Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 12

message: I've been trying to keep this page as updated as possible with all the new additions concerning Mexico's tropical cyclones, which are fairly complete through 1997 on the related HPC TC rainfall website.  Images from wikipedia pages that have been created since this article's creation have been added to help "pretty up" the page.  In we're ever to get this article to GA, a coordinated effort it going to be needed to bulk up the sections outside the United States and Mexico.  A knowledge of spanish will come in handy for the Caribbean countries, Central America, and potentially the Philippines.  Hopefully, I'll get access to Cuban rainfall information sometime in the near future.  I do wish to thank all the people who caught the typos and misplaced city locations in the original draft.  Thegreatdr 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also submitted tropical cyclone observation and tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting for GA.  It would be nice if someone from this group looked them over.  The one comment made by this group in tropical cyclone rainfall climatology was helpful.  Thegreatdr 13:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was resubmitted for GA a few weeks ago per a suggestion made by the original reviewer.  Feel free to critique it.  Thegreatdr 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All color filled graphics have now been added for mainland North America.  I still have 4 or 5 images for Puerto Rico to convert, which will have to wait for Monday or Tuesday.  Thegreatdr 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Very nice, though one quick question; would it only be mainland China? Would it include Tibet, Taiwan, or Hong Kong, by chance? I'm just curious. Keep up the excellent work. I also notice that rainfall images began for Hawaii - very nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology]]/[[List of wettest tropical cyclones by country]]

message: Hmm, I might as well have a go at this sometime. That doesn't mean they aren't worth a shot. Here's the basic conceptual ideas I've had, feel free to add if you can think of any.
#By-month maps
#By-peak strength maps (the Cat 5 will be directly useful for the pertinent article of course).
Also, I think it could be worth seperating CPac from EPac and splitting the SHem for these purposes. Whilst a by-month cumulative track is less helpful than the analogous NOAA maps in Atlantic hurricane (probabilities are the more appropriate info to show), for the other basins this could be quite informative. I'd be interested to see what the EPac does month by month for example. Any other suggestions for this brainstorm?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great ideas, on all accounts. I'm very interested, as well, to see the storms by month. Now would you do strictly storms from October 1 to October 31, or any storms that formed in October, for example? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both can be done (though due to obvious redundancies I will only upload the one I think is best).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not seasonal track maps? At first I thought you were talking about those. Good kitty 06:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the delay on those is figuring out the best way to do a key, and then adding that to the generator. --Ajm81 00:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basin track maps 

message: I added a seasonal track to 1999 Pacific typhoon season a while back. That is about as good as it is possibly to make with low effort. The question is, is that good enough? I'm leery about the additional effort required to make it significantly better. I'm prepared to roll that out in the near future (over my Easter break) if there is agreement. The questions I have are:
*Should we use maps like in 1999PTS for all seasonal articles without a map already.
*Should we use maps like in 1999PTS for the NOAA basins with a NOAA map?
**If so, should we do it for all of the seasonal articles, or just the older ones where the NOAA maps are not of high quality?
Obviously, noone is going to object to the first one (something is better than nothing), but how about the rest of them?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision?

message: The WikiProject graphs that I uploaded on December have been updated with the latest data from the last quarter. Here's the stats:
Quality	№ (2006-12-10)	№ (2007-03-10)	Δ
       	33            	48            	+15
       	6             	6             	0
       	67            	94            	+ 27
       	116           	130           	+ 14
       	415           	412           	-3
       	159           	158           	-1
       	0             	2             	+2
Total  	796           	850           	+54
Some notes:
# We're churning out an FA about once a week.
# We're not using Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment as much as we need to.
# We're flooding GA; about one hurricane article every three days is passed.
# Most of our new articles begin at B-Class or better.
# Some articles (mostly, old hurricane seasons) have not been improved, and might not ever be improved, due to lack of interest.
# Finally, "fresh blood" is needed here; we're slowly beginning to have editor attrition, and with the recent accomplishments, we're in a perfect position to gain steam.
# More organization is perhaps needed to tackle the "big ones" (such as Hurricane Wilma and Rita)
Comments? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a good deal of recent work on the Pacific typhoon season articles.  The problem is, there are so many storms per season, it takes a while to get the stubs up to start class.  I still dabble in the older hurricane season articles, if I find relevant information while researching something else (like the tropical cyclone rainfall climatology article).  I think once the main articles finally all get to FA, you'll find there may be nothing else to do but work on the old season articles. Thegreatdr 08:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats updated 

message: > Witty Lama: The best one is 2003 Atlantic hurricane season, primarily edited by one user, Hurricanehink, who is 
just a machine! Which has 18 articles in it, pretty much all of which he brought to GA or FA status.  
> Fuzheado: When you mean he is a machine, you don't mean he is a bot, but more like an article machine!
> Witty Lama: So yeah, our hat goes off to Hurricanehink and to the Tropical Cyclone Project, who are just 
phenomenal at creating good articles, featured articles, but now, featured topics!
 Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WEEKLY]], episode 13: 

message: Any new features we should add to articles or sections for 2007, knowing the Atlantic and Pacific seasons are just around the corner (or just starting in the WPac)? I can't think of too many since we've come so far already... CrazyC83 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I would like to see is splitting of the next year's SHEM articles, and, if possible, splitting back to 2000. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, starting at least with 2007-08. CrazyC83 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so do i & i will help do some off the work required - also The banner on all Seasonal Pages i would like ot see replaced with just two banners one for Northen Hemipshere and one for Southern and then after that i would like to see the Regions Esspecially if we are splitting some of the articles in the SHEM Jason Rees 22:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New for 2007? 

message: How are pre-tropical systems (i.e. an extratropical low or a wave that later becomes a tropical cyclone) treated if they cause serious damage or fatalities in the pre-tropical stage? There isn't much precedent for such, but it is definitely possible... CrazyC83 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is precedent - Hurricane Karen (2001) as ET on Bermuda, and Tropical Storm Leslie (2000) as trough in Florida. What exactly are you referring to? Hurricanehink (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "There isn't much" is not the same as "There is none", I forgot about Karen and I knew about Leslie but wasn't sure if it had become tropical while over Florida (the track map shows a depression dot over Florida). CrazyC83 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one thing to discuss is what should get the article in the event there is some iffy-ness. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Donna (1960) and Isabel (1985) also fit into this category.  There are likely others.  Thegreatdr 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-tropical systems 

message: Please, guys, Typhoon Durian still needs a lot of work. There are many stubby sections. Please, if you can, help improve and expand the article. Some links are found on the talk page. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 15:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, help 

message: This stems from discussion on the project IRC channel. Currently there is an inactive Hurricanes project on Wikia. This is a redundancy to what we ourselves provide here on Wikipedia. However, a Wikia project could have several advantages. To quote one possibility as to a new objective:
*hurricanes.wikia - "a user guide to TC information"
In this context we could provide articles on the various websites providing tropical cyclone information (including WP ). We could also target these at a non-meteorologist user. For example the "article" on the NRL could explain what all those buttons give, and what they represent. As example of other things the wikia could do:
#A how-to use guide for CLASS; which has obvious advantages for us.
#A moderated form of the discussion that plagued 2006AHS last year. We could talk about AoIs, we could have betting pools.
#It could also be used as a testbed for articles here on WP. This would allow us to work on highly technical stuff that may or may not meet WP guidelines. To ease transwikiing to wikipedia, if you intend to use the Wikia in that light - please state on Wikia that you release your contribs there to the PD. 
Thoughts people?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea, and it takes care of various problems and allows us to do things we can't do here (such as post about certain weather communities), not to mention provides a solution to the discussion problem. It might be a good idea to crosspost this to Talk:2007 Atlantic hurricane season since a lot of the people reading that may not see this, but not yet (let's see how many people contribute to this one first). --Coredesat 21:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. If used in tandem with each other, it could really work, provided the title was changed to something a bit more appropriate (it is cyclopedia right now). Hurricanehink (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nilfanion actually pointed out to me that the Hurricane Wikia has a "Forum" namespace. That makes dealing with the discussion much easier, since it won't be in mainspace. However, its project space is called "Hurricane Wiki", so we might have to change that. --Coredesat 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: On another note, I have already gotten preliminary permission from Angela to have people made into sysops so what's there can be cleaned up or removed. --Coredesat 17:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like this idea. Really, really like it. →Cyclone1→ 22:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Can I just ask if it's ok for me to make (admitedly stubs) articles for things in that wikia (Countries and stuff). If not, just delete it =). Cryomaniac 00:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would have to be hurricane related. For example, if there was an article on the United States, I think it'd be neat to cover the country in the point of view of a hurricane fanatic. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a stub for , It mentions Hurricane Vince, and thats about it. Is that ok? Cryomaniac 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that could work, maybe. I'm not sure, though, as the Wikia is still inactive. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see there is a forum already. But should we still make an article including INVESTS and stuff? →Cyclone1→ 14:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what? Nevermind. Ignore this please. →Cyclone1→ 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making use of Wikia? 

message: I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now. Should our seasonal articles include information on forecast accuracy and verification (both pre-seasonal, as well as operational storm forecasts)? It would certainly be encyclopedic w.r.t. seasons, and people might expect to find that information in a seasonal article. Thoughts? – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 01:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as we include ACE where reasonable (in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific), I guess it couldn't hurt if the information is available. We might as well use the JTWC data in other basins wherever RSMC data is unavailable, and even if it does become available it would probably be better to use it for as long as our track maps use JTWC data. --Coredesat 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm it seems reasonable in the seasonal articles to me. In the context of individual storms its too narrow and technical, but "in 2006 the NHC official forecast was X% better on average than in 2005" is a reasonably interesting fact.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it too.  Thegreatdr 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forecast accuracy and verification 

message: It seems the FAC on Eye (cyclone) has stalled...there has been no substantial input in almost three weeks, and I am still waiting on a copyedit by someone unfamiliar with the article.  Could I get a pair of fresh eyes to give it a once-over, please?  Thanks. -RunningOnBrains 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalled FAC for [[Eye (cyclone)]] 

message: :This discussion started from what seems to be human error by the initiator of this discussion. The context the original message refers to no longer applies. Further comments should not read into the context, but into the idea. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 04:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't let people on this project discourage you from contibuting or adding articles you think are needed.  Every little bit helps.  I know there's a bit of NPOV favoring landfalling tropical cyclones over all others, but it honestly shouldn't matter.  This project is not called WP: Landfalling tropical cyclones.  I don't see articles perceived as badly written being worse than the numerous stubs which still occupy the hurricane/typhoon season articles, which were created months and years ago.  If people start getting personal with you, instead of being productive to the articles you create, have them read WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND.  Even better, if they think your articles need improvement, tell them to be bold and correct it themselves.  Wikipedia is not a police state.  Then again, it's not a democracy either.  It's a civil version of a free for all.  =)  Thegreatdr 17:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I agree, there's nothing inherently wrong with a half-decent new article on a non-landfalling storm. However it would be far more useful for all concerned if the editorial effort put into that task was spent on more significant articles, like the stubby seasons. Something like this takes more work than writing articles on a dozen non-landfalling storms and is orders of magnitude more important to Wikipedia's coverage. It would be better if people would put editorial effort into the poor articles on significant topics instead of making new ones on relatively minor ones. However, that is no reason to stop people creating new stuff.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Besides, there's generally more information available on landfalling cyclones.  If someone wishes to focus the effort it takes to produce a similarly useful article for a non-landfalling system, they shouldn't be prevented from doing so.  Thegreatdr 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it actually changes anything. I'll repeat my message, as I've seen it happen more frequently than I'd like to: Telling others how to stop wasting their time is a good way to waste yours. I'll make it my third law of Wikipedia if I have to... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DO bother to contribute to this project, if you would like to

message: I am wondering what is the best way to do talk pages and banners. Recently, some pages have put in the template "This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects". As the respective articles are most closely related to this project, I personally think the hurricane template should be left out of such groupings and be placed at the top of the list. Any thoughts? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more of a Wikipedia-wide discussion (see Wikipedia:WikiProject reform), which came as a result of overtagging by WikiProjects. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of talk pages and banners 

message: Why is Hurricane Edith (1971) not at Hurricane Edith?  "The general rule is that if the name is retired, it should have the main article, otherwise it should be distinguished by year." -- I believe this general rule should be "if the name is ambiguous, it should be distinguished by year, otherwise is should have the main article" (like the rest of Wiki namespace).  It was moved back in September with the comment "moved Hurricane Edith to Hurricane Edith (1971): Standardizing", but parentheticals aren't for title standardization, they're for disambiguation, IMO. -- JHunterJ 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not at Hurricane Edith because Edith 1971 was not the only Hurricane Edith - there were storms named Edith in 1955, 1959, 1963, and 1967; the years do indeed serve to disambiguate the storms. Edith 1963 and Edith 1971 both had comparable impacts on the respective areas in which they made landfall, so if Edith 1963 had an article, you could make a similar argument for it (although fewer people died, there was more damage). I do see the need for a disambiguation page, however, and I will probably make one later. --Coredesat 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should have a rule that SOME article should always have the main namespace (in this case Hurricane Edith).  In this case it sounds like the disambiguation page should be there.  But how can we be missing a disambiguation page?  I thought all dabs for Atlantic storms were added in years ago?  Very strange. — jdorje (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The important thing is that it has been addressed now.  Thanks to JHunterJ for bringing this to the project's attention.  Thegreatdr 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, it only came to my attention because the article was featured.  Thanks, all! -- JHunterJ 15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, only a fraction of the needed disambiguation pages are in place. See the list of named tropical cyclones, any with multiple storms should get a disambig page (the location of that disambiguation depends of course).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I created a dab for all cyclones named Edith. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Uh, I thought we had a rule. Retired storms or storm names used only once get the main namespace page; all others get year-disambiguated pages. For those storm names that do not have any retired storms, disambiguation pages are created. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We never exactly agreed to that rule, though I think it's not a bad idea. However, very few storms are used only once worldwide, particularly with English-language names. For that, if only one Atlantic storm was named X, but X was also used as a tropical storm and a cyclone in the SWIO, should/can the Atlantic storm get the main page, or should Hurricane X redirect to Tropical Storm X as a dab? For the Atlantic, the only ones excluding retired storms and names on future lists that were used only once worldwide are Hurricane Candice in 1976 (which would probably not get an article anyway), Tropical Storm Candy in 1968 (maybe it would get an article), Tropical Storm Dottie in 1976 (maybe it would get an article), Hurricane Emmy in 1976 (has an article), the 2005 Greek-named storms excluding Alpha and Delta, Tropical Storm Felice in 1970 (no article yet), Hurricane Laurie in 1969 (no article yet), and Hurricanes King and Love in 1950 (King has article and is at main article, no article for Love). Should all of the aforementioned be at the mainspace or not? I could go either way, though I prefer the year identifier due to the possibility they could be used in the future. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing things that don't need it 

message: This is the gist of what I wrote on the Tropical Storm Hermine (1998) page.  It is bound to come up again.  I am more than happy to work on needed rainfall images that have not been created yet, but I cannot be called on to weigh in to a decision that involves a piece of my own work.  My opinion would be slanted towards what I created, naturally.  It has a section on bias you should all be aware of.  Thegreatdr 17:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been in a sticky situation with being both a contributor to this project and a NOAA employee, which puts me in a rare position to make online edits to websites within NOAA and within Wikipedia, using one to justify the other.  Is it original research if it is from a NOAA website dedicated to the task of constructing TC-related rainfall?  Even though the results of the project have been presented at conferences across the country for five years now, and will someday be a series of papers/book in its own right, and it was mentioned as one of the top best practices in the Hurricane Katrina assessment, it does not mean it is perfect or the product of a clean consensus among tropical cyclone researchers.  Hink is right to a point...as is Storm05.  Trying to determine tropical cyclone rainfall maxima is difficult and sometimes subjective, since there is usually a complicating issue such as a nearby upper cyclone or frontal zones.  Historically, TPC sometimes includes these effects, and sometimes does not, depending on the author of the TCR.  Some people don't think you should include rainfall from spiral bands within these graphics including only core rainfall, others that you should include frontal effects a thousand miles from the cyclone when the tropical connection appears to be from a distant tropical cyclone (see Lili of 1996 and the rainfall in New England).  If the rain areas between the two are merged, I include it all.  Authors should be keenly aware of biases in sources, NOAA or not.  I can tell you mine.  You all can figure out the biases between authors of the TCRs on your own.  Wikipedia does not make it easy, as it makes an effort to avoid weasel words, and TC rainfall is a weasly business.  Perhaps that's why it has taken 50 years to update the storm totals from the previous attempt by my center's predecessor. Thegreatdr 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, we should go by the source... be it Thegreatdr or not.  But on a more serious note, it shouldn't have to be a sticky situation... because if we need something to be cited here, it probably means that someone else would find it useful too, and NOAA would be advised to write it on their site. If NOAA needs to cite us, then we alert Slashdot.  But going back to the topic, as long as we (Wikipedians) are not making numbers out of thin air, we're OK. If there is a genuine disagreement between sources (e.g. TPC saying 10 inches, HPC saying 12), then the best thing we should do is to document both figures, per NPOV and all that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TC Rainfall debates I cannot get involved in 

message: Is there a reason this was recently added to all Atlantic hurricane seasons? Does it really serve much purpose? First, it doesn't show every season, and even if it did show every season, what would be the point? The articles already link to the List of Atlantic hurricane seasons in the infobox, which is much more organized than the template. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also promotes systemic bias unless more unnecessary templates are created. I wouldn't be opposed to a TFD on this one. --Coredesat 03:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Categories and the aforementioned list should be sufficient for this one. Also, don't we already link to the past two and future two seasons in our infobox? - SpLoT // 04:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's unnecessary, simple as that. Redundant, as pointed out. – Chacor 04:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I TFDed it. --Coredesat 15:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What about having a template for each decade (in recent times)? To solve the navigation problem, we could also list the last year of the previous decade as well as the first year in the next. For example, the 1990s template could be have the title of 1990-1999 Atlantic hurricane seasons, and would list 1989 as the previous one, 1990 through 1999 separately, and 2000 as the next one. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I had in mind. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as no one objected, I added the template to the 1990s, and will do a few others. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:AtlanticHurricaneSeasons]] 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:AtlanticHurricaneSeasons}}]]

message: I've been thinking of a possible addition to . Landfalls are significant events in storm histories and have a well-defined location. Given that, effective geocoding of them and looking into adding a "landfalls" section to the infobox might be a worthwhile venture. Thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a potential systematic bias issue here, as landfall data is only really available from NOAA. However as the data is not inherently restricted to the Atlantic, so I don't think its a reason to exclude useful information. It might be possible to use best track to establish landfall locations in a manner which is not original research, the JTWC does provide a degree of information - these are ways this shortcoming could ultimately be tackled.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be interesting, although one quick problem - should every landfall be listed? Hurricane Frances, for example, had 6 landfalls, 4 of which in the Bahamas (and I don't think all 4 are truly significant events in the storm history). It also becomes redundant with the areas affected, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landfalls and geocoding 

message: The WMO has redesigned their website. At least temporarily, this means that it is impossible to find anything. For example, the Tropical Cyclone Programme home page is entirely populated with dead links. Likewise, almost all of our links to the WMO are 404s... (xposted to WP:METEO)--Nilfanion (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone figured this one out, or tried contacting the WMO webmaster? I can do a bot run to sort it but I need to know where they've gone to.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMO website updates 

message: I'm guessing this is ok...but wanted to post here in case there was a problem with what I have done.  I moved their names into the former members section.  Thegreatdr 21:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem... I just made one correction (a member is active, but spends more time helping us out in #wiki-hurricanes than on the wiki), so she isn't really inactive. Otherwise, it's OK. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 3 members of the project who no longer have wikipedia pages 

message: Hello,
Quite a while ago, I started making forecast track maps, as forecasts came out, on Atlantic cyclones. A sampling of them is available here. I started doing this solely for my own amusement, but think it would be pretty nice to include them on Wikipedia. I have checked the product license for the product I use (DeLorme Street Atlas USA 2006) and it states the following:
Web Site Map Display Rights. You may display on your personal, business, or institutional Web site static map images derived from the System, provided that you include the Legend indicated below and that you provide a link to the DeLorme Web site at www.delorme.com from any page that shows a DeLorme map image. If you subcontract a web developer to display map images, said Web developer must purchase a license.
Legend. Any System output that is provided to a third party must include the following credit and copyright notice: “© 2005 DeLorme (www.delorme.com) Street Atlas USA®”. You may not remove, alter, or conceal any copyright or trademark notices appearing on any System output, except that when creating a mural map, you need only retain a single legend with scale, for use in the field.
I think these terms would be pretty easy to meet. The only other restriction is no commercial use, which can be taken care of based on the licensing tag used on the image pages.
Of course, if you folks were to embrace this idea, I would gladly create them for Pacific cyclones as well, to make it uniform, in addition to creating maps for past cyclones.
I would try to use the software currently used for final tracks, but have had difficulty with installation, so haven't even been able to play with it to see if it would meet my needs for this.
Cheers,
Search4Lancer 02:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S4L, we already upload the NHC forecast maps (public domain) for active storms, so unfortunately I cannot see a real use. As for past cyclones, I'm not quite sure what you mean. – Chacor 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but what I do is combine them, to show the forecasting accuracy (or lack thereof) throughout the lifetime of the storm. Inaccuracies of which can actually have large ramifications, such as the increase in oil prices while Ernesto was forecast to enter the Gulf (which it never did). As for past cyclones, I mean exactly that - those of yesteryear. Search4Lancer 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is interesting.  The forecasts themselves are from the archive at TPC/NHC, so it's not like it is original research.  If he releases the maps for use within wikipedia, we might be able to use them within storm articles.  I can imagine interest in this type of a map.  Lancer, can you show us an example of this type of map?  Mentally, I know what you're talking about...I think it would be helpful to others in the project to see an example.  Your link was blank in my browser.  Thegreatdr 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the recent crackdown on non-free images, I suspect no commercial use might be a slight problem. – Chacor 14:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As shown. It's a CSD criteria. – Chacor 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thegreatdr, I've uploaded an example here. In the meantime, I will try once more to get the other program to install correctly. Search4Lancer 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's about what I had imagined.  We could get around the background map problem if the program used to plot tracks for tropical cyclones within wikipedia could be adapted to plot past forecast tracks.  Thegreatdr 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have a database of the forecasting data it shouldn't be hard to adapt the current program to plot the forecasts.  Using the same map background is pretty essential for this I'd think (though the current map background may not be the best one to begin with, I just used it because it was available from wikipedia).  The only problem is there may be too much data here for easy visualization. — jdorje (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally got the track program to work. However, I'm failing to figure out how it could be adapted for this use. Then again, I'm also failing to modify existing storms in the program from 2005 (I would think modifying the storm text files would be all there is to it, however, I'm doing some crazy things with them with still no effect). Using this program would certainly produce a cleaner image than what I've been coming up with with SA2006. Search4Lancer 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The C code would have to be changed to (1) read in the forecast data (in whatever form it's in) and (2) draw both track and forecast information.  — jdorje (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Theoretically, using multiple input files (each a different forecast for the same storm) should accomplish the task. However, when I try this using random storm tracks I pulled out of the natlantic file, it instead gave me a map with every single storm track on it. Command used was ./track --input1 /home/redphoenix/trapro/tracks/db/db1.txt --input2 /home/redphoenix/trapro/tracks/db/db2.txt Search4Lancer 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the data is in one of the already-supported formats, all you have to do is make a single file for the storm with each forecast as a separate storm entry.  Then using that file as input will map all the storms in the file (to map just one storm you need to use --name or a different filter to get the one you want).  However there are problems with this approach: the most obvious one is that you might want to change the color scheme or datapoint sizes to make the whole thing more legible.  Next, this approach isn't really scalable since you're not likely to have time to make a track file for all 1,000 or so hurricanes that you might want to map forecasts of - the way to solve this is to change the parsing code to accept whatever format the data is already in. — jdorje (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some are in this format, and some are in this format. Are either of those supported? If not, once I figure out what all that gibberish of a format is in the current files that come with the program, I'd have no problem converting them myself (or trying to remember how to work C as it's been a few years now). Is there a doc anywhere explaining the formats? Search4Lancer 02:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Forecast maps 

message: Dilemma with the CPac names: starting 2007, the CPHC is using a revised set of names. Ioke, for example, has been removed/retired. This causes havoc with our articles which mention "Ioke" as the last CPac name used. For example, the main list (lists of tropical cyclone names) still lists Ioke and the old lists, and says "The last name used from this list was Ioke, in the 2006 season." However, that is technically no longer correct as Ioke is not on the list (any more).
Thoughts?
The full new list is here: . – Chacor 13:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: should Ioke be considered retired, and thus be included in the List of retired Pacific hurricane names? What about Paka, which was also removed? Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i think Ioke and PAKA should be consdidered retired but can someone Email the CPHC to check please?Jason Rees 20:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPac naming dilemma 

message: The NHC TC FAQ was updated today online.  It may be a good idea to check over work on previous articles to see if it matches the FAQ.  The FAQ is not fool proof, as E12 did not originally match the list within The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones From 1851 to 2006 document (it does now).  If you notice any errors within the TC FAQ, either leave a message in this section of the talk page and I'll relay it, or look up Erica Rule's e-mail within the NOAA Staff Directory.  Thegreatdr 13:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version of TC FAQ updated today 

message: Lately there has been a bit of talk amongst the TC community concerning Gonu, in the Arabian Sea.  The global TC tracks image (from Wikipedia) was sent around the list, and the article on the country of Oman was also referenced.  There is a wonderful Aqua image of this cyclone from yesterday, in case you'd like to use it for either its article, or its basin article.  =)  Thegreatdr 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about this Aqua image? I agree, it's wonderful. -- RattleMan 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: They say no publicity is bad publicity, so I guess that's a good thing... right?  Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increased visibility within the TC community 

message: I propose a new project, related to tropical cyclones, WikiProject Oceanography; is there any interest in working on this project?  It's much needed but would also be an undertaking and require at least a handful of committed editors to make it last and work.  Evolauxia 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not.  It is also related to topics such as thermohaline circulation and climate cycles such as ENSO and the MJO. Thegreatdr 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oceanography Project Proposal 

message: I'm not sure if WPTC has something like this, but after the first few storms of the year in the EPac and Atlantic I was thinking of a way to make updating the article with the new advisory easier.  If you take a look at Template:Height, you can enter a measurement, imperial or metric and it will convert it to another unit.  There is also one for Template:Weight.  Now, I think it would be helpful if there was a template for converting between knots, mph and k/hr.  I don't know if it would work very well, but maybe someone with more Wikitext experience could try it. ---CWY2190TC 05:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree somewhat, you might like to look at the half-done current storm information sandbox I've come up with. Or maybe the better solution is to simply use conversion templates. - SpLoT // 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new template? 

message: There are many users on the project who had made no edits since 2006 or even January-March 2007. This had been discussed before. However, Its unclear based on the discussion on my talk page whetever or not it justifies moving them to the former members section of the project page (or if the lack of recent edits determine if the user has left wikipedia). Thoughts?. Storm05 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I would like to thank you for self-reverting, once again, and bringing it here. Personally, I don't believe that a lack of Wikipedia edits is a good indicator. As I have expressed, at least one user who you moved to "former" is a regular fixture in the project's IRC room and contributes in her own way by doing so. I'm a little hesitant, but I can understand why you think a lack of Wikipedia activity might indicate they are no longer interested in this (which isn't always the case). Alternatively, looking at the archives, I would not be opposed to creating an "inactive" section, rather than moving them to "former members". – Chacor 15:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An inactive section would be nice especally if a user stops contibuting regulary on the project but is active on the IRC or the HurricaneWiki. Storm05 15:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea too.  Thegreatdr 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive users 

message: I received an e-mail from Gary Padgett today concerning Gonu's intensity in Indian warnings.  Since it is relevant to any Indian-sourced warning, I thought it was worth making the project page.  Apparently, India uses 1-minute sustained winds similar to the U.S., which is different than JMA.  This became apparent during Gonu regarding their use of Dvorak wind estmates, which are 1-minute winds.  FYI.  Thegreatdr 18:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so they never use 10-min sustained winds? I'll adjust the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in correspondence with Gary throughout Gonu. I forwarded the email on to a met (granted, he doesn't specialise in TCs, but takes an interest) in the UK, who's waiting on a reply from the IMD. However, he believes that the IMD, when reporting winds based on Dvorak, still uses a 10-minute scale Dvorak. Further, the Tropical Cyclone Op Plan for the area makes no mention whatsoever of 1-minute winds (and it does mention ten-minute winds). To say they "never use 10-min winds" is wrong, because all manual observations are taken at 10 minutes in this basin. In addition, they indicated in one of their advisories that maximum winds were 90 kts when they said Dvorak to be T4.5 (77kts), so obviously there's something up there. This should be properly cleared up with full clarification from the IMD before we change anything. – Chacor 02:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, the time duration of manual observations may not be as relevent to the debate as one might think.  When the United States switched to METAR in 1996, our sustained wind average went from 1 to 2 minutes.  Our buoys remain a 10 minute average.  Just something to think about.  Did he not send you a copy of the IMD e-mail?  I can post it here if you would like. Thegreatdr 17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did. That's the email I forwarded on to the met in the UK. I'd imagine the TC Op Plan would mention it if any values were 1-minute. I emailed him (Gary) again yesterday to ask if he knows the contact info of any TC specialists at the IMD, they seem to be the only ones who can clear this up. Until then we should follow the TCOP and assume 10-minute winds. – Chacor 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless, I just thought of something - the ICAO TC (aviation) advisories are meant to be issued in 10-minute format (except Honolulu and Miami). IMD issued an aviation advisory at 130kts, and I see nothing to suggest that IMD chose to deviate from the requirements of the ICAO in aviation advisories. – Chacor 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So what is required. Does the NIO require 1-minute and 3-minute as opposed to 1-minute and 10-minute?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Ocean tropical cyclones - 1-minute sustained winds 

message: While this may only be a long-term initiative for past storms, for future storms should a separate section be created for the tornadoes spawn by the tropical storm or hurricane if there are a considerable number or notable tornadoes? While that falls in the jurisdiction of WP Severe Weather, there would be an overlap there. (The exception is if there is a significant number of tornadoes - i.e. a full outbreak - or too much information on the main page that it needs to be spun off into its own separate sub-article) CrazyC83 02:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the preference of the editor. I suppose if there's enough information on the actual outbreak, having a separate section within the impact section might work, though I personally prefer to keep the tornadic activity with the rest of the impact. For example, I think the tornado outbreak works well in the article on Tropical Storm Bill (2003), with the tornadoes split by state. This would allow for uniformity between storms that caused only a few tornadoes or those that caused a considerable number. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The big issue there is that it involves a project overlap. Storms that cause a barrage of tornadoes (especially if any are significant or deadly) would have an article-worthy section on its own (per WP:SVR, taking away the fact it was related to a much larger event). Katrina already has been split off, Rita is in the works now, some others that might eventually be worth splitting off are Frances and Ivan, before that information is too scarce. CrazyC83 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tornadoes within storms, article treatment 

message: I wanted to request that this project try producing a piece on Cyclone Yemyin, which (according to  one of the lead stories in today's Guardian has left one million people homeless in Pakistan.  Surely this deserves an article?  Currently the article name is a redirect to 2007 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, which lists the storm name as "usused".  Thanks, Walkerma 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem is that the storm had no official name, as the warning center for the basin, the IMD, did not name it, and thus Yemyin will still be used for a future storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case, Tropical Cyclone 03B (2007) or Cyclone 03B (2007) should be the article name. (Numbered storms should always have the year in the article name) CrazyC83 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  IMD didn't name the latest tropical storm to strike their country either.  Its pressure was at least 982 hPa.  Oy.  Thegreatdr 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One million homeless due to cyclone 

message: This topic needs to be discussed sometime, so why not now? I believe we should have stronger standards for importance levels. Earlier today, I believed that a cyclone that killed about 1,000 was high importance, but another user lowered it to mid. The problem is, we never really decided if importance should have the same levels for each basin. Does the fact that it's in the North Indian Ocean, where such deadly cyclones are common, make it not as important, or should it be just as important as a cyclone that causes 1,000 deaths in the WPAC or Atlantic? Are Atlantic hurricanes, which have more interest on Wiki and, to an extent, more interest in the meteorological community, more important than other basins by default? We never resolved top importance, either. Perhaps we should be thinking ourselves more as a generic hurricane encylopedia, and in doing so assess importance as how important it is to the encyclopedia. For example, I believe all retired tropical cyclones are very important to be in a hurricane encyclopedia, and thus I believe all retired storms should be at least high importance. Currently, it seems like most storms are squeezed into low or mid, with only a few of high and only a select few being top. Is everyone OK with how it is now, or does anyone think it could be changed? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the system (or lack of it) is quite deplorable, but such standards would require a fair amount of preliminary debate. I would much prefer a better and fairer distribution, especially with regard to the rarity of high importance articles. I would like to put forth two initial criterion for importance: effects and "notability". The former includes, but it not restricted to, damage and deaths. The latter would be of the meteorological significance that Hink speaks of - especially in the case of storms with unusual formation, extreme rainfall, extreme wind speeds or retirement. These ideas are rudimentary at present; any more thoughts? - SpLoT // 11:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we've had this debate before, but it just degenerated into agreeing to disagree.  I think both effects and notability are important to the articles.  Killing 1000 would certainly seem like a high importance tropical system to me.  Thegreatdr 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparisons are difficult to make between historic and recent storms due to the advancements in technology and warning systems. Also where the storm hit should have a role to play - a storm that kills 1,000 in the US or in Japan or another developed country should be at least High (if not Top like Katrina due to the extreme amount of information) while a storm that kills 1,000 in Haiti or Bangladesh should be Mid as it is not exactly a rare event (tragically) and a lot easier to do. CrazyC83 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the subjectivity that needs to be removed from the process.  Just come up with some set of guidelines.  How much good did our advanced technology and warning systems really serve us during Katrina?  As long as more people are willing to put their lives at risk to live within 50 miles of the coastline, the death toll should increase with the years, not decrease.  There was a study several years back that virtually foretold that.  For example, Lows are tropical cyclones with less than 100 casualites and are common otherwise, Mids are tropical cyclones which kill 100-1000 people or are of at least hurricane/typhoon strength, and highs are tropical cyclones that kill over 1000 people or are major hurricanes.  If 1000 is too low, up the ante to 2000.  Make Tops the top 5 or 10 historic tropical cyclones in each basin, whether it is from a destruction standpoint, an extreme intensity standpoint, or in the case of Catarina and the April 1991 tropical storm, just by forming there.  It would be too complex for the project to make a list of different numbers for different countries.  It should be simple so we easily apply the standards across basins.  Thegreatdr 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance in hurricane template 

message: I gave a recent contributor a working man's barnstar for their work lately in updating the season articles (including the Eastern Pacific) which tends to be a noble, yet time consuming project.  Personally, I'm increasingly using the Wikipedia articles over the NHC articles when determining which storms to include inside the TC rainfall climatology for Mexico because of their greater organization, more user friendly interface, and more updated information.  =)  I encourage others to thank contributors for the otherwise thankless task of updating the season articles, in their own ways.  Who knows...maybe it will encourage others to contribute to the annual articles.  Thegreatdr 00:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping to get back to doing 1994 Pacific typhoon season soon after exams next month, and hopefully that'll be done by September-October... – Chacor 01:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some good work in the season articles as of late

message: Tropical cyclones in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. I think it's a useful and interesting collection that underscores the importance of our view of tropical storms. Agree or no, please participate in the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tropical cyclones in popular culture]] deletion debate 

message: Just a note to say I'm alive - check my user page for more info and read this essay please. In other news:
\begin{align}
\forall x\in \{tropical cyclone seasons \}, \exists y\in \{Wikimedia Commons\} : y = track (x)
\end{align}
 .--Nilfanion (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back; glad to see you're alive. Great job with the seasonal track maps :) Hurricanehink (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello strangers 

message: There has been considerable work done on the other basins during the past year or two, so it's not just the work of one or two people either, but at least a handful of us.  Believe it or not, some of our Pacific seasons in the 1980s are in better shape that the Atlantic seasons.  We don't seem to have come up with a solution that uses infoboxes in all basins in all years...they have been saved for the most recent Atlantic seasons but are used more thoroughly in the western Pacific. Thegreatdr 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bringing the Atlantic basin articles up the Western Pacific basin standards

message: Just to let you know that your high-importance article List of notable tropical cyclones is up for deletion. People will have a hard time finding the most notable cyclones if it goes... I guess we'll just have to click through all the lists of records. Kappa 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of notable tropical cyclones AFD

message: I saw this article tagged under the category Historic weather events in the United States.  After reading the article, if it is going to have a weather tag at all I'm wondering if a tropical cycone tag isn't more appropriate.  It is also lacking of any projects, so if you feel that it's notable enough it probably would be better suited for tropical cyclones than the regular weather events.  Gopher backer 17:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hog Island (New York)]] 

message: See User talk:Chacor#Taiwan CWB and WMO and User talk:Ludahai#Taiwan CWB.
I am still of the opinion that for all storms, regardless of location, we should only include the relevant TCWC or RSMC (and JTWC) information. For example, for Dean we only have the NHC, we don't say what the Netherlands Antilles, or Barbados, or Dominica, or Meteo France, etc. have analysed on the storm.
The issue here seems to be that since the CWB is not a WMO member, they don't accept JMA information. But we are international. To have conflicting information from JMA (RSMC) and CWB (non-WMO, but official locally) [since they both use 10-minute winds] would be a disaster.
I strongly feel that we should only include TCWC/RSMC information (and JTWC info where it is appropriate). – Chacor 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. Not quite in my opinion. Information from bodies other than TCWCs, RSMCs and JTWC may be appropriate. For instance, with Chantal it would have been sensible to have used the CHC in the extratropical phase; HPC for US landfalls etc. The key question to ask is "does using this source add anything?" If the RSMC is not providing information we think should be included but another source is, use that alternative source. If the RSMC then starts to issue information it would supersede the other source.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: RSMCs may have out-of-date casualty totals, or may lack information related to regional effects of a storm. So, no, I don't see why we should do that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Chacor, thank you for taking my concerns seriously.  I am only suggesting that Taiwan's data be taken seriously for storms that are in Taiwan's waters and/or approaching and directly threatening the country.  As for now, I am including coordinate and directional data only, as they are at this point being update more frequently than Japan's numbers.  However, once it is in Taiwan's waters and over Taiwan's land mass, it would seem logical that Taiwan's numbers would be more reliable.  Taiwan is not some third world country.  It is a modern country with advanced systems and can measure storms accurately.  Taiwan is NOT a WMO member, not of its own choice.  Wikipedia IS international, which means that Taiwan's numbers SHOULD be taken seriously when they are relevant to the storm, as they clearly are at this point.  WIth the eye of the storm set to pass over my home city, I would certainly take the observations of our weather service more seriously than Japan's or anyone elses at this point. ludahai 魯大海 00:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For any given point six to seven warning centres could have 'official' warning responsibility - Sepat currently has Japan, China, Hong Kong, Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, and the JTWC. Why should Taiwan be considered the sole official warning centre? Just because it's not a WMO member? Then that's POV and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Since the government in Beijing considers Taiwan a renegade province the CMA technically has the main warning responsibility for the storm. But you don't see me going on about they should be considered official for Taiwan. Since the JMA and CWB are issuing information on the same things - positions, winds, etc, RSMC information should supersede local information as Nilf said. Even Tito's point does not directly answer this. If there are things that the local warning centre is warning on that the RSMC isn't, then yes, by all means include it. But if it's the same things being warned on, as is the case here, RSMC information should be what we consider. – Chacor 02:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, the typhoon is targeting Taiwan and is approaching Taiwan waters - NOT Hong KOng, and not China (at the moment.)  As for bringing in China's illegal claim, that is simply silly.  I have already said that I accept JMA's data most of the time, however, once the storm is over Taiwan, CWB data SHOULD be included as well as warnings that are likely to be issued within a few hours.  Those warnings WILL be included when they become available.  ludahai 魯大海 02:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong - I'm all for including local warnings, we include them for Guam and the CNMI, so why not Taiwan. But there is only ONE regional official source for the important information (position, storm strength etc) - Japan. – Chacor 02:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active storms - current storm information - RSMC only? 

message: Accuweather has sourced the article for Hurricane Gilbert on its impacts and Dean's track similarity... CrazyC83 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia sourced 

message: Now Hurricane Dean (2007) and Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C. are both on the Main Page. One of them is today's featured article, and the other one is in the news. Keep an eye for vandalism on both articles. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Main Page 

message: Hi. I recently created a current hurricane infobox for the simple english wikipedia; see: here and here. However, when I upgraded Dean to hurricane status, the box on the right top corner just says "TC", when really it should say a number. I don't have much expertise in creating new infobox templates (!), and I created it because the simple english wikipedia really needed some kind of template to show current hurricanes with. Can someone who is either willing to create an account on simple english or already has one help with the template? It may confuse some users if it is left as something in the way of suggesting: "current category: hurricane", "category: TC". I just copied and pasted the template from the English wikipedia, and created another template within the infobox which showed as a red link. Either of those templates may still contain other templates which are not present in the Simple English wikipedia, and I'm not sure which ones. Could someone please come help? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 13:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little help here? 

message: This Template has been Nominated for Deletion. Please leave comments/your vote here #1 Thanks Jason Rees 17:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The TfD closed as no consensus. This template really should not exist at that location, as articles on other events could also benefit from this one. Interested WPTC editors had best discuss it here on WP:NDT (the relevant project page).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hurricanne Warning Templete TFD

message: Since many people other than me are using the track-making program (User:Jdorje/Tracks) these days, I propose moving its page into the wikiproject space. — jdorje (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tracks project