Talk:Tropical cyclone/Archive 3

message: I'm not sure how to fix this, but there appears to be a problem with a "ref" tag under the global warming section. The tag is visible, search for "refname=EmanuelNature" to find it. If I can figure out what the author was trying to do there I'll fix it myself. Jmathies 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing it out, fixed it. The problem is the the author typed refname. The correct usage is ref name (with the space).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. 

message: There are some significant structural problems with this article.
* Names for storms are covered both in the "Terms for tropical cyclones" section and in the "Intensities of tropical cyclones" section.  There is no one place where all names are explained.
* The basin list does not use the set of basins we use for articles on wikipedia.  Nor does it use the full long list of basins (CPac is not mentioned).  Where does this list come from, then?  It needs a source.
— jdorje (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. What section do you think is better for covering "names" (or "terms" I think)? Do you have a complete basin list to adapt to here. Also, as to structure, I'm still campaigning for the incidental info on terms, linguistic differences, naming trivia to go to the bottom and keep the meteorological info at the top.DavidH 04:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article problems 

message: I have removed a sentence about hurricane formation in the South atlantic that mentioned the ITCZ. If I am not entirely mistaken, the ITCZ is where  tropical cyclones can not form due to lack of Coriolis force. Furthermore, since the ITCZ is, with seasonal variations, located along the equator, it makes no sense to state that it does not exist in The South Atlantic. Or am I getting it totally wrong?  Kosebamse 12:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Storms ocassionally form from parts of the ITCZ as it drifts around the equator; I believe Hurricane Ivan was an ITCZ spin-off. However, they don't form in the ITCZ. One major exception might have been Typhoon Vamei, which formed so close to the equator that it must have been in the ITCZ. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  am I getting it totally wrong? 

message: ::Shouldn't we list these storms in the article since they are only like 7 or 8 recorded storms that did a crossover and can you ggive me a list of the crossover storms. Fishhead|§ 22:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article is not a list of storms.  That's what List of notable tropical cyclones is for.  If you wanted you could make a new article List of multi-basin tropical cyclones. — jdorje (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Fishhead|§ 12:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantic-Pacific Crossover Storms (or vice-versa) 

message: WHAT!? There was a storm form in the Great Lakes in 1996? What month? What day? Where did you get this information whoever added that to the unusual formations list? Cyclone1 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks fishhead. I uploaded it to the hurricanes page. Cyclone1 14:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GREAT LAKES TROPICAL CYCLONE? 

message: Should i make this list? theres one for florida, and Texas has a lot of bad ones too. Cyclone1 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  I was considering making a List of North Carolina hurricanes, but haven't gotten around to it yet.  There's always the :Category:Texas hurricanes which does a pretty good job already. — jdorje (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I guess, but I think I'll try it and se what it looks like. If its not much better than the :Category:Texas hurricanes, then I'll just get rid of it. Cyclone1 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Catastrophic Texas Hurricanes since 1900 — Cyclone1 20:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Devastating Texas hurricanes. 

message: UNBELIEVABLE!!! I think i have evidence of ANOTHER South Atlantic tc!!!! it exsisted from march 21 - 22, 2002. here is the sequence of images that i made.
THIS IS AMAZING!!!!  Cyclone1 23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO WAY!!!!!! 

message: The Loop Current was a major influence on Katrina and Rita, spinning them up to Cat 5, yet is not mentioned in this article.  Would someone expert in hurricanes please add a paragraph? Simesa 23:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The loop current is a major influence on all Gulf cyclones. It might be worth mentioning currents overall and how they affect regional basins. TimL 02:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loop Current 

message: The last sentence in the caption "Chart displaying the drop in surface temperature in the Gulf of Mexico as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita passed over. Each of these storms cooled water temperatures more than 4°C in places along their paths, and cooled the entire Gulf by about 1°C." is technicially incorrect. Cold water upwelling is what causes the temperature to drop drastically (~4°C). Cyclones "cool" the water beneath them by about 1°C or less. Source: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/H7.html TimL 00:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Apparently, you didn't look at the link in my comment. Hurricanes churn the water underneath them, forcing deeper (and usually much cooler) water to the surface. The heat "sucked up" as you say amounts to less than 1°. TimL 03:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulf Water cooling 

message: As I currently mention on my userpage, I think a good idea for improving this article would be to visit each of the external links and improve the sorting of them into subcategories. For example, many links currently filed under Miscellaneous should really be in some other subcategory (and vice versa), and I think visually rich sites should probably be in seperate categories from informatically rich ones. Also, is there actually any consistent difference between the links filed under Tracking and warning and the links filed under Regional specialised meteorological centers? Does anyohne waqnt a cup of tea
This would be a difficult and time-consuming edit, but I think it would be useful if anyone is up to the task. Zerrakhi 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation of external links 

message: Would someone please review the "Categories and ranking" section, and remove the worldwide view tag if the editing is sufficient? Runningonbrains 13:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide 

message: I notice some of the information in this article has been copied and pasted directly from other websites. Is this OK? TimL 19:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From non-copyrighted sources such as the U.S. government, the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, etc.  I once used copyrighted material with the permission of the author, which I put in Discussion. See Wikipedia:Copyrights particularly If you find a copyright infringement Simesa 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying and pasting 

message: From NCDC...
CLASS's next goal is to complete ingesting the older GOES data from GOES-7 on back to 1979. The estimated date of completion is the early part of 2007.  Thegreatdr 03:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, can't wait for that! I'll just a comment the place to mention that sort of thing is the WikiProject talk page really - it doesn't matter to the upkeep of this article per se.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet! Great news! Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! I can't wait! -- RattleMan 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite Imagery heads up ->  1979-1982 is coming! 

message: This article seems stable, (Odd that there'd be so much vandalism for this kind of article though, what kind of vandals care?) NPOV, well-written and seems to fit the MoS, as broad as I think a weather-related article ought to be, all the images I think are public domain which is good, And at 73 notes and all that stuff at the bottom is certainly well-referenced. Of course, that doesn't mean its perfectly referenced, but i'll get into that. Basically, I see no reason this shouldn't be a GA.
As for advice, the article seems to have odd reference-free gaps in it, nowhere near enough for it to not be well referenced, but sections such as the intensity classifications section, forecasting, your whole movement and track group of sections excluding artifical dissapation, regional terminology, there seem to be 2 "citation needed" tags in the origin of storm terms section, and five in the "major basins" section. Many of the external links seem to be broad looking links, I recommend looking through them and seeing if any of the un-referenced looking sections fall under parts of them, and then trying to inline cite the specifics parts of some of those links, I think you might get a couple more notes out of that. On sections that I highlighted which get alot of their information from other articles, see if those have references and import them into here. And finally, this should probably get a peer review..... Homestarmy 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status

message: Where in this article can I find that a record 28 hurricanes were recorded in the 2005 hurricane season? I'd add it but the article is so long I'm not sure where to put it. - Deron Dantzler 21:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't. This article is not about Atlantic hurricane seasons, it is about tropical cyclones in general. TimL 23:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there an Atlantic hurricane article where it would be appropriate? - Deron Dantzler 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Atlantic hurricane maybe? (Where it is mentioned).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are seperate articles for seasons of tropical cyclone basins. KyuuA4 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Record-setting Hurricane Activity 

message: I think we need to make the images and illustraions of consistent size. Illustrations should be larger since they are meant to convey information. (e.g. the effect pie graph is to small you should be able to see what it is trying to say without having ot click on it). Some of the images are huge ( I fixed one). 200px (the default thumbnail size) seems a bit small to me for images. 250px seems more reasonable. For illustrations 300 px seems large enough to accomodate most illustrations(of which one I see is currently only 100px). Perhaps we should also either left-algn or roght align all the images and illustrations. Comments? TimL 07:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC - Consistent image and illustration sizes 

message: I am tempted to remove this section entirely. Currently, it focuses on storms of hurricane or typhoon strength, which is not a standard universally recognized (notably in the North Indian, but also elsewhere). Furthermore, it fails to address the issue of other strengths than hurricane strength, and ignores terms such as "Intense Cyclonic Storm" or "Tropical Disturbance" or "Severe Tropical Storm" that are used formally. The Tropical cyclone scales article has a good table to summarize this, and, if the scales comparison were removed, it might be a good way to introduce the various name schemes.
On the other hand, a general problem with the article is an overuse of tables and bullets where written-out text would be more appropriate. That solution only works against the slow transformation of tables into prose. —Cuiviénen 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually "hurricane" as in "Beaufort scale hurricane-force" is probably an acceptable usage, but with the sheer amount of complexities a complete removal might be beneficial. I think this article is a lot further from FA than we like to think, because of the poor status of its most important subarticles - the Tropical cyclone scales summary table is probably appropriate in this article (if it is rejigged to be neutral and not Australian focused).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked back at that table again, and it would be horrendously difficult to make it provide equal emphasis to all basins. Instead, I've begun writing a full description for that section, though I've only done the US areas and the Northwestern Pacific so far. Unfortunately, this seems like it will be very long, and might be better in a sub-article, though a summary should of course be here. —Cuiviénen 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go at the table on Talk:Tropical cyclone scales. I've converted the US 1-minutes to 10-minutes for the purpose of that table, as that is the WMO recommended standard.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Regional terminology" 

message: Theres plenty of things I can see which need work on this article. Some of these things are on this article, some are to do with subarticles:
*Redlinks to RSMCs/TCWCs:  Fiji Meteorological Service, Meteorological Service of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea National Weather Service and Metéo France. All these should have articles.
*Numerous subarticles which would be very useful are nonexistent. Naming of tropical cyclones, Tropical cyclone forecasting, Structure of tropical cyclones, Tropical cyclone observation, Effect of tropical cyclones are examples.
*Several sections give undue emphasis to minor points and ignore the major issues. The prose on the beneficial effects of TCs is more substantial than the damaging effects. At a glance it almost feels like the article is implying a TC is a good thing.
*While the scientific stuff is covered reasonably well, the cultural impact of tropical cyclones is nowhere to be seen. There's the musical legacy of certain storms for example. How about novels, plays, films…
*Theres other historical influences not really mentioned by the article. Kamikaze (typhoon) and 1970 Bhola cyclone had consequences in terms of Military history…
Now thats a lot.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to do 

message: This edit removed a few paragraphs which someone deemed "obscure" or "to(sic) bleeding-edge".  I think they're outside the scope of this particular article.  Any ideas where the information might belong? —AySz88\^-^ 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pieces removed 

message: Okay, I have two questions about content that could be added to this article.
First, under the "artificial dissipation" section it mentions "these approaches all suffer from the same flaw: tropical cyclones are simply too large for any of them to be practical." One of the suggestions listed there mentions nuclear weapons. I have heard that, if anything, hurricanes would strengthen if they were nuked. I believe that it's still a common misconception that it would work, so, is what I remember hearing true? And if so, could we find a source for it?
Secondly, it says "At sea, tropical cyclones can stir up water, leaving a cool wake behind them.[6] This can cause the region to be less favourable for a subsequent tropical cyclone. On rare occasions, tropical cyclones may actually do the opposite. 2005's Hurricane Dennis blew warm water behind it, contributing to the unprecedented intensity of the close-following Hurricane Emily." Has anybody confirmed why it made the sea warmer? I think it would be a great addition if we could find a source that states why this happened; it would be informative, and I'm also just curious to know. bob rulz 08:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions 

message: I am refering to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropical_cyclone&diff=71146868&oldid=71107455 It is a relevant piece of information (although it might better fit into the "movement and track" section). Why is it removed without comment? 87.122.39.46
:Unsourced and cannot cross seemed a bit questionable. Vsmith 15:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyclone Agni briefly crossed from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere and then back to the northern hemisphere without disrupting its counterclockwise circulation.  Tennis expert 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agni came within 50 miles of the equator but did not cross. I doubt very much it would have maintained its cyclonic structure if it actually crossed - the entire cause for its spin would have been reversed. --Golbez 17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are factually incorrect.  The cyclone DID cross.  Look at the Wikipedia page for this cyclone -and- the summary of the cyclone that is linked on that page.  Tennis expert 17:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the wikipedia page where it says it came within 50 miles of the equator? And the report that clearly shows it never crossing 0 latitude? And the summary that says the nearest it got to the Equator was 0.7N? Actually, I looked, now it's your turn - tell me where the article -or- summary says it crossed. --Golbez 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You get the lazines award of the week.  From the Wikipedia page article about Cyclone Agni: "In its developmental stages, its circulation crossed the equator briefly into the southern hemisphere, while retaining its counter-clockwise spin."  From Gary Padgett's "MONTHLY GLOBAL TROPICAL CYCLONE SUMMARY" for November 2004, which is linked on the Wikipedia page:  "The initial warning location of TC-05A's center was only 42 nm north of the equator!  The lowest latitude system so far to date was Typhoon Vamei in December, 2001, which was a typhoon only 90 nm north of the 'line'.  However, even more astounding is a QuikScat image taken of the pre-warning circulation at 27/0107 UTC.  This image clearly shows a broad, somewhat elongated circulation with a COUNTERCLOCKWISE spin centered about a half-degree SOUTH of the equator!  It appears that this system of Northern Hemisphere origin dipped just south of the equator and then came back without losing its counterclockwise rotation.  It would be a pretty good bet to say that this is the first documented case of such an occurrence."  From a journal article entitled "Genesis of tropical cyclone Agni: Physical Mechanisms": "During the organization, it was observed that the centers of the intensification moved about half degree south of the equator without losing its counter clockwise rotation.  This erratic behavior questioned the necessary condition of required large Coriolis paramater either side of equator for the genesis of tropical cyclone."  http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/workshops/WS2006/abstracts/PSession03/P3_2_Kesarkar.pdf  Tennis expert 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it crossed before it became a tropical cyclone. Once it was registered as a tropical cyclone by people that matter, it did not cross. However, I do admit that I now see it possible for it to retain a cyclonic structure, if only temporarily (it stayed there for only a short time) after crossing the line. --Golbez 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure where it went in the article, but a cyclone can form without enough Coriolis if it has some spin to it already - which implies that it would keep spinning the same direction even if it crossed the equator.  The Coriolis effect is also not what drives the high wind speeds near the center of the cyclone - it takes very little spin to magnify into the high wind speeds at the center through angular momentum.  See http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/hurricanes.html . —AySz88\^-^ 00:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is my addition removed without further discussion? 

message: Is there any data to support the assertion that the surface air temperature in the eye of a tropical cyclone is cooler than at any other surface location in the cyclone?Tennis expert 18:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually think the opposite, as one of the criteria of a tropical cyclone is that it is "warm-cored" - the expended air, heated by the heat released from the water vapor as it condensed, sinks back into the eye.  As it sinks it would remain warmer than its surroundings (paradoxically).  I don't think that this air sinks all the way down the eye to the surface, though, so I'm not sure.  —AySz88\^-^ 23:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface temperatures 

message: "Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research estimate that a tropical cyclone releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 trillion joules per day.[3] For comparison, this rate of energy release is equivalent to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes[7] or 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity.[3]" (quoted from the Wikipedia article)
After reading a paper by Emanuel  I am a bit confused:
 200 trillion Joules per day = 200 * 10^12 J / (24*60*60 s) = 2.31*10^9 J/s = 2.3*10^9 W   
This number is a lot lower than the 3*10^12 W value that Emanuel gives in his paper von an average Atlantic hurricane. Or vice verca: the 10 MT nuclear bomb every 20 minutes leads to (1 MT = 4.2 * 10^15 J):
  10 * 4.2*10^15 J * 24 * 3 = 3.02 * 10^18 J 
am I missing something obvious? -- mkrohn 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers for these estimates are all over the place, and it's possible that "the world-wide electrical generating capacity" has changed, or the meaning of "trillion" is different (see Long and short scales) - I would personally try to fix it in line with a single source, like the Landsea FAQ or something. —AySz88\^-^ 23:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy dissipation 

message: I came here to check if the article carried the background to the terminology, the different wordings "typhoon" - "hurricane" etc. For instance - the word "hurricane" comes from the ancient Cuban Taíno word "hurucán" meaning malevolent force. But there isn't anything about the termonology at all - just the science. I think this is a major oversight.--Zleitzen 05:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's there, but I guess you missed it... See Tropical cyclone#Regional terminology and Tropical cyclone#Origin of storm terms. —AySz88\^-^ 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: I need a couple pics of:
-Hurricane Katrina at landfall
-Typhoon Vamei
-ANY EQUATOR CROSSOVERS (If there are any)
Thanks, OVERZEALOUSMANIAC 14:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurricane Katrina has an animated radar image, Typhoon Vamei has multiple pictures, and there have been no equatorial crossovers. —Cuiviénen 03:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...as tropical cyclones.  =)  Thegreatdr 21:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need good hurricane/typhoon/cyclone pics! 

message: Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of doomsday scenarios]]

message: Hey folks.  This article has grown to 100kb in size, or nearly 50 printed pages.  While I know this is a sprawling topic, it needs to be trimmed down.  I'm not an expert or hobbiest in cyclones, so I'd like to leave it up to more knowledgable hands to trim.  Any agreement? Teke (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that there are articles for notable tropical cyclones and tropical cyclogenesis, those sections could be shrunk.  I will leave it up to the main authors of this page to make any large changes, because of this article's current status.  Thegreatdr 19:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: Anyone have a good use for http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:North_Atlantic_Hurricane_History.png ?  It is freely licensed (by me), but I am not familiar enough with these related articles to decide if there is a good place for it.  Dragons flight 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Atlantic hurricane would be the best fit. Titoxd(?!?) 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Figure 

message: Per the references in the tropical cyclogenesis and monsoon trough articles, changes were needed in this article in the formation section.  The main focus for tropical cyclogenesis worldwide is recognized to be the monsoon trough, with tropical waves mentioned as triggers in the northeast Pacific and Atlantic basins only.  Since the monsoon trough can be a section of the ITF/ITCZ, I included it as a synonym.  Thegreatdr 19:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the stats from the tropical cyclogenesis article to update the annual averages.  Interestingly, both are from the same source.  There is a graphic from a different source which shows the new number should be more correct. This article over a smaller time frame came up with 87/49 tropical storm/hurricane strength systems respectively.  Thegreatdr 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your addition is ambiguous about the meaning of "tropical storm" and "category 3."  This needs to be fixed.  Tennis expert 00:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: . – Chacor 00:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wikilinked category 3, which should suffice.  Since the tropical storm definition is further down the article, I don't see a point in explaining it again.  In fact, we should probably move the definitions for tropical storm, hurricane/typhoon, etcetera, more towards the top of the article.  What do you all think?  Thegreatdr 04:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could take your silence as a yes...but will wait a bit before making the move.  I moved a couple sections of this article to tropical cyclogenesis.  We can now pare down the tropical cyclogenesis-related information in this article, if you all feel it's still too long.  Thegreatdr 18:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there ever agreement that this article was too long?  I, for one, don't think there was any problem with the article's length even before the cyclogenesis information was moved.  Tennis expert 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was about 4 weeks of silence before your post.  As bad as it sounds, silence equals agreement.  Now we know there is not agreement.  I'll take the fact that this article in on an improvement drive (perhaps to bring it to A or FA class) as a hint that others are not happy with its current structure.  Whether it is due to its length or not, I don't know for sure outside the early October comment.  Now appears to be the time to confront this article's issues. Thegreatdr 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What 4 weeks of silence are you talking about?  If you're talking about my post, which I must assume you are given the placement of your latest post, my post was on October 25, 2006.  So, you could/should have known that I didn't agree on that date, not today.  Tennis expert 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The silence between the first related comment further up this page in another section in early October and your response in Late October.  It was actually 3.5 weeks (24 days), my apologies.  No one else had responded in that period.  That could lead someone overzealous to change things (using the implied consent of no comments) if there hasn't been any intervening comments.  I only gave people a week before completely reworking the extratropical cyclone article, but that article was in far worse shape than this one.  Luckily, I had a good helper and they helped bring it to FA within a month.  Others, and myself, have now given all in the tropical cyclone project 1-2 months to reflect on the change proposed.  Hopefully a similar group can bring this article to FA within a similar time frame.  Thegreatdr 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Overall, the general consensus between many editors was that the article needed an overhaul. It's probably buried somewhere in the archives of this page, or on WPTC's talk. Titoxd(?!?) 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tropical Cyclogeneis and this article in better agreement 

message: I've noticed this article gets vandalized every day or two.  I remember reading in the guide for GA that articles that are constantly vandalized can be removed from GA status.  Is there anything we can do, such as restricting edits to registered wikipedia users with profiles, to prevent the vandalism and retain GA status? Thegreatdr 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think restricting certain articles to registered users works better. Of course anons can create trolling accounts, but they're less willing to go out of their way to do so. Therefore, vandalism should decrease. Pobbie Rarr 23:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I really doubt that vandalism is a reason for the removal of GA status; that doesn't make any sense at all. I understand editing disputes, but not vandalism, which is usually corrected within 20 seconds of it occuring, as this article is pretty much on hundreds of watchlists. I would be wary of applying semi-protection or anything like that. Titoxd(?!?) 06:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At one point, I read that somewhere...maybe it wasn't from the main wikipedia guide.  After reviewing the GA information, I don't see it listed in there either.  If you don't see vandalism as an issue for this page, that's fine. Thegreatdr 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Let me know what you all think of the new look of the page.  It seemed logical to go into storm types first, then basins, then naming, then mechanics, then formation, then dissipation.  I'm not exactly sure where observations and forecasting is best placed within the article, but long term trends appeared best placed late in the article.  Otherwise, various links were added (which eliminated a couple glaring errors that were well-hidden within this large article), direct links turned into refs, and redundancy was partially dealt with.  It needs another set of eyes; I've done enough for one day.  Thegreatdr 03:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking the silence as positive.  I cleaned up the links per the tag.  Hopefully, it fixes the section enough for wikipedia standards. Thegreatdr 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, it did. Basically, most editors agree that the article should be overhauled, and have stated so previously (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment#Tropical cyclone, Talk:Tropical cyclone/Comments). Titoxd(?!?) 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of the page 

message: I'm noticing a new link being added every few days, slowly reverting the section to its former state.  I reorganized the links.  If anyone sees any new links that should be removed per Wikipedia standards, please do so.  Thegreatdr 16:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link section growing again

message: This picture says that it has been released into the public domain, yet the image description page released it for usage in Wikipedia. That's slightly outside our image policy, so it may have to be deleted soon; however, since the source says that that it was based on NOAA data, is there a way we can find the underlying data, and perhaps make our own graph? Where should we look? Titoxd(?!?) 00:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Top is the smoothed AMO Index .  Bottom is based on the hurricane records, which I could reconstruct from records I have if desired.  Dragons flight 01:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would certainly be nice... Titoxd(?!?) 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have all the data reconstructed at User:AySz88/Sandbox#CSV_data_of_AMO_vs_Atl_Maj_Canes and made a shoddy Excel graph at :Image:AMO_and_Atlantic_major_hurricanes_graph.png - feel free to (i.e. please!) make a better version. —AySz88\^-^ 22:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will upload a SVG version of this before the end of the year :)--Nilfanion (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:AMO vs hurricanes.jpg]]