This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've put some commentary on the talk page of our tropical cyclone page, which is currently listed as a featured article. I think it doesn't comply with a featured article criteria any more, but could be brought up to standards if some more people chime in. Any takers? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Removing the "Highest Public Storm Warning Signal" section
There's around 21 WPac typhoons (per search, but there might be more) with a "Highest Public Storm Warning Signal" section. All of these sections consist of a table of highest achieved storm signals raised by the PAGASA for each province (for an example, see Typhoon Chan-hom (2009)). Sometimes this table is accompanied by a (slightly subpar but acceptable) image with the same data. When a similar table was recently added to Typhoon Goni's article, an IP editor removed it for WP:NOTINFO. This begs the question: Should all "Highest Public Storm Warning Signal" sections be removed from typhoon articles? Or at least, is there something we should do about them? (Note: The section, its associated table, and the images that usually accompany it were added by a user named LEXTRIKE) --Chlod (say hi!) 09:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
If so, then we should probably replace all of them with images, along with improving the existing images (since, being a bit nitpicky, and that's just my opinion, they're not that good to look at.) Chlod (say hi!) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Adding on before I forget - the tables may be useful in "Effects of Typhoon X in the Philippines" type of articles where a higher level of detail is needed. We don't have many of those at the moment, though. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I unfortunately will not be doing that... I have too much on my plate. I literally have a long list of articles I need to do. NoahTalk19:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Threshold for making effects sub-article?
There's not much consistency to sub-articles for storms. Sometimes there are sub-articles that are good articles (or featured) while the main article is a C-class. Sometimes that extra info could help round out the main article. We've had recent discussions on sub-articles for Isaias, Laura, Zeta, Goni, and maybe others. There isn't a huge rhyme or reason for the individual met histories, but those are generally for storms that affected several major areas, and would be too detailed if the main article getting too large and needs to be split. Any thoughts on this? Is this a pointless discussion and that I'd be better off just editing the articles instead of rambling here? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with this, as there's have been three merge discussion on Hurricane Charley just today.. maybe more than $500 million, or atleast 15 deaths? I likehurricanes21:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Pinging HurricaneTracker495, whois is proposing Effects of Hurricane Charley in Jamaica and others to be merged. It is amazing how Jamaica, SC and NC have articles while Florida, where $5.4 billion in damage uninflated was inflicted. Also, sorry HurricaneTracker495, forgot to finish the sentence. I was working on my brother's laptop when he took it back and had to finish schoolwork. He published my edit as it was then.~Destroyeraa🌀02:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. Well, I personally believe that we should only have articles for storms that have around $100 million and a few deaths. Yes, a few articles would be merged. However, certain tines(like Ivan Alabama), the damage is so high it is enough for an article. IMO, there should be a rule for sub articles.
There should also be a criteria to have sub articles. Charley Florida should have an article. At a certain point, there should be an article, even if the article isn’t too long. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
No. My interactions with TheAustinMan before this day is asking about creation of Typhoon Tilda (1964) and Typhoon Pamela (1954), which I believe they deserve articles. Now I have sent an email to tell TheAustinMan about Typhoon Ruby and Sally nominations and reasoning why I'm doing this. SMB99thxmy edits03:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@SMB99thx: I'm flattered that you would nominate these articles on my behalf in these busy times, and you have my fullest blessing to do so. I trust you to respond to any comments from the reviewers to the best of your ability, but if something comes up again that needs my attention feel free to ping me. --TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits)03:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Formally closing this discussion while providing the consensus, per an off-wiki request. It appears that there is consensus to use official ACE calculations in place of our own. Although there is some dispute as to how this should be done, it appears that the consensus is to use the figures from a trusted source. However, our ACE calculations can also be used as placeholders in lieu of more reliable figures. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hate to say this, but I believe us calculating ACE is a violation of WP:OR. This isn't simple mathematics by any means. It involves squaring, dividing, and adding together numbers hundreds of times. If you take a look at some of the published sources such as Colorado State, there are differences in multiple years. Some differences are as small as 0.1 units and others as large as 2-3 units. We should be using established sources for calculations like this rather than performing our own. Our numbers for the current seasons are actually off from what is listed for their real-time stats. I just don't think we should be using our own calcs when professionals say something else. Is it OR to perform such calculations? Should we use these calculations when professionals have other values listed? NoahTalk13:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I've been saying that for years that it's WP:OR. People have argued that it's routine calculations, but routine is like having one source saying "X deaths in X location" and "Y deaths in Y location" and adding them together. I've never felt that we should be the ones doing the calculations. Which is a shame, since I saw on Storm2k that some people rely on our calculations for the ACE by individual storms. I agree we should be citing other people's work (that's our whole job as an encyclopedia). The problem comes when we have two different sources that are both reliable. At that point, I suppose it's useful calculating it ourselves to see which one is "actually" correct, that might help sway opinion which one we should use. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I am amazed that you want to take a judgement on who is correct @Hurricanehink: when there are a number of different ways to calculate the ACE. For example: the India Meteorological Department (RSMC New Delhi) calculate it for all systems regardless of intensity and some journals I have seen support this approach while other journal articles support doing it for a specific region like the Lesser Antiles. As a result, I strongly feel that its no longer a routine calculation and is WP:OR.Jason Rees (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
That's why I suggested that we compare our calculations to the reliable sources, to see who is more reliable/correct. I know we have different figures for the Atlantic. As for IMD, since they are the RSMC, they would be the single reliable source. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Are there other reliable sources that keep a public archive of ACE? If there are and they have differing values (as alluded to above) then we have another problem. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Support changing WP ACE calcs to CSU ACE calcs or other non-WP sources when possible, though I think if no non-WP calcs are available, or if there are differing figures available, some WP editor discretion will be necessary. Jmill1806 (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment — Multiplication and division fall under basic arithmetic which is acceptable under WP:CALC. A bit of care needs to be taken in the addition of totals to ensure nothing is lost or doubled along the way. It's a lot of calculations, but they don't involve exponentials, square roots, etc...just multiplication and division. If you can give examples of where we have differences in totals we can figure out where the problem is and correct it for the future. I'm not necessarily opposed to using another source to cross-check values, but I also don't think we need to rely solely on outside sources when the equation for calculating ACE is straightforward. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with calculating ACE using the formula already cited, I mean is it wrong for Wikipedia to tell that 2 plus 2 equals 4 without citing a source? The fact that various authorities give conflicting ACE values just shows how poorly understood and interpreted this area of knowledge is.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering how any of you will judge which one is the right one, if person A says do this and person B says do that. Because if no source tells which way is the best, judging the one that is the best may be WP:OR.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
If professionals are giving conflicting values, that means our values can't possibly be right if we calculate them. Your argument on 2 + 2 doesnt really hold water as that is simple math that is agreed upon by everyone. The reason why I suggested we need to use reliable sources for these calculations is that each one involves squaring the winds and dividing by 10000. Imagine doing that hundreds of times for a season and then adding them all together. I would feel more comfortable leaving this to the degreed meteorologists. NoahTalk20:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The calculations can be done in Excel very quickly and efficiently, actually. Comfortable doing our own calculations. I also know someone who does not believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The calculations are already using rounded numbers for sustained speed. There's also post-analysis of a storm that comes after the season. The issue of the WP:OR isn't the calculation but rather the official numbers used for the actual calculation. – The Grid (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The formula between how we calculate ACE and how say, CSU does it, is the same. However, CSU uses a combination of best track, special advisories, and full advisories to get their total. That is why some storms may differ in ACE than what we have it is because we only calculate ACE for full advisories. I wouldn't mind using CSU's values/calculations. Gumballs678talk13:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gumballs678: the difference between CSU and us is that they calculate using the operational best track (00Z, 06Z, 12Z, 18Z), while we calculate using regular advisories (03Z, 09Z, 15Z, 21Z) until TCRs are released. They still adhere to 6-hour intervals. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@KN2731: Yes, I know. Sorry if that wasn't clear. They still adhere to 6-hour intervals, but I have asked Klotzbach if any other calculations go into their ACE totals and he confirmed they also use special advisories. He explained that there may be a difference initially with the ACE by different organizations, but the totals will match in the end after all the TCRs are released and the totals are re-calculated if need be. Gumballs678talk15:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose I suppose – since I don't see an issue with ACE being calculated by us as the season progresses to keep a running total going. However, once a season is completed (start of the following year), our calculations should be replaced with ACE values from reliable sources.Buttons0603 (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. On that note I will withdraw my opposition, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to vote support at this stage. Buttons0603 (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
How is mathematics original research at all? As others have noted CSU et al. use ATCF for their calculations, hence why our numbers are slightly different so this RFC seems premature. YEPacificHurricane23:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan: Its original research when you consider that there are various different ways on how to calculate the ACE for a season. For example, as i have shown on the ACE Page, the IMD adds in the tropical depression stage to calculate it, while CSU used to only include the hurricane stage. Also why do we only use ACE why not calculate some other random metric like VF.Jason Rees (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm 99% sure the most common useage of ACE throughout academia is the way we do. It's not like we are making the method to calculate ACE up. YEPacificHurricane00:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Just because its maybe the most common usage does not mean that we should do it that way solely or include it, especially when the IMD and the UKMO are major warning centres like NOAA are.Jason Rees (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
That's a strong argument for it but I'm not sure where you are going here by bringing up UKMET/IMD; that's not related to the original question as for whether calculations under the NOAA definition are original research. Whether we should use NOAA, UKMET, or IMD's methods is a separate matter. YEPacificHurricane02:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
My view since the way to calculate is disputed, it is OR to say that the 2020 AHS, Katrina or Zeta had an ACE of xxx. It's like us saying that Zeta had 3 or 10 minute winds of xxx, which could also be considered a routine calculation. I also do not see why we give it so much weight, when it doesn't really tell us how active a season is and according to one of the NHC hurricane specialist's its a useless statistic.Jason Rees (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
weak support I somewhat agree with Noah on this one. I think though that we should wait until the season ends and all the final calculations made by the weather companies, and then add ace up. It is kind of pointless to update the ace during an active part of the season as you would have to keep updating it regularly. Ace isn't really even thought about, it is mentioned in the pre-season forecasts, and when the season ends, so I am not to sure why we have it in the main article when the ace is constantly changing from systems forming and dissipating. I say we just leave it out of the article until the season ends, and then update and add the ace numbers once they are completely figured out. I agree though that we can still use our own calculations, as others said above, but we just need to cross reference to ensure that there aren't any mistakes. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 17:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose The way CSU does it is in fact incorrect since the best track does not reflect the NHC's final word. Jason Rees' point of alternate ACE definitions is a red herring to a discussion about the Atlantic, central Pacific, and eastern Pacific basins where the definition is unequivocally the NHC one. Since that does not apply outside these basins, I do oppose including ACE calculations for any other basins.--Jasper Deng(talk)20:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
If my point about different definitions is such a red herring then I would ask you why you feel that CSU's way of different is wrong and to prove it using reliable sources.Jason Rees (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: The burden of proof is on you to show that they're doing it right. Advisories have repeatedly been shown to be what NHC considers to be the actual "operational" intensity so we need to use that. UKMO is irrelevant as they are not the RSMC here. The definition of ACE in the NHC and CPHC AOR's is unequivocal just like the definition of sustained winds.--Jasper Deng(talk)21:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Actually no the bruden of proof is not on more as you are the one alleging that CSU's way of different is wrong and are not updating them to use the BT. Personally as I stated above I personally believe that it is just a useless stat that doesnt really tell us a lot and that it should be removed. Also the UKMO's view on the ACE definition is relevant, as it shows that the definition of ACE in the NHC and CPHC AOR's isn't as unequivocal as you thought. Also while the UKMO may not be an RSMC for tropical cyclones, the CPC who originally defined are also not an RSMC for tropical cyclones. As a result, I strongly recommend that we just remove the ACE unless we can source it back to the NHC themselves. Even then we should only really include it in the infobox and not really give it to much weight.Jason Rees (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: No one cares about UKMO's definition. Look at scholarly papers about Atlantic hurricanes and it's obvious. And the burden of proof is indeed on you since the fact that CSU does not use advisories is a known fact; after TCR's both sources should agree (I never alleged that they don't update for that). The one thing I agree with you on is that we should be having ACE in the infobox, not buried deep in the article. Within the article text, ACE really ought to be mentioned only as needed (e.g. record-setting years like 2018 Pacific hurricane season).--Jasper Deng(talk)01:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually @Jasper Deng: If it is indeed a well known fact that CSU does not use the advisories then you wont mind proving it and not just relying on other peoples opinions. Also just because you think that no one cares about UKMO's definition, it does not mean that we should ignore it, especially when they argue that other people use it as well.Jason Rees (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia actually requires that we represent all viewpoints appropriately. If others have different views on how ACE should be calculated, that means we should mention it. It wouldn't be mentioned to the same extent of course, but we have to represent more than just the NHC take on ACE. Additionally, I have seen years with BT that disagree between us and the CSU. I believe 2017 ATL is one of them. NoahTalk02:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
"Appropriately" means WP:DUE weight in WP:SECONDARY sources. Scholarly articles about NHC's basin specifically don't care about UKMO's definition so nor should we. If CSU's differs from us for 2017 AHS, then that is even worse because that meant they did not control for post-analysis. Arithmetic is arithmetic and does not lie.--Jasper Deng(talk)02:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what proposition we're supporting/opposing, but I will support deferring calculation of ACE to reliable sources rather than calculating it ourselves. (Oh, might be good to add a link so unfamiliar readers responding to the RfC know what in the world's going on) The debate over whether such calculations are allowed by WP:CALC have been going on from time immemorial; here is one such discussion from eight years ago. If our own computations are conflicting with reliable sources, then the calculations is evidently not "obvious". That there is even a debate over the "correct" way to calculate ACE is precisely why we shouldn't be doing it ourselves. As mentioned already, there are sources available that report the index, that are cited by other sources and thus follow the usual standards for verifiability and reliable sources. As far as I can tell, there is no definitive "source data" with which to calculate the index, only that the essence of the 6-hourly summation is there.[TAM 1][TAM 2][TAM 3]
^Bell, Gerald D.; Halpert, Michael S.; Schnell, Russell C.; Higgins, R. Wayne; Lawrimore, Jay; Kousky, Vernon E.; Tinker, Richard; Thiaw, Wasila; Chelliah, Muthuvel; Artusa, Anthony (June 2000). "Climate Assessment for 1999". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 81 (6): s1–s50. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2000)81[s1:CAF]2.0.CO;2.
^Maue, Ryan N. (July 2011). "Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity: GLOBAL TROPICAL CYCLONE ACTIVITY". Geophysical Research Letters. 38 (14): n/a–n/a. doi:10.1029/2011GL047711.
^Klotzbach, Philip J. (May 2006). "Trends in global tropical cyclone activity over the past twenty years (1986-2005): TRENDS IN GLOBAL TC ACTIVITY (1986-2005)". Geophysical Research Letters. 33 (10): n/a–n/a. doi:10.1029/2006GL025881.
comment NHC is the official agency, UKMO is not. It is possible that 50 separate agencies from anywhere in the world report on the ACE in the same basins as what the NHC reports, using their own method of calculations. Does Wikipedia report every single one of those 50 agencies' calculations that do not align? I would go against that – too many to cite and too much to write, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@CyclonicallyDeranged: From what I know, the only articles that have ACE are the Atl and EPAC basins. I dunno if any other basins use them, but the Atl and EPAC are covered by CSU, which uses NHC data. The NHC is the RSMC for the two basins. ~Destroyeraa🌀16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately ACE is a thing in the WPAC @Jasper Deng:, as after all TSR, issue the prediction surrounding the ACE index in the WPAC. We should not be biased towards the RSMC all the time, as after all, the ACE index was not designed by an RSMC at all.Jason Rees (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Nor is CSU or the Climate Prediction Center who are the formal developers of the scale. I feel that we are too biased towards the RSMC's at times.Jason Rees (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Neutral: I am personally neutral on this situation. I do rather agree that calculating ACE ourselves is OR, and in the same time I do agree with someone here who mentioned that ACE could be a contributor on determining how active a season is. As far as I can recall with any other ACE index discussions, I got told before to stop updating the ACE with the WPac basin, which I do agree now because both the JMA and JTWC do monitor that basin but with different windspeeds (10-min vs 1-min), which may lead to a bit of confusion there. We also need to look at accuracy or how reliable it is per Hink's messages. Are there are any post-season reports that mentions the overall season ACE or something? PS @Chlod: the edit I made there was just from the TSR forecast for the 2020 PTS, I did not calculate ACE. Typhoon2013(talk)01:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Support using external reliable sources for the calculation of ACE. The standard that we have to meet is set by WP:OR/WP:CALC, as it states that calculations can be considered routine "provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." Calculating is routine, provided we agree on what is, which we clearly don't. As such, the only prudent course of action would be to defer this calculation to external sources. Besides, if you think CSU is calculating ACE wrong, let them know, it's not like they don't follow you on Twitter anyways. Titoxd(?!?)07:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Is the value the NHC assesses on a hurricane's winds (in knots) per every 6-hour advisory? If so, how can this value be disagreed when NHC only gives precisely one windspeed value? Or are there other windspeeds to consider? This is regarding current season. The CSU has no info on 2020. By the way I just found out the CSU's website also gives ACE values for other basins, such as the Southern Hemisphere. What is alarming is the hyperlinks for every year listed link to the Atlantic hurricane basin, which is incorrect. Meanwhile, the South Indian cites Wikipedia for their statistics. Yikes!--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Is the value the NHC assesses on a hurricane's winds (in knots) per every 6-hour advisory?@CyclonicallyDeranged: it... isn't necessarily so, that's why there's so much discussion here. CSU uses the NHC's operational best track (which is publicly available, but isn't something that NHC explicitly makes public), but this lists intensities at 00Z, 06Z, 12Z, and 18Z, as opposed to their regular 6-hourly advisories which are at 03Z, 09Z, 15Z, and 21Z and can differ from the operational best track. Btw, CSU's 2020 info for the North Atlantic is here, and their page for the South Indian Ocean does link to Wikipedia but is sourced to IBTrACS as mentioned at the bottom of the page. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah ha. Missed reading the live page. Noticed differences in the values. I still find bemusing the website wants to link to Wikipedia, on another page to Unisys, and on other pages to incorrect basins.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Got it, CSU digs out the rather secretive data NHC won't publish on the front page, while Wikipedia uses the data that gets on NHC's front page which is not identical. Interesting how CSU wants to be different...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would it be ok to add Jim Cantore to the list of qualified experts in the section of Qualified experts on the Acceptable sources subpage? Thanks! Qwerty32501:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Would it be a good/bad idea to make some sort of Effects of Hurricanes Eta and Iota in Central America article, or something along those lines? They hit very similar areas in quick succession, it may be worth doing something like that if we have enough to warrant it, but it also could be a bad idea to cover 2 different hurricanes in the same article like that, or it may just not be a good idea for an article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowSkarmory (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Partially oppose for the same reasons articles of effects in the USA fail, but if expansion occurs(and there aren't WP: CFORK concerns), I'd be ok making it for certain countries such as Colombia, Nicaragua and Honduras. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Cyclone Erica GAR
What happened to the GAR of Cyclone Erica recently? It has been up for so long, however there is a lack of activity for several months now. SMB99thxmy edits!08:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I've very quickly looked at the article. The first sentence has a problem. It said Erica was the worst since Beti. It doesn't say when was Beti. It is also not mentioned elsewhere in the article and the fact is unsourced. There are other problems elsewhere in the article, one I noticed is a sentence beginning with a number. Someone with more time and energy can work on the article. I have to log off now. Cheers.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How to make this a better editing environment
A few thoughts about editing, since we have a lot of editors these days.
Be bold! If you want to start a draft for an active storm, go ahead and do it. Just be sure to mention it on the season talk page. If it's for an older storm and you'd like to take your time, draft space is still a good idea.
Use the project resources, links to all sorts of reliable sources that'll help flesh out your new article.
Don't just propose splits in articles to feel productive. Now that the merge moratorium is in place, take this time to add content to existing articles. There has been extensive talk on the talk pages lately, which is good for conflict resolutions and brainstorming better ideas. However, all of this energy could be better channeled toward adding new content. If an article is largely done, then no need to split it up just because it's a well-developed article. Conversely, if an article is lacking info, it would be more useful for you to add the content than asking if someone can add content. There are only so many users here, and there are thousands of articles. Some stuff is going to fall by the wayside.
If anyone needs mentoring or assistance on making new articles, please reach out to me on my talk page. I'm trying to edit when I can these days, but I'll gladly spend my time showing users how to write new articles if that's what you're interested in. Just remember, article writing takes time. That's why I wanted to push back on all of the talk on the talk pages. It's good to a degree, but if all we're doing is talking, proposing things, and talking about talking about stuff, then not much is getting done. The real reason we're here is building up the 2,880 articles (and again, not their talk pages). Happy editing everyone! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! Stopping by here since I've heard about this as a very active WikiProject and I was curious what sorts of things are going on. I notice from the main articles list that, as with many areas on Wikipedia, there's a bias in terms of article quality toward hurricanes that affected the Western, English-speaking world. The page for the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone, which is currently rated as start-class on that list, particularly stands out as a gap. Would there be interest in a push to improve that page or some others for cyclones outside of the United States to help make our coverage more globally comprehensive? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I'd be open to collaborating on the article in January. Having discussed off-wiki, I think @Hurricanehink might also be open to helping out with the article. It would definitely be a big undertaking to put together a strong article for such a high impact storm. Does anyone know of any editors fluent in Bengali/Bengali sources that might be willing to pitch in? As for improving coverage of tropical cyclones beyond the shores of the U.S., that's definitely been an area that the project has been trying to work towards for the past few years, and hopefully that continues with the section below being indicative of that effort. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits)01:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Now that we have a merge moratorium, I don't believe that it is productive for splitting to be allowed. Expiring at the same time as our merge moratorium, I am proposing a split moratorium.
You can still split articles into subarticles if it is clearly needed
Ongoing discussions will remain in place, and won't close just because of this
However, if it's borderline contreversal, we won't propose a split
Just as merging articles has caused us to lose GAs, splitting articles can cause us to lose GAs(if they fall below status). Again, this is to further have us work on existing articles(or other areas of the encyclopedia)and not to mindlessly split, as Hurricanehink previously proposed. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
We don't need to do a moratorium. If you see my discussion immediately above this, I argued that we don't need to keep talking things to death. Let's work to improve existing articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, these are case by case. The more text we waste on these discussions, the more we could be writing these articles. Can we have a moratorium on moratoriums (moratoria?) :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. Go fight that vandalism, and to anyone who wants to split, just add any of the missing content that would be in a sub-article to determine whether it's really needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
At some point it seems counterproductive issuing a bunch of moratoria for substantial periods of time. Please refer to Hurricanehink's writeup above. Where splits are considered, I encourage editors to first improve and expand the preexisting articles first. Work within the section as much as you can, and if the subtopic cannot be satisfactorily covered while maintaining its due weight, then consider an article split and rework the original section to invoke summary style. A lot of these recent splits just seem to be copy-paste transfers of content from otherwise stable articles, resulting in stubs that are just mirror images of their presentation in the parent article. While discussion is always welcome, splits on established, longstanding good and featured articleslikely do not necessitate splits due to broad coverage and comprehensive coverage being criteria for those article standards. WP:SIZERULE provides a few reasonable guidelines for how splits may be considered. As a reference, the readable prose size of Hurricane Katrina is 67 kB. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits)20:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Linking the article requests page, merger, and ACR on the hurricane template
I mentioned it earlier, but I'd like to formally propose adding shortcut links to the article request page, the merge page, the project member page, and A-class review (perhaps call it just the "review" page?) to the project template. IDK if anything else should be added, but maybe project resources too? I don't suggest adding all of the project pages, as not all of them need to be linked on the talk page of every article. Any thoughts on this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Support I don't see any harm in this, and it could definitely help out people; I know before I joined, I wasn't sure how to join (I was new to Wikipedia), so that become a member box might've helped me. Skarmory(talk •contribs)11:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
:Partly Oppose I see why people are supporting, but there can be harm. It can be seen as advertising. People should choose wheather or not to join us, and not have us draw towards them. If people don't want to be part of WPTC, fine! However, maybe a modification of this would work where we use a lesser used phrase. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Article importance does not have an impact on the rating of the article quality. Whether Gordon's article is A-class is not related to it's importance, merely how well it fits the A-class criteria. — Iunetalk00:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know some of you think I may become a LTA. Let's are users who create dozens of socks to play games and disrupt the Wiki. I have never planned to become a LTA, and I still believe that becoming a LTA is an egregious crime against the community. I have fought some LTAs before, and I plan to fight more of them if they should appear.
I am very grateful for the support I've gotten. First, I want to thank Mz7 for catching me, or my dark side nay have took over and even worse things may have happened. Then, I thank Jason Rees and Ktin for vouching for me even after I committed a serious crime. I thank GeneralNotability for reducing my block down from indef to one week. That is very lenient, as I have to say, and I am very grateful for you giving me a second chance. Finally, I thank the community for coming to my talk page and adding comments of support and encouragement. Thank you.
I am glad to be back, and I fully understand that I lost a good amount of trust. I will be under a lot more scrutiny now, and I have no objections or complaints. I am just very grateful for the kindness and encouragement I have gotten. Thank you, fellow Wikipedians, and I am looking forward to working with you.
So.. for list articles. There are multiple ways that we could write em and I don't want readers to think that, for example, if they think Hurricanes in Costa Rica is named Hurricanes in... would mean that List of California hurricanes should be Hurricanes in California. So there are three ways we could put em.
1 - Hurricanes/Cyclones/Typhoons in...
1.1 - Tropical Cyclones in.........
shorter title overall, and readers might rather want to type in this rather than a longer title.
2 - List of Hurricanes/Cyclones/Typhoons in...
2.1 - List of Tropical Cyclones in.......
seems more informal, and shows that its an actual list other than something else
I would personally argue that Tropical Cyclones/Hurricanes/Typhoons in xxxx is better as its better to be sharp and simple.Jason Rees (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
No. 1 No. 2: they are lists. The word 'hurricanes' does not indicate a list, nor does 'Costa Rica' or 'California'. A word like 'filmography' or 'glossary' indicate a list. Presidents of the United States redirects to 'List of Presidents of the United States'. (oops, option No. 2)--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I lean toward #1. True, they are lists, but they should also include some basic climatology, info on local warnings, etc. See Typhoons in the Philippines, which is a good start, but just needs to include all of the known storms in the country. The naming conventions say we should use "List", but that's if it's a table, so like we currently have for Tropical cyclones in Sri Lanka. However, most of our effects articles by area are largely prose, so they're not traditional lists. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
All of these ones cited here have bullet points for each cyclone listed, with most of the content in bullet point form, which is not what an article is supposed to read. Having a small prose is what lists are supposed to have to provide context, such as the US presidents page. The only exception among the pages being cited is the Philippines, which merely lists a very small number of typhoons near the bottom compared with the overall number of typhoons. The others are in list form at large.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
We now have an article for the 2021 Atlantic hurricane season. This article has been started prematurely early this year, and was briefly redirected again yesterday. There were similar, and more severe issues around this time last year with the 2020 season that included edit warring and an AfD discussion. There seems to be a bit of a consensus emerging to create season articles when then first pre-season forecast is issued. Should we set this as the standard in WPTC? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The standard is to create it once there is independent, reliable info on the season that isn’t just the name list. Usually that means the first seasonal forecast (or, in the SHEM, when the cyclone year starts). Usually for the PTS it’s on January 1st since activity is possible any time of the year. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
More of the question is why was the article recreated. My sense is that having an article on the cyclone itself may ease the worries from worried readers. That they have info to access straight from searching for that cyclone, instead of having to search for info in a more general flood article. In other words, the article can give readers a peace of mind, since this cyclone was a big hazard in Vietnam.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I support an article. Nangka has an article, while it only did 2 deaths and a little damage in China. Edouard 14 also killed 2 and doesn't have an article. Amang 2019 did $6 million and killed 10 and doesn't have an article. But Nangka does, therefore Linfa does. The fact that a single tropical storm dropped over 90 inches (2.3 m) of rain. There's quite a lot of info it can cover. --HurricaneTracker49518:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Per my comments on theongoing discussion at the season talk page, and like what Chicdat said earlier, its impacts can fully fit in the flood article, and there's not much added benefit in giving it its own page. It probably doesn't even have sufficient notability for its own page as the 2020 Central Vietnam floods article already covers most of the typhoon's impact (although that section ought to be expanded or updated from the draft, and even expands on that with other storms and background information related to its impact. Chlod (say hi!) 18:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
While Linfa's impacts could probably fit into the 2020 Vietnam floods article, we are talking about a system that the NMHSS of Vietnam are saying caused 138 deaths. As a result, I feel that Linfa will be retired and deserves it own article, while the Vietnam floods should be expanded to include Cambodia, Laos Thailand and probs China/Myanmar.Jason Rees (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Inconsistencies of death tolls in states across numerous articles
The point is, how do we know what to keep, and what to change? Obviously, sources must differ, and this is a question of (1) whats more reliable, and (2) how to create consistency for our readers. --HurricaneTracker49521:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I personally feel like a lot of these inconsistencies come from uneven application of the sources, or uneven updating of the articles. For example, someone may update the figures in the infobox and the article lead but leave the rest of the article out of date. What we should use are the most recent, reliable sources, with reliability being key. I feel that if we just go through those articles and consistently apply this standard, most, if not all of, these issues would be gone. So what we need here is for a group of editors to go through those articles to make sure that everything is up-to-date and reliable sourced. I personally feel that the higher estimates are the more reliable ones here, but we'll need people to go through those articles in order to properly iron out the inconsistencies. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
NCDC saying 13 for PA is the highest reliable source, so we should use that. The TCR's for older storms (like pre-2010) tend not to get all of the indirect deaths. I should note that that the Floyd sub-articles for NJ and PA were written after the main article, which could be a reason for the discrepancy. As for what we keep, we go with the highest death toll from a reliable source. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Given the constant discussion every year over proposed articles, I propose that we link the article request page to the hurricane template on every talk page. Perhaps also link project resources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Instead of merging articles, there are several storms that are notable and could have articles. If you disagree with the notability of a storm, please comment below. If you want to create one, comment below.
Oppose to Amang 2019 due to lack of notability and Support Eduouard 2014 due to notability, will leave the other ones to others. Also adding TD Oftel--HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC). I also Support TS Eight as it killed 4 people, also the Mid September Tropical Depression of 1979 should be added as it killed 4 people. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
If you plan to create a draft for any of these, please tell everyone. Thanks! ~Destroyeraa🌀23:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
support some, oppose others per what users have said, having looked into them, I agree with the general consensus so far. Also I would like to point out that while it has had little activity, there was a brief discussion about splitting Caribbean and U.S impacts from Hurricane Hugo, though that isn't exactly the same topic, I feel it is important to mention. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox) 23:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I oppose Edouard as any impacts to the US East Coast and Bermuda, would be best be covered in the lists rather than a separate article.Jason Rees (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hard no from me for Eight, Edouard, and Ofel. Leaning no for Amang as the damage seems pretty limited in scope...it can probably just do with a para of impact in the season article. I'm not sure there's enough for Danas, I remember trying to find information on it a while back and details were scarce in Korean and Japanese. Enough can probably be put together for Kajiki, Podul, and Bailu. Definitely worth making ones for Wipha and Krosa. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: I've been strongly opposed to Linfa having an article for the same reason as Ofel: it's best kept within the broader flood article. It's basically impossible to determine the degree of impact from all of the storms given how many of them occurred in rapid succession. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the deaths in Linfa section of season article point to sources that say came from floods in general, without directly pointing to the cyclone itself...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@CyclonicallyDeranged: I tried pointing that out with the Linfa article several times but was ignored even by native Vietnamese speakers... The sources they kept pointing to never specified impacts were from solely Linfa, they were from a broad period with monsoon events and multiple cyclones. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Linfa for multiple reasons. First, it was a monsoonal trough that caused most of the flooding, and the deaths from Linfa itself is very hard to distinguish from the monsoon. Second, the impact can be covered very well in the flood article. Third, Nangka is kept because it caused 2 deaths in China. ~Destroyeraa🌀23:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa: Linfa doesn't have an article because of the Vietnam floods but because other storms are merged in(and Ofel doesn't even have an article, even though it killed 24 people [3], and did impacts in the Phillippines). A lot of stuff for Linfa is left out. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Wonder what are we going to do with the typhoon season article. It still reads as if Linfa had killed 197, which may not be an accurate fact at all. Then for Ofel I have no idea where the 10 deaths were from. The first source says nothing about deaths. The second one says it killed 5, but uncomfirmed...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@SMB99thx: I oppose making Jangmi, as it caused no deaths and rather minimal damage. Nuri...meh. There may be enough if you research it. ~Destroyeraa🌀13:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
It looks like we still have 7 articles to be made which is good. I would start with storms that have clear impacts in general rather than ones that did little or no damage. Remember... there has to be third sources other than official weather reports. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Regarding the addition of Linfa, a draft has already been created by restoring the version prior to merging. However, it needs major improvement. Chlod (say hi!) 14:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
So, I noticed something. When we go to landfalls of any category(lets just take List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes), we don't see Chesapeake bay landfalls. Just like we count Long Island Sound landfalls, I believe we should count storms that make a landfall in the Chesepeake Bay.
Now, some people may be opposed to this, because what if reliable sources don't say it's a direct landfall. Hmm. Then I am personally a bit more neutral. Still, if we count tiny bodies of water as landfalls, we should definitely count this big of a bay. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: For landfalls we follow what the National Hurricane Center lists as a landfall in HURDAT or the Tropical Cyclone Reports. Do you have any examples of this being ignored or is this just conjecture? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I had a look at Hanna and its marginal if it made landfall after passing across the Chesapeake Bay and in New York. Yeah the storm would have passed over the area, but bear in mind that storms wobble and it comes down to personal taste about how specific the NHC wants to be. Is it really worth adding in a landfall when the system has only been over open water for 10 minutes?Jason Rees (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
As I said it comes down to the forecaster's personal taste over how specific they want to be over the landfall points, in Irene's case one could make the case that it made landfall 14 times after its landfall on the NC/SC border. I would imagine that it is similar for the 1938 hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You had time to start this RFC. There must’ve been some Virginia storm that caught your mind. Having a list would be useful, more than this discussion tbh. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: but did it really cross the bay? The NHC track is so close to the coast that it comes down to the specialists judgement. As a result, there is nothing we can do but keep to what NHC say.Jason Rees (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The bottom line is that we have to stick with what reliable sources state. If there aren't any that mention landfalls in Chesapeake Bay, there's nothing to be done. (Separately, I don't see WP:RFCBEFORE being followed). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
is routine, provided we agree on what 
is, which we clearly don't. As such, the only prudent course of action would be to defer this calculation to external sources. Besides, if you think CSU is calculating ACE wrong, let them know, it's not like they don't follow you on Twitter anyways. Titoxd(?!?) 07:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Partly done Cyclone Toby contribs 02:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Stale
