Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 11

message: Having coming back from my break I've been thinking about 3 some issues with our article nomenclature. The first is the inconsistency for unnnamed storms. Our guidelines give three forms and in my opinion there are 4 possible forms for the Galveston Hurricane of 1900:
*Galveston Hurricane of 1900
*1900 Galveston Hurricane
*Galveston Hurricane (1900)
*Galveston Hurricane
Obviously the last of these isn't that useful for our purposes, but there is no preferred layout for these storms in documentation. In the case of the Galveston 'cane, it is known as just that (with a year for disambiguation purposes). In no case is the year a part of the actual "name" of the storm, so we should feel free to apply our own disambiguation style to it. That would mean the Galveston Hurricane (1900) could well be the best, as it best matches the layout both of the formally named storm articles and wider wiki-practice. However we don't want a WPTC version of this do we?
The second is a consequence of our increasing coverage of older storms. Whilst the Galveston cane is referred to by (some variant of) that name in the majority of reliable sources, with less notable storms (1933 Outer Banks Hurricane for example) we are reduced to making up the article name for ourselves. That particular storm has no name at all, the only mention of it in any RS will refer to it by date. That means the only name we can realistically give to the article (and therefore the storm itself) which is not OR is some variant of Atlantic hurricane 13 (1933). And yes, I don't like that name either.
The final issue is with capitalisation. "Galveston Hurricane" or "Galveston hurricane", "Outer Banks Hurricane" or "Outer Banks hurricane"? With formally named storms the Hurricane/Typhoon/Whatever is part of the name and should be capitalised as a proper noun. However with historical storms they are not named in general but referred to by what region they affected. In the case of the Galveston cane, one of the prime NOAA sources is titled "NOAA's Galveston 1900 Hurricane", but the first reference to the storm on the website is to "The Galveston, Texas, hurricane of 1900". This suggests to me the Hurricane on that site is merely the result of title case and not because it is being treated as a proper noun, in a glance through the external links in our article I could not find a single use of "Galveston Hurricane of 1900" (though I did find "1900 Galveston Hurricane"). With less notable storms it is even worse. By capitalising the hurricane in the 1933 Outer Banks Hurricane, both in the title and in the prose, we have turned a way of referring to the storm into a name, where no name even exists for the storm. I think this particular point might have to go to discussion at MOS for guidance, but we need to start thinking about it here first.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally like the format of Year Location Hurricane (or TS, typhoon, or cyclone, hurricane capitalized). The exception is if it has a name already, with an of year to minimize confusion. Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, provided that is the name as they are referred to, should remain. However, this hurdat list provides names for several pre-1950 hurricanes. The question is, do we follow that list and do the format of Hurdat-name Hurricane of Year, or do we do it to the other standard by doing Year Hurdat-name Hurricane. Some names will not make sense if you do the latter. For example, 1869 Saxby's Gale doesn't work too well compared to Saxby's Gale of 1869. We certainly have a dilema here. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I unarchived this, because we really need a consensus on what to do. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I personally think we should create a name like 1933 Outer Banks Hurricane, rather than using the format of Hurricane 1 (1900). Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storms article naming 

message: If anyone with the talents for creating track maps would like to tackle this article, go for it.  We have two so far, and only need another 54.  =)  Thegreatdr 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get on with the job over the weekend. As this is going to be a mass upload; I will do it for all named WPac, NIO and SHem that I can identify, I will implement the changes previously discussed too. In other words, can no-one else with the program do this, my bot account is the best for this role.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad this is a somewhat automated process for you.  The Mexican rainfall information being added to the tropical cyclone rainfall database is similarly automated.  If only the United States was.  Thegreatdr 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Or maybe not.  If not done by February, I'll look into producing the tracks.  Thegreatdr 19:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for getting to the early 1980's.  =)  Thegreatdr 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nicely done. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they higher than that? I couldn't find damage info and I don't know where to find a definitive list of PAGASA names. But they do finally have tracks. Good kitty 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They could be higher than start.  If you think they are, upgrade them to B.  Thegreatdr 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1981 Pacific typhoon season|1981]], [[1982 Pacific typhoon season|1982]], [[1983 Pacific typhoon season|1983]], [[1984 Pacific typhoon season|1984]] Pacific typhoon seasons now B class 

message: I know we sort of agreed to split the Southern Hemisphere cyclone season articles, but that hasn't really happened. If we do split them, where should they be split to? Here's what I had in mind, using the 1999-00 season as an example:
*1999-00 Indian cyclone season (Actually, Titoxd came up with this idea, and it's a pretty good idea, since the NIO is generally much less active than the SIO)
*1999-00 Australian cyclone season
*1999-00 South Pacific cyclone season (or just "Pacific cyclone season")
Thoughts? --Coredesat 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm I think the SPac/Aussie articles are reasonable (though I'm not sure if 1999-00 or 1999-2000 is the MOS-encouraged format for this date range. I'm leery of combining the two Indian basins like Tito suggests however; Nhem and SHem really should be kept seperate. An alternative is:
*SW Indian
*SE Indian and Pacific
This scheme follows that of the WMO; though a further split of the Aus/SPac is reasonable. That suggests in creating the split we should first do the SWIO.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: At the same time, you have to consider whether the amount of activity in the NIO is high enough for it to warrant its own seasonal article. That's why I consider keeping the Indian Ocean together to be sensible for now. Titoxd(?!?) 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the NIO is actually high enough for its own seasonal article, probably back to 1990 or maybe earlier. The problem is there is no interest there. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I have a fundamentally bigger problem with our coverage of the NIO. There is no such thing as the 2006 North Indian cyclone season; there are two of those (pre- and post-monsoon). A more logical way to split is by basin and then by time. If the North IO articles are too short, have 5-years covered at once. The SWIO has a dozen in a typical year, it could stand alone IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree, agree the NIO should have its own article. Instead of 5 years, maybe two years at once is a good compromise, because there's usually 6-7 storms each year warned on by the JTWC. As for SHem, SWIO, Australian Region, and SWPac I'd agree with. – Chacor 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that works. I'm worried about the correct nomenclature for the NIO though...--Nilfanion (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Officially, their TCOP says "TROPICAL CYCLONE OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR THE BAY OF BENGAL AND THE ARABIAN SEA". – Chacor 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chacor, you misunderstand me. My problem is not with the storms, but with the article itself. There is no such thing as the 2006 North Indian cyclone season - would the pluralization 2006 North Indian cyclone seasons be valid though?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could drop the word 'season'. You'd also have to call it the 'North(ern) Indian Ocean' because its the only ocean named after a country. Good kitty 04:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too. Five or six storms would make a good article. Good kitty 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: They should have a BT available, the WMO op-plans mandate that the RSMCs give a copy to the NCDC.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, yes, I also need help fixing links to the correct target. This is sort of why I originally felt it  is not practical to split. Too much work - I took over 2 and a half hours splitting this one, and the links aren't even fixed. – Chacor 06:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a necessary evil unfortunately, any split will require the same amount of pain. I have a feeling the infobox isn't quite working right because of the inclusion of the old code - see the one in 2005AHS there is a light grey line beneath the five-seasons; which is an artifact. That means fix the usage of the template...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting SHEM articles? 

message: I've done the split, to 1999-00 South-West Indian Ocean tropical cyclone season, 1999-00 Australian region tropical cyclone season, and 1999-00 South Pacific tropical cyclone season. I need help with the Australian region and SPac ones, though - I'm not sure why the infobox is causing whitespace in the article. – Chacor 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, I also need help fixing links to the correct target. This is sort of why I originally felt it  is not practical to split. Too much work - I took over 2 and a half hours splitting this one, and the links aren't even fixed. – Chacor 06:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a necessary evil unfortunately, any split will require the same amount of pain. I have a feeling the infobox isn't quite working right because of the inclusion of the old code - see the one in 2005AHS there is a light grey line beneath the five-seasons; which is an artifact. That means fix the usage of the template...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1999-2000 season split

message: This has its origin in a discussion on IRC a few days ago, and I will get around to implementing it soon. The BMNG backgrounds are useful, however they are more useful for by-month cumulative graphs than individual storm maps. In a few days I will do a mass-upload (unless objections are raised here) to modify 2 things:
#For storms with an extratropical/remnant low phase the track maps will be altered to include the full map.
#For a limited number of storms with dodgy BT data, I will change the maps to unknown strength. This applies to a limited number of older EPAC storms, such as this, which is clearly absurd.
As a full map may not be appropriate for all storms, feel free to rv the update on Commons and leave a message about it on the talk page of the relevant article; discussion should be held on case by case I feel.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Nice work as always. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its a good idea to do a mass change of older EPac storms to unknown strength; yes, its probably true, but they are still officially at the strength they are currently given as. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is absurd to say Estelle was at 75 kt continuously for a week; when an inspection of the MWR will reveal something different. This way we lose a bit of information from the track, but it is not incorrect; the article itself will still hold the information after all.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is going on with this one?  I looked at CPHC and it had 140 knots and NHC had 130 knots. Can you use CPHC data when it is in their area of responsibility. Good kitty 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See here for discussion. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track map revision 

message: As the improved infoboxes come online, we can stylistically alter how we do the units. Currently the season infoboxes take raw data in knots/mbar and spit out:
#For the NOAA basins A mph (B km/h), C mbar (hPa) (D inHg)
#For all other basins A km/h (B mph), C hPa (mbar).
It is easy enough to tweak these, but what exactly do we want? Do we want to make the US basins the only exception (for giving imperial first) or add some other special cases. And with the standard layouts above, are they optimal or do they need tweaking?--Nilfanion (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above layouts look pretty good, though is hPa indeed the official unit for pressure in other basins? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hPa is the official unit for pressure in Australia. RaNdOm26 07:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Always my stupid idea of putting something Cat 3-4 for something like that.Mitchazenia(almost 8800+edits) 02:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The RSMC Miami public advisories state "the maximum wind speed is near to xxx km/h ... xxx mi/h." The important word here being "near" and not that the maximum wind speed is that value. So they do not state the exact values there so it is wrong to use them. P.K. 13:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but this runs into Manual of Style difficulties. Best practice is to include both metric and imperial (and the NHC use mbar). I think the NOAA/elsewhere split (giving precedence to US customary for their basins) is the best way.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going for 132 as it seems about right, as the rest are arbitary because 115 knots = 1/2 way between the two at 132.25.Mitchazenia(almost 8800+edits) 00:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute - i just did some knot-mph calcs and got the same problem with 85 knots = 97.75 mph. Are they just downgrading this or is this a dumb error, because 97.75 would lean 85 knots towards 100 mph instead of 95.Mitchazenia(almost 8800+edits) 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm they do round up to 100 for these storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well, we get that problem with all storms Tito, the 50 kt level is worse (as 57.5 is exactly halfway).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *This is pertinent to all basins unfortunately. We use the SSHS categories in all articles, so whatever we decide should apply to all basins.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say the tropical cyclone formation and dissipation dates. - SpLoT (*C*+u+g) 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow the RSMCs imo, that is, date of losing tropicality (or complete dissipation for storms that don't undergo XT-trans). – Chacor 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it depends on the situation. Normally, it should be the date of dissipation, but if it is over land and impacting, that should be included as part of the period. If it remains over water, the date of losing tropical characteristics. That includes devolving to a wave or low as well. (After all, those routinely regain tropical characteristics) CrazyC83 04:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For all, I think that we should put all of them, with a note saying "tropical after September 3", or "extratropical after October 9". That way, the entire lifetime of the storm is noted, but the tropical timeframe is clearly noted as well. Titoxd(?!?) 05:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an issue with the Pacific Typhoon Season articles.  In the 1980's, JTWC considered their start date when they become tropical storms.  Nowadays, it appears to be considered begun when the initial low forms.  To be consistent, we should use when it first became a low pressure area for the start date.  I'm of the opinion that the date it "dissipates" would be the date when the surface low ceases to exist.  Traditionally though, TC warning centers consider dissipation as "dissipation as a tropical cyclone", which is quite different.  Thegreatdr 16:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what my gut tells me: that the formation and dissipation dates should tell the period (or occasionally periods) during which two conditions held: the system was a cyclone and the system was tropical or subtropical.  And I could probably come up with a pretty sizeable paragraph explaining this opinion.  But I bet most of us have a gut reaction, and I bet most of us could spend a lot of energy explaining the logic behind our opinions.  And I know everybody's paragraph would be different.  Therefore, I think the only way we are going to come to a final conclusion is by looking carefully at what the JTWC, the NHC, etc. have concluded and figuring out how we can best approximate their conclusions about what constitutes formation and dissipation.  We need the people, such as Thegreatdr, who have the most hard facts on the conclusions of the authorities, to spell them out.  Then, we can decide what to do.  Maybe we will decide to make our official definition consistent across both basins and time.  Maybe across one and not the other.  Maybe across neither.  I believe that whatever we decide, the decision will come easier if we are all looking at the same facts and if our guts are not involved. Ev-Man 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units in infoboxes 

message: This is a fundamentally straightforward thing but we have to make a choice between three things all of which are wrong in some sense (I can't see any alternative). None of these pose any difficulties for calculation (the caveat is for 135 a value of 116 would have to be entered in the templates), so this should not affect the outcome. Question: What mph value should 115 knots be converted to?
130 mph
*SpLoT
*RaNdOm26
*Thegreatdr (this is normally what NHC converts to anyway)
135 mph
*Hurricanehink
*Titoxd
*Chacor
*Hello32020
*Good kitty
*Cyclone1
*CrazyC83
132 mph
*Mitchazenia
*P.K.
Comments
*Can we code it to have the word "NEAR" in the infobox for Atl/EPac/CPac? Then we can use the max value (if it matches BT) from RSMC Miami/Honolulu "Highest winds - Near 135 mph"? – Chacor 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going for 132 as it seems about right, as the rest are arbitary because 115 knots = 1/2 way between the two at 132.25.Mitchazenia(almost 8800+edits) 00:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute - i just did some knot-mph calcs and got the same problem with 85 knots = 97.75 mph. Are they just downgrading this or is this a dumb error, because 97.75 would lean 85 knots towards 100 mph instead of 95.Mitchazenia(almost 8800+edits) 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm they do round up to 100 for these storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well, we get that problem with all storms Tito, the 50 kt level is worse (as 57.5 is exactly halfway).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *This is pertinent to all basins unfortunately. We use the SSHS categories in all articles, so whatever we decide should apply to all basins.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: We currently do not have a consensus on what the dissipation date should be. Some have the date for extratropical, and some have date of dissipation as a cyclone in general (which includes extratropical). The same applies for the less frequent occurrence that an extratropical storm became a tropical cyclone. Which date should we use? Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the tropical cyclone formation and dissipation dates. - SpLoT (*C*+u+g) 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow the RSMCs imo, that is, date of losing tropicality (or complete dissipation for storms that don't undergo XT-trans). – Chacor 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it depends on the situation. Normally, it should be the date of dissipation, but if it is over land and impacting, that should be included as part of the period. If it remains over water, the date of losing tropical characteristics. That includes devolving to a wave or low as well. (After all, those routinely regain tropical characteristics) CrazyC83 04:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For all, I think that we should put all of them, with a note saying "tropical after September 3", or "extratropical after October 9". That way, the entire lifetime of the storm is noted, but the tropical timeframe is clearly noted as well. Titoxd(?!?) 05:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an issue with the Pacific Typhoon Season articles.  In the 1980's, JTWC considered their start date when they become tropical storms.  Nowadays, it appears to be considered begun when the initial low forms.  To be consistent, we should use when it first became a low pressure area for the start date.  I'm of the opinion that the date it "dissipates" would be the date when the surface low ceases to exist.  Traditionally though, TC warning centers consider dissipation as "dissipation as a tropical cyclone", which is quite different.  Thegreatdr 16:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what my gut tells me: that the formation and dissipation dates should tell the period (or occasionally periods) during which two conditions held: the system was a cyclone and the system was tropical or subtropical.  And I could probably come up with a pretty sizeable paragraph explaining this opinion.  But I bet most of us have a gut reaction, and I bet most of us could spend a lot of energy explaining the logic behind our opinions.  And I know everybody's paragraph would be different.  Therefore, I think the only way we are going to come to a final conclusion is by looking carefully at what the JTWC, the NHC, etc. have concluded and figuring out how we can best approximate their conclusions about what constitutes formation and dissipation.  We need the people, such as Thegreatdr, who have the most hard facts on the conclusions of the authorities, to spell them out.  Then, we can decide what to do.  Maybe we will decide to make our official definition consistent across both basins and time.  Maybe across one and not the other.  Maybe across neither.  I believe that whatever we decide, the decision will come easier if we are all looking at the same facts and if our guts are not involved. Ev-Man 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissipation date

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Should we develop an infobox for articles like List of New Jersey hurricanes or another one for articles like Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina? Currently, a lot of the List of XXX articles have a track map of the storm paths. That would be a good image for all of the articles, though perhaps it should be adjusted slightly so the territory is highlighted. This a problem with List of Delaware hurricanes, which is such a small area that it could be a little confusing. Perhaps it could based off of the seasonal infobox. There could be Earliest storm, Latest storm, Strongest storm, Total storms, Total landfalls (omitted if it is an inland area), Total fatalities, and Total damages. Similarly, the infobox for the effects of... articles could be based on storm articles. The image is a bit tricky. For Isabel, I chose one image for all of the articles. Would that work? An nice alternative would be having an image of the hurricane making landfall on the state, though typically a hurricane has one major landfall with one nice satellite image. Isabel only made one landfall, and when entering other states it was typically too weak for a good image. Damage pictures would be better reserved for later in the article, as well. One possible solution would be highlighting the state in the uniform image. For example, Isabel's sub-articles would have the one major picture, but each would be different. The problem with that is if the image doesn't contain one of the areas. There could be Date affected (when storm first impacted area), Peak wind gust, Peak rainfall amount (if applicable), Damage, and Fatalities. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hink, its possible. However, don't expect it any time soon, I've got a more significant template to deal with first.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Careful, please - "type" should not be "Hurricane" but "hurricane", otherwise it displays as "Category 5 Hurricane", for example. We've had always "hurricane" in the infobox decapitalised, and it's definitely better decapitalised. – Chacor 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And on that note, "Tropical storm", not "Tropical Storm". And same with depressions. – Chacor 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why Name and Type are seperate. Note, its not just what the project does "Category 5 hurricane" is the way the NHC says it.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More infobox fun 

message: ... of INVESTS, predictions, arguements over something that isn't even important enough for WP:LAME, reverts, edit wars, TCR's never wanting to come out, AOI's, the reverting of AOI's, talk pages becoming longer than the article itself, new FA's, new FAC'S, a lot of Starts, squabblings over which storms deserve articles, and a lot more List of XX hurricanes. Happy new year, people, happy new year! →Cyclone1→ 04:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy New Year!!!!!!! icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hehe! Hopefully things will continue to stabilize...I do see the spurt of GA nominees has subsided... CrazyC83 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only cause it seems that the creation of tropical cyclone articles has slowed. Lately, articles that start become good articles within 2 weeks.Mitchazenia9000+edits) 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  365 more days... 

message: This article was deleted a couple days ago as a copyvio. As the source site is a NOAA site, I've restored it as PD; though cleanup is sorely needed.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation]] 

message: Ive seen that users are uploading alot of NOAA Class images. However, the links to in the image pages are broken and thus pose a problem in verfication which is required for an image upload. Storm05 13:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Because you don't know how to access them doesn't mean they're problematic. All the adequate information - down to the EXACT data orders - is given. There's only one link given, that's http://www.class.noaa.gov, which clearly works as of this writing. So stop trying to get others in trouble just because you've been warned for image copyvio before. These images are fine. – Chacor 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not nonsense, (and im not getting anyone in trouble) how can an adminstrator or a bot be able to verify an image (even if the excat data orders are given in the image caption) if he/she/it is unable to work the devices in the NOAA Class Website, i tried working the devices and input all the date orders and got nothing. Storm05 14:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, personally I have no problem using the CLASS site to verify the sourcing of these images.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll rename that category later. Maybe that will make it clearer about where to go. Good kitty 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NOAA Class Images

message: We might need to take another look at Portal:Tropical cyclones, as I spoke to some editors on IRC and there are concerns that it fails the current featured portal criteria. It isn't well-maintained, and the layout may need to be changed around a bit to look more attractive. --Coredesat 00:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What in specific doesn't meet the current featured portal criteria? I updated the selected stuff, with the selected article completed up to April 7, and the pictures completed through March. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, give details. A broad declaration doesn't help fixing whatever needs fixing, if anything. Titoxd(?!?) 19:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think our DYK section is badly updated, we should be using about all new articles into it (we don't have that many articles to be fussy with). The active cyclones/news sections could be merged, they are erratically maintained.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal problems 

message: The number of users in the project is much less than what would seem so on the list. Some users have made next to no edits to tropical cyclone related articles, while a few others haven't made edits in general for several months. Should we send out something to have users confirm they are still part of the project? Maybe have a list somewhere where active participants can sign, and after a month or two those who didn't sign will be removed. We should have a better idea of how many participants are actually here. It's probably about half of what is listed, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just make an active and inactive user section. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could work, but I think we should send something out to remind people and get an updated list. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WikiProject Harry Potter did something similar, you may want to ask them how they did it... Titoxd(?!?) 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They did put people automatically on an inactive list with a template. We could do a similar thing. Here are some users that are inactive. This is only the first four columns. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Participants|the list]] 

message: Could people here give their opinions over at Talk:North American ice storm of 2007#Atlantic crossover? about the proposal (inactivated for now, but could be reopened if new evidence comes in) to merge North American ice storm of 2007 with Kyrill (storm). Note also Per (storm). Firstly, are these all related? Secondly, if so, should they have seperate articles. Some people over there think they could be all related to the same phenomenon, others are not so sure, and some point out that the effects on either side of the Atlantic are very different. Carcharoth 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should have no place in this project, as they were never tropical cyclones. CrazyC83 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He just wanted our opinions ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related storms 

message: Given severe its effects were and the trouble that Chacor and I went through to find sources, we need to finish an article on Typhoon Durian. However, I'm going to be too busy help him with it, so how would a collaboration sound? As of now, we don't have any FA-caliber articles for any storms outside the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific basins - making this a project worth considering (the article would warrant high importance). The sandbox article can be found here. --Coredesat 02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea. I hope we can pull together for this one. We've never had a true community collaboration in the past. I'm in if others are. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to help and will if I have time (I hate my new life schedule). icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to help... --IrfanFaiz 11:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now in the mainspace at Typhoon Durian.Mitchazenia 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration on Typhoon Durian article? 

message: I think we should bring back the discussion on our vital/core articles. The old one was here. We shouldn't have a set number, just articles that should definetly be in an encyclopedia. The question is how do we determine which ones should definetly be in? I think they should be well-known topics by the general public or storms that did extreme things. Tip might apply to the latter, though modern research indicates it was the most intense for about a 30 year period until 1987 when recon stopped. Does it deserve to be among the most important just because no other storms were measured to have been lowered? Maybe yes, maybe no. Should the same apply to Hurricane John (1994)? It was the longest recorded tropical cyclone on record, though ships in the central and western Pacific provided a good length of track for maybe a 50 year period. Deaths and damage are easier to estimate on a longer term scale of importance. Should Cyclone Catarina be included? Sure, it was an oddity, but I'm not sure if it was one of the most significant tropical cyclones of all time. Also, should storm surge be included for a tropical cyclone wikiproject? I think a better addition would be an article about deaths caused by tropical cyclones. I included storms that are the worst or one of the worst natural disasters in a country's history, within reason. I'll admit there's a bias towards recent storms, though that is due to the information. I also couldn't think of good EPAC ones. Here's a rough list that is on the liberal side of what to include. Feel free to comment or add to the list, though don't subtract until discussing it. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more rational than the first attempt at compiling such a list. It is still fairly flawed as the selection seems pretty arbitrary to me. The "core" articles listed above are fine, though I would add Atlantic hurricane, Pacific hurricane, Pacific typhoon et al. Of the low impacting storms the only one I consider to be worthy of Top Class is Tip. It has the lowest ever recorded sea-level pressure; this fact makes it one of the few storms mentioned by name in a one (paper) page discussion of the subject. Apart from this exception impact should be used as the criterion. In particular, I think Catarina should not be Top-class. A case can be made for South Atlantic tropical cyclone to be Top as that is the article that covers the significance of a SAtl TC, not Catarina; though I personally think High is better. Impact is objectively measured in terms of deaths/damages, but the relative significance of these numbers varies depending on impact location. This list is nearing completion now, it should provide us with meaningful numbers here; I'll bump its priority.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that arbitrary. For the most part, they are the most devestating tropical cyclones for countries usually impacted by tropical cyclones. Tip could go either way. Come to think of it, it might be a good idea to include a storm not for its impact. I've added the basin tropical cyclone articles, but wasn't sure about the SHEM. Catarina, yea, high is probably fine for that. Let us know when you're done that list, though its major fallacy is that it's only for storms that have articles. Durian and Geralda are two articles that could be considered high class, as they have both been known to have been their country's worst tropical cyclones. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Thelma was the worst in that country. Also, any idea what E.C. Barrett "Climatology from Satellites" is like? The last edition was from 1979. I noticed that's where the image of the Bhola cyclone came from. It would also be interesting for an article about cyclones and weather satellites. There's a small paragraph in Tropical cyclone observation Good kitty 06:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thelma caused the most deaths, but after a discussion on the IRC we agreed Durian was worse due to its similar but slightly less death toll, but much greater damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The working article still says its less than 1000 so its going to take a lot to get to at least 5000. Good kitty 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The top X most significant cyclones of all time (for any value of X) if selected truly impartially (including no positive discrimination), will show an apparent imbalance between regions. By restricting the list to exactly one Philippine storm this list is fundamentally flawed. When I've finished my list I'm not going to say what cut-off values should be used (at least at first), but what criteria I think should be borne in mind in determining significance objectively.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our vital articles 

message: I've finished the listing at User:Nilfanion/Cyclone listing. As Hink notes it is flawed as it only includes storms that have articles. However, if you know the damage and/or deaths from a significant storm without an article, feel free to add it or post to the talk page if you aren't confident with how the table works. I suggest that everyone here has a fiddle with the sort keys there to see what gets generated. Some facts are really obvious, such as higher deaths mean higher importance, and stronger storms tend to be more important. As for my opinions as to what should primarily be borne in mind for Top importance:
#Deaths resulting from the storm.
#Damages resulting from the storm.
#The ratio of deaths to damages. Whilst this is not directly significant, it gives an indicator as to what is more significant.
#Location in space and time of primary impact.
#Long-term cultural impact.
This last one is rather vague, but is clear enough: its basically asking if the relevant society considers the cyclone to be important. For example, Australian cyclones invariably get compared to Tracy and Camille was the Gulf Coast storm (until Katrina at any rate). That sort of thing is a sure sign that the storm in question is truly significant and so worthy of Top-class, leaving aside the numbers. In my opinion, the Atlantic selections show recentism issues; why Mitch but not the 1780 Great hurricane?--Nilfanion (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing

message: This is something we never discussed before. What should we do in the event that, say, a storm makes landfall on a city that has no article? Should we:
# Not wikilink it
# Wikilink it, despite that it is a red link
# Wikilink to a different location with the city - for example City location
# Other
This is a common problem with storms outside of the United States for which some locations might never get articles. I personally recommend two with a twist. We should contact other Wikiprojects with a list of requested location articles to be created. A good start would be TC breakpoints, which I've started below with U.S. locations. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There should always be a link, even if it is a redlink to a small village or settlement. (That happens more often with other weather events, especially tornado events which routinely strike rural communities and have their maximum devastation in unincorporated communities of, say, 200 people) CrazyC83 02:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, what the? Real geographic location = link. If a redlink bothers you that much create a geo-stub (containing coordinates, geopolitical location and population) - job done. Do we really need on this? As for TC breakpoints, again create them as geo-stubs. The only issue with them, is do those articles fall within our scope?--Nilfanion (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that silly (per your edit summary). Why create a new article or add a red link when a similar article could be linked? (which is one of the options) The breakpoints don't really fall in our scope, though we could create a list or a category for it. It could be divided by country if necessary. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just create the article yourself? There are good reasons for redlinking to a town in preference to its county (not least it encourages the articles creation). This is not a WPTC issue but WP-wide thing, I'm quoting community consensus on the issue. If writing a geo-stub is really something you don't want to do (its a 5 minute job), either create it as a redirect (with ) to the county or (better) leave it as a redlink.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that works. Now at least we discussed it. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations without articles 

message: *United States
**Little Egg Inlet in New Jersey- Possible redirect to Great Bay (New Jersey)
**Great Egg Inlet in New Jersey- Possible redirect to Great Egg Harbor River
**East Point, New Jersey
**Parramore Island in Virginia
**Ocracoke Inlet in North Carolina- Possible redirect to Ocracoke, North Carolina
***The inlet itself has a good bit of history, and can probably sustain a separate article.  See here. — jdorje (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tropical cyclone breakpoints without articles

message: It was discussed in the past about using symbols instead of just letters in , following the French concept. I've just gone on a bit of insanity with Inkscape so we now have SVG versions. The images for hurricanes are in ; the gallery below contains just about anything else we might need; for both N and S hemispheres.
Image:Hurricane north.svg|Blank hurricane
Image:Tropical storm north.svg|Blank tropical storm
Image:Strong Tropical Storm north.svg|Strong tropical storm
Image:Tropical Storm north.svg|Tropical storm
Image:Hurricane south.svg
Image:Tropical storm south.svg
Image:Strong Tropical Storm south.svg
Image:Tropical Storm south.svg
Image:Extratropical storm north.svg|Blank extratropical
Image:Extratropical Category 1 north.svg|XT (Cat 1 strength)
Image:Extratropical Strong north.svg|XT (STS strength)
Image:Extratropical Storm north.svg|XT (TS strength)
Image:Extratropical storm south.svg
Image:Extratropical Category 1 south.svg
Image:Extratropical Strong south.svg
Image:Extratropical Storm south.svg
For remnant lows, disturbances and the like, the best solution in my opinion in a "L" over the TD colour. The symbology for a TD isn't as clear as for the above, so best to use "TD" over the TD colour like we do now. All this leaves is the subtropical stuff, I'm not sure what the "correct" symbol is.
I am going to make new versions of  and  to do the auto-magic calculations. Would symbols be better than text? Got to the point eventually :P--Nilfanion (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you do - just as a reminder to everyone - i added the rainfall characteristic to the infobox small so you can fill it in with that.Mitchazenia 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The box is way too big now. Good kitty 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the rainfall stuff; 3 images wide is far far too wide, and I don't think the rainfall graph belongs in that infobox anyway. (If you want to discuss that new thread please). Good Kitty, you referring to the addition of the rainfall pic or something else.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the third image. I was wondering where that was coming from. Can you make it so that the placeholder picture doesn't come up when you have a track map in the track field? Also the Australian scale needs to be implemented somehow because people from Australia viewing those pages are not aware that the small infoboxes only display a different scale. It doesn't help that pages that try to show both use the exact same colors for completely different meanings. If the scales could be concurrent in both hurricane infoboxes, it would be ideal, but the Australian one should be optional. Good kitty 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh god... the Australian scale debate would just explode the ol' colour scandal again :( Note this is all slightly off-topic for this thread really, I started this to ask "do we want the symbols in the infobox", not get everyones wishlist :)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols for the infoboxes 

message: The colour scheme for the SSHS is pretty well defined, however we have problems in how to handle Australian cyclones in particular and other agencies schemes as well. The Australians are the worst, as they also use a numerical scale Cyclone Larry's infobox it results in a strange box. The JMA typhoon colour is still an issue too. The table below is derived from the one in Tropical cyclone scales. 
SSHS               	Aus                        	IMD                       	MF                           	JMA                  	FMS
Tropical Depression	Tropical Low               	Depression                	Tropical Disturbance         	Tropical Depression  	Tropical Depression
Tropical Depression	Tropical Low               	Deep Depression           	Tropical Depression          	Tropical Depression  	Tropical Depression
Tropical Storm     	Tropical Low               	Deep Depression           	Tropical Depression          	Tropical Depression  	Tropical Depression
Tropical Storm     	Tropical Cyclone (1)       	Cyclonic Storm            	Moderate Tropical Storm      	Tropical Storm       	Tropical Cyclone
Tropical Storm     	Tropical Cyclone (2)       	Severe Cyclonic Storm     	Severe Tropical Storm        	Severe Tropical Storm	Tropical Cyclone
Hurricane (1)      	Tropical Cyclone (2)       	Severe Cyclonic Storm     	Severe Tropical Storm        	Severe Tropical Storm	Tropical Cyclone
Hurricane (1)      	Severe Tropical Cyclone (3)	Very Severe Cyclonic Storm	Tropical Cyclone             	Typhoon              	Tropical Cyclone
Hurricane (2)      	Severe Tropical Cyclone (3)	Very Severe Cyclonic Storm	Tropical Cyclone             	Typhoon              	Tropical Cyclone
Major Hurricane (3)	Severe Tropical Cyclone (4)	Very Severe Cyclonic Storm	Tropical Cyclone             	Typhoon              	Tropical Cyclone
Major Hurricane (3)	Severe Tropical Cyclone (4)	Very Severe Cyclonic Storm	Intense Tropical Cyclone     	Typhoon              	Tropical Cyclone
Major Hurricane (4)	Severe Tropical Cyclone (4)	Very Severe Cyclonic Storm	Intense Tropical Cyclone     	Typhoon              	Tropical Cyclone
Major Hurricane (4)	Severe Tropical Cyclone (5)	Very Severe Cyclonic Storm	Intense Tropical Cyclone     	Typhoon              	Tropical Cyclone
Major Hurricane (4)	Severe Tropical Cyclone (5)	Very Severe Cyclonic Storm	Very Intense Tropical Cyclone	Typhoon              	Tropical Cyclone
Major Hurricane (5)	Severe Tropical Cyclone (5)	Super Cyclonic Storm      	Very Intense Tropical Cyclone	Typhoon              	Tropical Cyclone
This version of the table uses the colours strictly for how they were initially defined. This version extends the colours to across the "reasonable" scales, giving identical starts to equivalent minimum strength. The final version interpolates between the colours, using HSV intermediates. For simplicity TS has been extended across, even though minimal TSs in 10-min winds are stronger than 1-min minimal storms. IMD VSCS, JMA TY and FMS TC have all been left blank as these are annoyingly broad classifications. IMD Depression and MF T Disturbance are blank as they are effecitvely INVESTS (not in the current scheme).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, although the sub-depression categories shown in white should keep the depression color, and the broader ones should be a judgement call based on the actual intensity (varying depending). CrazyC83 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extending the colour scheme 

message: Following discussion (well more a soliloquy by me) on IRC past couple days, I've manipulated the HURDAT to produce an image comparable in appearance to the by-month images in Atlantic hurricane. However, I'm not sure about what colour to best use for these purposes, so I'm giving the data here for people to play with. The first image is the output from the track generator with the data points blurred. The more solid the TS colouration, the more TC activity near that location. The blank map is precisely the right size so a straightforward combination of the two will produce good output. Feel free to manipulate the colour of the data to produce a better looking image, and post it here saying what you did. Obviously as these will be test images, try and keep the filesize down ;)
Personally I think there are two issues: one what colour do we want the data to be? The second is more a technical one, would it be possible to make the data less transparent (it peaks at about 75% opacity, near 100% would work better) - if someone does do that; please tell me how to manage it in the GIMP so I can reproduce that in future images. Thanks guys.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First issue is easy - anything that isn't blue. Blue might look a little strange on a blue background unless it's a fairly light blue (say, TS or STS blue). Orange might work. --Coredesat 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try it and see. Reason I brought this here at all was to let other people have a go :P--Nilfanion (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try making the highest point of coloration 0% alpha in GIMP. You can also try making a gradient using the colors in . Titoxd(?!?) 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPac tracks, help wanted 

message: I finally found some damage numbers from this storm.  The problem is that the known damage total is under $100,000 (1848 dollars), which is playing havoc with the figure shown in the infobox.  Is there a fix for this?  Thegreatdr 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a fix at the moment; I'll work on it later. For now I've rounded the figure so it displays correctly.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that it's less than $100,000. We have a source for our inflations, but the infobox is getting screwy, apparently. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with infobox in [[Great Gale of 1848]] 

message: A dispute has arisen over on Commons regarding how the images should be categorised. Good kitty has been removing images from commons:Category:2000s Atlantic hurricane impacts and is instead including them through the storm categories; For example see this edit to :Image:Hurricane Isabel flood water.jpg. The net result of this edits is that the image is still in a subcategory of commons:Category:Tropical cyclone impacts, but instead of being categorised directly through the impact category structure; it is indirectly through commons:Category:Hurricane Isabel.
This may not seem to be a big deal. However the problem is images like :Image:Hurricane Isabel 18 sept 2003 1555Z.jpg are now in a subcategory of the impact, when it has nothing to do with it. My opinion is that an image of damage from Hurricane Isabel (for example), has two important attributes. Firstly, it relates to Isabel: so should be in a category that covers the storm. Secondly: It is a picture of damage: so it should be in a category containing similar images (and not satellite imagery for instance). Before these edits commons:Category:2000s Atlantic hurricane impacts may have been overpopulated, but now as a result of the restructure the category includes many satellite images, which really don't belong in that cat.
It is better for these images to be in a (possibly) overpopulated high-level category and the individual storm category than for the storm category to be in the high level category resulting with incorrectly categorised images (the satellite pics). If a storm has enough images to justify a subcat for impact (Isabel might now for example), then that should be created. However, if the storm does not many images, for example Alberto, there would be no point to making a subcategory. In the case of storms without an impact category the best solution for impact imagery is for it to be located in the storm's category and the most relevant impact category directly and not to include the storm cat in the impact cat.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't overpopulate it with individual pictures. We have several categories already in TC and they are the most poorly maintained. Despite my effort, this one is untenable: commons:Category:NASA MODIS images of tropical cyclones. Also creating subcategories is futile because it means that few people will do this correctly. TC already has a lot of obscure categories that no one thinks to use, so creating new ones only creates new problems. For example, I'm the only one who's ever used this one commons:Category:Astronaut images of tropical cyclones because no one even knows it exists. The system someone came up with a year ago was working fine because people are easily able to find the media they need and we've almost eliminated duplicate uploads in the past year. Before you started editing here, TC articles were very disorganized. Think of it this way: if someone wants impact pictures of Hurricane Isabel, they would check the impact category and look under Hurricane Isabel. Why should it be more complicated than that? Good kitty 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inefficient categorisation is an editorial issue and can be fixed (by the creation of appropriate subcategories). However, these changes in the name of simplicity are resulting in incorrect categorisation of some images. Please try to avoid ad hominem here.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I would search under TC's by year, 2003, and Isabel to find a damage image of Isabel. The damage pics, IMO, should never have subcats (unless the subcat is damage images of Hurricane XXX, though unlikely). The individual damage images should be in the damage category. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons categorisation 

message: I'm wondering if there are set guidelines for the use of metric and imperial units for tropical hurricanes. I've opposed Hurricane Kenna's FAC nom on the basis that it affects Mexico mostly, and so should be using metric values. Hurricanehink responded saying that since the hurricane comes the territory of the National Hurricane Center, it should follow the conventions of the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre. If so, 2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone goes against such a guideline. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Atlantic and East Pacific hurricanes should have imperial units, since the NHC is the main centre tracking cyclones in those basins, but there should always be metric units provided in brackets for each of them. All other basins should use metric units, then have imperial units in brackets. RaNdOm26 07:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Another reason imperial units should be used for NHC/CPHC storms is not just because they use them, but because they always round to the nearest five. Therefore, when we convert that to metric, we are possibly inferring false precision. Therefore, it's better to give the original scale first. And yes, 2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone is going against the guideline. --Golbez 09:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily; the CHC issues forecasts in metric so arguably they could be used too. – Chacor 09:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the CHC only issues forecasts for a portion of the storm's lifespan. It would be awkward having the NHC units for half of the storm then switch it to CHC units, which we do not know if they are exactly the same as NHC. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can answer that question. With the typical TC, the CHC just mirrors the NHC data as long as the storm is outside their AOR; but once its in it they do their own forecasting which means differences (if only minor). Stick to the NHC. Converting units is not OR, and we don't really have a problem with the rounding thing either.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CHC (and PAGASA) should never have priority unless they are the only ones tracking the storm at the moment, as they are secondary sources. CrazyC83 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Use the main source's units, and convert the rest to maintain unity and consistency within an article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: Hurricane Iniki will appear on the main page on March 15. If you have not done so already, click here to start watching it. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, you can go here. --Coredesat 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Iniki on Main Page soon