Talk:Tropical cyclone

message: We need to figure out exactly how we are going to structure the intensity subsection and what kind of a subarticle we need to write for it (if we need one). NoahTalk 15:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you have any ideas? NoahTalk 15:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the tropical cyclone expert, so I find this quite difficult. My first thought is that rapid intensification should be part of intensity.. I'm quite surprised I cannot find recent books on Google books that cover the topic in its entirety, which may be because of not using the right search terms. I always use books when I don't know how to structure an article: find the index of a couple of high-quality books and mix-and-match. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will create and add a plan here tonight for what this section should cover so I can begin working on it this week. NoahTalk 18:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I already spok×e to Jason off wiki about this one. What do you guys think about this plan? Bolded items are subsections of intensity. NoahTalk 01:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm slightly intimidated by the abbreviations. Just make sure it stays accessible and I'm happy :). FemkeMilene (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The abbreviations are just for the list of points here. They will be written out in full in the text. I have never really been fond of using just abbreviations in text other than for agency names. I will need to move intensity under classification per Jason Rees's plan. Would we need any more subsections under intensity or is the proposed organization fine? NoahTalk 20:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. The second paragraph is quite long. Can it be further reduced to keep paragraph size in check (halved??)? I think the factors is the most interesting subsection here and deserves most of the space. If that doesn't make sense, ignore me as I'm not the expert.  FemkeMilene (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

text:  I still have to add the bit on wind height reduction to the first paragraph. I can’t reduce the coverage of the methods without cutting important details. I actually left out a bunch of lesser known satellite tools. As for the factors, it will likely get at least the same if not more coverage than the methods. NoahTalk 22:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Additional comment: I added that bit in for the first paragraph. That second paragraph is okay for size. I have actually seen paragraphs larger than that be acceptable at FAC. The methods section is now completely finished and I have addressed all of the points I intended to. I will add in the wind-pressure relationship today; I got a couple academic journals on it. I likely won't add anything else in until after my finals on Monday, especially considering I have to work today and tomorrow. Anyways, factors will be the next intensity subtopic to be addressed and boy oh boy there is a lot to address. EDIT 21:34 Actually, the WPR also needs to be in the methods section as well, which should finish it. NoahTalk 12:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I think we need to get this article back to GA at least by the end of this year. Should intensity be its own separate section from classification and contain the items I list above? I think we need to make an outline of what the entire article should contain. NoahTalk 00:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Intensity subsection

message: *TCs intensity determined by winds and pressure
*Observed common intensities and extremes
*Other metrics for intensity (HSI/ACE/IKE)
;Factors (their roles in intensification and weakening)
*SSTs
*Wind Shear
*Role size plays
*Outflow
*Moisture
*OHC + Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential
*Structure changes + interaction with other systems
*Landmasses, brown ocean effect, orographic lift, jet enhancement
;Formation
*Major required components
**Coriolis effect
**Instability
**Short remention of shear and SSTs
**Low-level disturbance
** Upper-level Divergence
*Unusual formation areas
**Mid-lats
**Near Equator
**SATL
**Met Sea & Black Sea
**SE Pacific, Great Lakes
*Influence of Climate Cycles
**MJO
**ENSO
**Rossby waves
**Convectively coupled Kelvin wave
;General intensification/RI
*General intensification information
**Inland/Brown Ocean
*Rapid intensification/rapid deepening
;Weakening and Dissipation
*Current section, but more condensed
;Methods
*Brief explanation on Dvorak's role for intensity + brief on recon, direct observ, and height reduction conversion
*Wind-pressure relationship
*Other commonly-used tools for measuring intensity (ADT, SATCON, ASCAT, SMAP)
: I already spok×e to Jason off wiki about this one. What do you guys think about this plan? Bolded items are subsections of intensity. NoahTalk 01:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm slightly intimidated by the abbreviations. Just make sure it stays accessible and I'm happy :). FemkeMilene (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The abbreviations are just for the list of points here. They will be written out in full in the text. I have never really been fond of using just abbreviations in text other than for agency names. I will need to move intensity under classification per Jason Rees's plan. Would we need any more subsections under intensity or is the proposed organization fine? NoahTalk 20:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. The second paragraph is quite long. Can it be further reduced to keep paragraph size in check (halved??)? I think the factors is the most interesting subsection here and deserves most of the space. If that doesn't make sense, ignore me as I'm not the expert.  FemkeMilene (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still have to add the bit on wind height reduction to the first paragraph. I can’t reduce the coverage of the methods without cutting important details. I actually left out a bunch of lesser known satellite tools. As for the factors, it will likely get at least the same if not more coverage than the methods. NoahTalk 22:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Additional comment: I added that bit in for the first paragraph. That second paragraph is okay for size. I have actually seen paragraphs larger than that be acceptable at FAC. The methods section is now completely finished and I have addressed all of the points I intended to. I will add in the wind-pressure relationship today; I got a couple academic journals on it. I likely won't add anything else in until after my finals on Monday, especially considering I have to work today and tomorrow. Anyways, factors will be the next intensity subtopic to be addressed and boy oh boy there is a lot to address. EDIT 21:34 Actually, the WPR also needs to be in the methods section as well, which should finish it. NoahTalk 12:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I think we need to get this article back to GA at least by the end of this year. Should intensity be its own separate section from classification and contain the items I list above? I think we need to make an outline of what the entire article should contain. NoahTalk 00:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan

message: 13. The popular culture section seems to have examples only from a single country (US). Surely, tropical cyclones must be portrayed in pop. cult. in Japan, Central America / Mexico. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing 

message: I readded this discussion from the archive as work still needs done. I plan to restart where I left off soon... NoahTalk 16:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Readding

message: *TCs intensity determined by winds and pressure
*Observed extremes
;Factors (their roles in intensification and weakening)
 according to Noah. NoahTalk 00:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Noah. NoahTalk 01:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

text: According to Noah. NoahTalk 01:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

text: According to Noah. NoahTalk 01:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: {{Done}} Intensity

message: I am kinda basing this off on a large paper on TC structure in terms of points to discuss here. This is still incomplete. NoahTalk 22:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: ;Environmental steering
 according to Noah. NoahTalk 22:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Movement

message: ;Intensity classifications
* Needs a better summary
;Naming
 According to Noah. NoahTalk 19:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: ;Weather/Events that TCs cause or worsen
: According to Noah NoahTalk 01:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Noah. NoahTalk 01:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

text: According to Noah. NoahTalk 15:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: {{done}} Impacts

message: ;Observation
 Looks sufficient to me. NoahTalk 22:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Observation and forecasting

message: Change grammar, to remove comma and replace with full stop, and place an and at the end of a list. Passage copied below with area in need of changes highlighted with asterisks:
Several factors are required for these thunderstorms to develop further, including sea surface temperatures of around 27 °C (81 °F) and low vertical wind shear surrounding the system,[37][38] atmospheric instability, high humidity in the lower to middle levels of the troposphere, enough Coriolis force to develop a low-pressure center, ***and*** a pre-existing low-level focus or disturbance,***replace comma with full stop***[38] There is a limit on tropical cyclone intensity which is strongly related to the water temperatures along its path.[39] and upper-level divergence.[40] An average of 86 tropical cyclones of tropical storm intensity form annually worldwide. Of those, 47 reach strength higher than 119 km/h (74 mph), and 20 become intense tropical cyclones (at least Category 3 intensity on the Saffir–Simpson scale).[41] Adamsmith142 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you for the suggestions. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023 

message: According to 2023 Atlantic hurricane season, there have been 21 tropical depressions so far this year in the Atlantic, but only 20 tropical storms. I came here to find out what the difference is, but nothing in this article explains the difference. Nosferattus (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Atlantic, a tropical cyclone with winds below than  are called "tropical depressions", and those with winds above that threshold but below hurricane-force are called "tropical storms". In counts of storm activity, tropical storms also count as tropical depressions (as do hurricanes and major hurricanes). Since the terminology used to differentiate storms by wind speed varies globally, details are elaborated upon in the article tropical cyclone scales. However, I did add a short blurb at the end of the §Classification section of this article to provide some clarification. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 23:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tropical depression vs tropical storm 

message: I've removed the "further reading" list as I don't think it adds any value. It would have to be curated regularly and also it's currently US centric:
* Barnes, Jay. Fifteen Hurricanes That Changed the Carolinas: Powerful Storms, Climate Change, and What We Do Next (University of North Carolina Press, 2022) online review
* Vecchi, Gabriel A., et al. "Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century." Nature communications 12.1 (2021): 1–9. online
* Weinkle, Jessica, et al. "Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017." Nature Sustainability 1.12 (2018): 808–813. online EMsmile (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "further reading" list 

message: I've made some changes to the structure. My biggest change was that I dissolved the "background" section as I felt that it was not needed and in any case ill-defined. Where would you draw the lines for a "background" section? It could talk about cyclones in general, storms, weather, climate, history and so forth. I didn't delete the content that was there but moved it to better places. 
Instead, I have created a section on "definition and terminology". I find in many Wikipedia articles (like this one as well), the first paragraph of the lead talks a lot about terminology but the main article doesn't have a section for it. I think it's better to have a dedicated section for it and then not waste so much valuable space in the first paragraph of the lead on this topic. Also for this lead, I would suggest condensing the info that is currently in the first paragraph of the lead about terminology. And rather put there information that is highly important and relevant for the readers. EMsmile (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made some changes to the structure 

message: I am surprised we don't interlink better with the parent article for this, i.e. cyclone. Should it be mentioned and linked at least once in the lead? And also for some sections where it might have additional information for the readers, e.g. regarding formation? So far, I find only one wikilink to cyclone and that's in this sentence:  EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlink better with [[cyclone]] article? 

message: I've added a sentence about climate change to the end of the lead as I felt this was justified (it's a key question for many people: are tropical cyclones getting worse due to climate change or not). This has made the lead a bit too long now. I've therefore moved some content that was dealing with terminology from the lead to the "terminology" section. The lead is now 604 words. I think we should shrink it down to perhaps 500 words. Who has ideas and inspiration for further condensing the lead? EMsmile (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry about the lead much until the article is back in good shape. It would be pointless to work on it now when other areas need attention. I havent really had much time to contribute to WP for quite a while but the list of things under article outline still stands. I wouldn't focus on the lead until every topic is sufficiently covered since the lead should summarize the article. Noah, AATalk 15:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  In an ideal world, yes. But in reality, it might be a while until someone finds time to improve the main text. In the meantime, people who are reading on Wikipedia are already reading the lead (and perhaps only the lead!). Therefore, I think improving the lead is important, at any time and even before the main text is improved (or in parallel). I don't have time for either of this myself at the moment though, sadly.  EMsmile (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a bit of work to make the lead easier to understand (using the readability tool as guidance). I've also shortened it a bit. It's still a bit too long (602 words), I think it should be shrunk down to 500 words. EMsmile (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the lead