Talk:List of named tropical cyclones

message: ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

message: There are a lot of redlinks in this article (and there will be more as I go through it); that will be fixed when the WPTC disambigs get sorted. In addition the list is far from complete, it only covers the Fiji region back to 1984 and naming began earlier back than that. Oh and aside from linking, making the tables consistent sized would be nice, using some percentage tags in the headers maybe?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say it is far from complete. I think you and I got much of the hard work done. Tables being consistent would be nice, but how would that work? I tried that on an earlier version, but it got too hard with the 's. I'm not sure what you mean by percentage tags, but do you mean % of total named storms? If so, that sounds good. All in all, with the exception of Fiji, this article looks pretty good. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See what I did with the A-table, thats what I was thinking, though the exact numbers need tweaking still. The 's were a mistake in that they depended on what width your window was, if it was narrower that the one you were using it got broken (nevermind the amount of work required to maintain them). The width=% tags in the headers works though.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok, that works well. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: In case anyone cares, Nilfanion and I were working on this in my sandbox. Yes, it is a copy and paste of that, and I'll admit, I didn't even think of moving it. Sorry if that's a problem, but there's the previous versions of this article, starting with this version. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need to, just poke me when ready and I'll do a history merge. Titoxd(?!?) 00:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh wow, you can merge the histories? That's pretty cool. Could you do that sometime (doesn't really matter when)? --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Half a year later, sure... do you want me to do one? Titoxd(?!?) 01:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea sure, why not? Before that version, I was working on it in Microsoft Word on my computer. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is, which edits do I reattribute to this article? There's nothing on your Sandbox that does not relate to Isabel... Titoxd(?!?) 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, Tito the hist-merge was done check the logs of this page ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous versions 

message: If we can get sources indicating which names have been retired/replaced in each basin, should we indicate that a name has been retired? Possibly we can bold the name or put (R) or (r) next to it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Denoting which storms were retired somehow would certainly be a good idea. The name itself can't be bolded as storms can be retired multiple times in different basins (Katrina has been retired twice for example). The links need to be sorted too, and thats a truly epic sized task.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Bess has been retired twice in the WPAC. That might cause a problem. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just bold both years. —Cuiviénen 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be confusing, but then again, having the same name retired twice is already confusing. OK, I suppose bolding works well. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  retirement 

message: Regarding "* indicates a named tropical depression" - this should not apply to post-2000 NWPac storms, because the JMA is both the naming and warning centre. A JTWC TD does not count. – Chacor 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite Chacor. The * could be used for the following: Named storms weakened to TD in post-analysis and PAGASA storms (which are quite likely think Basyang 2006 for example).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, Basyang was TS01W. Agaton was the TD. But it bugs me seeing Kalmaegi et al with an asterisk. – Chacor 00:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think again. I chose Basyang deliberately: The JTWC said it was a TS but the JMA did not name, precisely the circumstance you are talking about. I agree with the stupid stuff you are referring to though, fix it ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If PAGASA considered Basyang a TS I don't see why  it should be asterisked. – Chacor 00:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "* indicates a named tropical depression" 

message: The name was used in the Atlantic.  Does this list include all names ever used for tropical cyclones, or just those used or tropical cyclones that remain in the database?  It's an interesting question.  Thegreatdr (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would apply, for the same rationale as Kendra (1966 - which is also included). --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about Mike (1950)? 

message: First of all, I don't mean listing systems from before they started naming tropical cyclones in their respective basins. I mean unnamed tropical storms that formed after naming began. An example of what I am talking about would be the Unnamed Tropical Storm from the 1996 Pacific hurricane season. It is a perfectly legitimate tropical storm, and in terms of meeting the naming criteria "tropical cyclone with gale-force winds" it should have been named. But since it was considered a tropical depression operationally, it got no name. Others exist in other basins. In this sense they are the opposite of a named tropical depression. If those named depressions were tropical cyclones that shouldn't have been named, but were, these ones are tropical cyclones that should have been named but weren't. Should they be included as a sort of "appendix"? (They don't really belong under any letter, even U). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be quite a few storms. Since 1950, there have been 35 unnamed Atlantic tropical cyclones, in addition to several subtropical storms. Also, there were 6 in the EPAC since 1960. I don't have the stats on the WPAC, but there might be quite a few, as well. Looking at potentially over 50 storms, should it be in List of unnamed tropical cyclones? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be possible, but list of unnamed tropical cyclones is not an ideal name. After all, the first storm of the 1912 season was unnamed. That name implies that the inclusion criteria are exclusionary; namely, that every tropical cyclone that ever existed would be listed there, except for those here. List of unnamed tropical cyclones since naming began is a more verbose title, but it is not potentially misleading. But it would be an interesting article/list... if WP:WPTC ever had a unusual articles, that might be one of them. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm starting one in my sandbox. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of a different article for unnamed tropical cyclones (since the naming convention began in the various basins).  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: First of all, I don't mean listing systems from before they started naming tropical cyclones in their respective basinsWhy the hell not?If list of hurricanes is going to redirect here, then we need to be listing the known or suspected cyclonic storms in the historical record (e.g., the 1502 one that devastated the Spanish treasure fleet and Espanola colony). If that's supposed to go in another article on unnamed storms, peachy, but then the redirects need to be changed and the link needs to be hatnoted. — LlywelynII 02:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnamed systems 

message: Could somebody make this a little less confusing by separating the male names and the female names? Thanks. 76.124.224.179 (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not going to happen since not all names are male or female.Jason Rees (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male and Female Names 

message: I don't have time to fuss with amending the table, here is a cite, p.12 for Freda in 1965.Skookum1 (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  cite for Freda, 1965 

message: All of the SPAC names starting in 1999-00 are up to date.Jason Rees (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: All CPAC names are now sourced.Jason Rees (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: All NIO names are now sourced.Jason Rees (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked all of the JTWC/WMO names, that we claim begin with the letters X and Z against IBTRACS and found none to add.Jason Rees (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: This article is largely duplicate to List of historic tropical cyclone names, but the latter is much better organized, easier to edit, and properly sourced. Given how difficult it would be for this one to be sourced (ever), I propose this article be "merged" with the other article (even though, in effect, it would just be a redirect). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  21:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in agreement with the merger since it is also difficult to tell if there are any names missing from this article when compared to LOHTCN. I would like to hear from  before this article is merged since he has also done a number of significant edits to the article.Jason Rees (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any comments on this, i would personally like to see this merged soon.Jason Rees (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. I have long felt that we've had an extra list article too many. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge (or redirect). I also agree that the other article is better structured for this topic. Supportstorm (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?