds" parameter show the JTWC report, or the 68-kt extrapolated speed? Should we change "1-minute sustained winds" in the infobox to "JTWC reported winds"?
 * To save us the problem of (2), I've changed the wording to "JMA categorisation", and added a new JMA parameter to infobox hurricane. I'll make the necessary changes at HA and IHC. You can see the new parameter (and please, feedback on the colour!) here. Chacor 04:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no not another colour debate coming... :P You might want to recode the template so it gives the JMA status first.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Added Fiji Meteorological Service Article
...but there wasn't much information to include from their website and no graphics currently exist within the article. Their coat of arms is under copyright protection, so I can't include it. Thegreatdr 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image categories
I'm going to be fairly inactive for a while as I am going to descend into the darkness of Commons and get the images sorted out properly. That's why I've brought this up: some guidance on the categories would be nice. I've used Katrina as an example as that has by far the greatest number of pics.

Tropical cyclones (obviously)
 * 1) TCs by basin
 * 2) Atlantic hurricanes
 * 3) Katrina
 * 4) TCs by season
 * 5) 2005 AHS
 * 6) Katrina
 * 7) TCs by strength
 * 8) Cat 5 TCs (not hurricanes)
 * 9) Katrina
 * 10) Radar images of TCs - By basin or season subcats maybe?
 * 11) Aerial images of TCs - By basin or season subcats maybe?
 * 12) TCs from space
 * 13) Astronaut images of TCs
 * 14) Visible satellite images - split into B/W and colour?
 * 15) Katrina
 * 16) IR satellite images
 * 17) Katrina
 * 18) Science of TCs
 * 19) Forecasting - for active track maps
 * 20) TC Rainfall
 * 21) TC tracks - maybe add by season split?
 * 22) Seasonal tracks
 * 23) Cumulative tracks
 * 24) TC impacts
 * 25) Rainfall (again)
 * 26) Impact by year
 * 27) Katrina impact

For individual storms:

Hurricane Katrina (2005) - always full name.
 * 1) Impact
 * 2) From Space/radar/aerial
 * 3) Maps
 * 4) Others

The reason for saying do impact by year and not season is to save another cat level for impact. Obviously when the storm cat would be near empty it should be merged into the seasons entry. Does that look like a reasonable structure? And am I missing anything important?--Nilfanion (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to formalise the commons category scheme on a subpage on commons. Any suggestions please help, otherwise it will be done all by me (like it or not).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Mitch
Well, expect that one to be vandalized heavily tomorrow, as it is going to be Tomorrow's featured article. It would be a good idea to put it on your watchlists. Tito xd (?!?) 00:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Article discussion as of August 15, 2006
(feel free to discuss the following topics)Storm05 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The storm and seasonal articles
Does anyone have an opinion about the quality of the storm and seasonal articles so far?Storm05 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats easy. Storm articles could be better, but aren't bad at all. However seasonal articles are appalling for the most part work on them please people.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay what about images on both Storm and Seasonal article since we ran into some that are in question. Storm05 19:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Images are simple - never upload any images you find off the internet. If in doubt, ASK. Chacor 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What about them? They should all be Public domain or, if necessary, fair use. If they aren't, get rid of them. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All in all, the tropical cyclone Wikiproject could be published as a Weather encyclopedia, with some major work in a few key areas. The most important storm articles are of mediocre quality (Camille, Andrew, Wilma), while some not-so-important are of great quality (Irene 05, Esther 61, John 94). The season articles need a lot of work for pre-1950 Atlantic and about every year everywhere else. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing that would benefit us the most is external peer review. Then, we can think about a WikiReader... Tito xd (?!?) 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Colors of the hurricane tracks
Does anyone feel that the colors at the present time are fine or more changes are needed? Storm05 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats all I have to say, again feel free to discuss the subject (above) on this or my talk page. Storm05 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions that haven't been already discussed here, and that take into account all the the restrictions and limitations we have? Tito xd (?!?) 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They're fine. Pobbie Rarr 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

ACE
Some user has recently added a lot of ACE tables for a lot of the seasons. Is that really a good idea? Most people don't even know what they mean. Maybe including ACE could work if it was a section in the season and article infoboxes, but the table doesn't add that much. Even if it must be kept, ACE totals could just be put in the storm summaries. It needn't be long, just a sentence or two, but it could provide the opportunity to mention post-season ACE changes. Comments? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Random26 and I have been doing it even though he's been doing naming different than mine. I write if only 1 subtropical storm just Subtrop. If there's more than one, Subtrops 1 then Subtrop 2 and on. Random's been taking up space writing out the full name which really i dont think is necessary.Mitchazenia 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no difference, the discussion here is to stop the addition completely, not how you're spelling them. Wikipedia is not paper, it doesn't make a difference to spell names out. – Chacor 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, I just don't see the need for the tables. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)\


 * Here's a question for you. If the 2006 season articles have the full ACEs, and the years 1995 to 2004 have full ACEs too, what's the problem with older seasons? Might as well delete everything. RaNdOm26 06:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that's what has been proposed, to delete them all (except maybe keep those for the active seasons until the seasons are over). – Chacor 06:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight. You want to calculate the ACE for all the active seasons, then, when they're over, you are gonna delete them all, forever disappeared. That is totally non-sensical. Why would you wanna waste time working on the ACEs when you know they won't be staying in Wikipedia? :S RaNdOm26 07:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The individual storm values will remain as a sentence or two in the storm article or section, and the seasonal total can easily be added to the introduction. We're not getting rid of it totally. – Chacor 07:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding Chacor. That is what I meant 100%. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. That's two people. Comments from others? My comment - I don't really care! :P RaNdOm26 15:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the point in removing them is. Remember, this is both a general purpose and a specialized encyclopedia; if we can find verifiable facts, there's no reason to remove them. As for the ACE as a sentence in the lede and in storm summaries; that is the kind of technical information we tried to get rid of by making infoboxes; currently, those who are interested in ACE stats just go to the ACE section, and don't bother the rest of users. I see this plan as a step backwards. Tito xd (?!?) 16:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I hadn't thought of this being a specialized encyclopedia. You make good points. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So, can I continue making ACEs for the rest of the Atlantic season articles, OR not? RaNdOm26 09:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dog (1950) & King (1950)
I have a question. If Dog is more famous then King (record wise), why is Dog getting the 1950 in its name compared to King which really only famous for its damage to Florida. Cant we switch them around being called Hurricane Dog and Hurricane King (1950)?Mitchazenia 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Our naming conventions mean that storms used more than once get only the main article if they were retired; while King never was retired, it was only used once. Therefore the answer to your question is a strong NO. – Chacor 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Disaster area maps
I've been going through and copy-editing a bunch of tropical cyclone-related articles when I saw this nice map on the Hurricane Earl (1998) page: I haven't looked through all of the articles, but I haven't seen this on any other TC article and I'm wondering why. It's useful and informative. I brought it up on that talk page and Hurricanehink advised me that they only release it state-by-state, so it wouldn't be feasible to do it for hurricanes that affect such a large area. I was wondering if anybody, then, would be up to the task of creating disaster area maps based on this FEMA information? Even for hurricanes that affect just one state we could use the FEMA maps, since they're in the public domain. I think it would be a great contribution to the articles. bob rulz 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw that in the Earl article and added it to Tropical Storm Helene (2000) article. But I think only those 2 articles have maps. Sad. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea, I think they would be a good idea, but it might not work for storms that resulted in disaster areas in more than one state. In addition, the maps only go back to 1998. Is there a way to go back further with a generated map? FEMA has disaster declarations back to 1955. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, its possible - commons has a huge selection of state maps, and even better they are svgs :D However, in terms of time it will take - give it a while to figure things out. Katrina would be a good test I think.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, it might be as easy as finding a US map with every county outlined (high definition), then putting it into paint mode and filling in the needed counties. The hard part would be finding that map. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 13:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't exactly tricky, see the map for Katrina ---> However, I have an important request. Please don't do anything until a blank county map of the USA is available, in svg format. Otherwise I might hate you :P--Nilfanion (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work with that! Hurricanehink ( talk ) 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

2nd most foolish 3rd most work
Has anyone else noticed that embedding the relative ranks of hurricanes in each article will generate much busy work, when the next bigger, longer, stronger, wider hurricane comes along? I advocate linking to a few, designated articles to compare the "strongest" or "deadliest" or "costliest" hurricanes in history, and begin the long process of removing all the relative adjectives now, before the next bigger/weaker hurricane makes dozens of the current longer/stronger articles (Hurricane Katrina) obsolete about relative rank. Stick to "just de facts, ma'am" about dates/times, windspeed, pressure, and storm-surge depth to simplify updates to many hurricane/storm articles in the future. -172.147.248.187 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. Besides, some of these tables are displacing other possible images that could be included in the articles.  Thegreatdr 13:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Crossovers
Hurricane / Typhoon Ioke is a real mess for us to report on. Firstly there are 3 organisations who issue advisories:
 * 1) The CPHC - Officially, tracked the storm from its formation until it crossed the dateline.
 * 2) The JMA - Officially, tracked the storm after it crossed the dateline.
 * 3) The JTWC - Unofficial, but tracked continously in both basins.

There are two stages here: operational and post-season. Operationally, do we use the RSMC data? In other words use all the CPHC advisories then switch over to the JMA. The problem with that is a 140kt 1-min hurricane drops to a 105 kt 10 min typhoon (~120 kt 1-min), when there has been no significant change (as reflected by constant DT estimates and the JTWC holding it at 140kt). One additional problem is that the JTWC reported Ioke as still in the CPac after the JMA stated that it crossed the dateline. At 09Z Aug 27 the JTWC said "17.4N 179.7W". 3 hours previously, the JMA issued its first advisory stating "17.5N 180.0E". 3 hours before that the CPHC said in its final advisory "17.7N, 179.3W". Just slightly confusing. However, operational track is not such a big issue IMO.

Best track is an issue however. After the season, the track for Ioke will be added to the NHC's HURDAT database (with any luck the full track), the CPHC will produce a report giving BT in the CPac only, the JTWC will produce a full track and the JMA track will start with one position in the CPac. To follow the RSMCs will lead to an artificial drop in windspeed as it crosses the dateline. That is if the CPHC and JMA agree on when it crosses the dateline (that isn't certain). If they disagree, does the CPHC or the JMA take precedence for the disputed time? My inclination would be to use the HURDAT file as that would cover it continuously but the CPH The choices as I see them in the long term:
 * 1) NHC HURDAT - might have errors (subst from CPHC if needed), Typhoon Paka does this.
 * 2) CPHC BT then JMA BT - official but will have the artificial windspeed change (even taking into account the 1/10 min diff).
 * 3) CPHC BT then JTWC BT - this solves the windspeed change, but means the WPac part isn't official.
 * 4) JTWC only - only center to issue advisories for whole life of storm.

My inclination is to use CPHC then JTWC, for track maps and primary data, as this has continuity - which I think is more important than "official".--Nilfanion (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't know. Officialness is important, and if the switch from JTWC to JMA in recent WPAC seasons ever happens, then the maps will have to be changed. I personally vote for using the CPHC data, then JMA data with the adjusted wind speed. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ele (2002)
These are the 3 plausible combinations of Best track data for this storm. The JMA data has been adjusted to 1-minute winds using a 15% increase, but still shows a reduction in SS category when the data switches. What are peoples opinions as to the best approach?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at that, I think the combination of CPHC and JMA would be best. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify heres the problems:

CPHC/JTWC combo CPHC/JMA combo
 * Pro: It is continuous in the data
 * Con: Doesn't show as much of the track
 * Con: Isn't "official".
 * Pro: Is always "official" data
 * Pro: Shows the extratropical stage
 * Con: A discontinuity in the track.

The bolded entries are the RSMC 1-minute data. Following the RSMC data produces 100, 110, 90, 100 knot winds. That suggests the storm dropped in intensity (from High C3 to C2) between 0000Z and 0600Z. However, from a glance at the table above and the source data this is clearly an artifact of following the data in this manner. All 3 agencies show Ele as intensifying over this period, so the discontinuity is genuinely misleading. I think that is potentially harmful, showing a trend which doesn't exist and all that...--Nilfanion (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. It's still better having the discrepancy than having unofficial data. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Coordinators now needed...?
I propose adding coordinators for WikiProject Tropical cyclones. It has seen growth over time and I think coordinators are now needed. It would see lets say, one Lead Coordinator and four Assistant Coordinators? What do you think? Hello32020 12:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Co-ordinators might seem to instill a sense of heirarchy (sp?), which personally, I'd rather not see within WPTC. – Chacor 12:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What would be the point of the coordiniators? Remember, we all have lives. Based on the past, organizing people doesn't work very well, as shown in the failed Tropical cyclone collaboration of the week. If someone wants a project done, they could ask for help, but there's no need to make it so bureaucratic. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Vamei and Typhoon Vamei
Vamei, in 2001, was recognised as a typhoon only by the JTWC. RSMC Tokyo JMA only called it a 45-knot tropical storm. Should we move Typhoon Vamei to Tropical Storm Vamei? – Chacor 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have links to the data pages, but if this is indeed the case they should definately be moved. Runningonbrains 14:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose we should have continuity throughout the tropical cyclone articles. We may have to check if there are more of these cases. Typhoonchaser 16:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. Was it 45 knots with 10 minute sustained, or 1 minute sustained? If it was 10 minute, then what is the 1 minute value for it? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 45 knots 10-minute, if you multiply it by 114%, works out to 51 knots. – Chacor 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checking. OK, based on JMA, yea, I guess the article should be moved. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Pennsylvania hurricanes
I started this article, but will not have much time to work on it. Help would be appreciated. Thanks! Hello32020 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to User:Hello32020/List of Pennsylvania hurricanes for now Hello32020 13:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Commons cat structure
Commons:Category:2005 Atlantic hurricane season has subcategories for each and every named storm. On the other hand Commons:Category:2006 Atlantic hurricane season has no subcategories. Either option could be implemented but I'd like some input from others, its all well and good telling me to Be Bold but some guidance would be nice. I'm inclined to go for all named storms get a category, at least from 2005 on in all basins and expand backwards over time.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note the nonexistent gallery pages on Commons can host a limited number of selected images of each storm, so that isn't a problem. On the other hand the categories should contain everything.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I would personally recommend having subcategories for each and every named storm from 2003 onward, with a possible extension backward later on. The reason I chose 2003 is because 2003 is next to finish having all articles, while 2004 and 2005 already have all articles. Hmm, maybe all storms with articles should get subcategories? That might sound like a lot of work, but I think it would make the most sense. For example, a retired hurricane that already has an article should get a subpage, right? Not every image can fit in the article, so having a link in the article to the subpage can allow for more pictures. Also, storms that already have articles will probably have more images out there, at least for the more recent ones. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the cut off for commons cats should not relate to the en.wiki articles. However, the greater organisation all storms having a cat allows is only needed for more recent seasons (mostly).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, maybe not every storm article, but having subcategories on the commons could be a useful way to extend the low-to-no impact articles. Someone reading an article on, say, Hurricane Kate might want to see satellite images for each point in its life (forming pic, first became a TS, first became a Hurricane, first became a Cat. 2, etc.). Not all of those images can fit on the article, nor should they, but it could be potentially useful as an addition. That's why I think it should coincide with whenever the all storm articles is. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that neatly defines the start of all storms (and all basins) on Commons. The start date is 1997, when the NRL archives began. However, people need to hunt through the NRL etc for the piccys. A category containing two images (peak strength + track map) is useless. Getting pics is something anyone can do (no WAY am I doing it on my own).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. Don't worry, you'll get help. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As for my plan for commons once the category scheme is sorted, I will make up galleries, which are better suited for the purpose of viewing (as opposed to hunting for a pic for local use).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alicia '83 picture
We have a upload with the wrong year in the filename it says 1979, can somebody get around to fixing that?Mitchazenia 21:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you include a link? -Runningonbrains 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Hurricane Alicia 1979.jpg-See the mistake?Mitchazenia 03:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there's no way to directly move it. What you need to do is upload the image again to the correct name (I assume Hurricane Alicia 1983.jpg), then list the incorrectly named image at Images for deletion.  Then add the following to the old image page:




 * Its a hastle, but it gets the job done. -Runningonbrains 04:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Runningonbrains is incorrect here, the image in questions is a Commons image so needs to go through the Commons process. The correct procedure is to upload the image to and then tag  with. That is a speedy deletion tag, so thats all you need do (apart from change the usage of the image from '79 to '83 :P--Nilfanion (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, all done with it.Mitchazenia 14:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, missed that one. Sorry bout that, wont happen again I promise :) -Runningonbrains 14:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

New "current" template
I noticed some have already began to add Ongoing weather to certain pages. I created it with seasonal pages in mind. They are current but fairly slow-moving when nothing is happening, and can be easily mistaken for a fast-moving current event. It can also be used for storm articles for events not exactly newsworthy. CrazyC83 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Only one needs to be at any given article. For example, there were three in use at 2006 Pacific hurricane season (one at the top, one for John, one for Kristy). I've removed them and only left the top one. Also did a rewording, but it can still be worded even better. – Chacor 09:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Felix (1995)
Hurricane Felix (1995) has been selected as the current Good article collaboration of the week feel free to lend a hand or leave suggestions. Tarret 13:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

commons:Special:Listusers/sysop
Scroll down to the N, and you'll see someone familiar on it. :) Tito xd (?!?) 22:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Grr... :P--Nilfanion (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 tropical cyclone seasons template
How about a template that contains the links to the articles of the seasons in 2006? I'm no HTML expert artist though. -- Irfan Faiz  04:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What would that accomplish? All the seasonal articles already list all other basins in "See also". – Chacor 04:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)