Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 2

message: 1.- Hurricane Katrina
2.- Hurricane Gaston
3.- Hurricane Floyd
4.- Hurricane Georges
5.- Hurricane Rita
6.- Hurricane Wilma
7.- Hurricane Dennis
8.- Hurricane Lili (1996)
9.- Hurricane Hugo
10.-Hurricane Stan
Storm05 18:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does this data come from? — jdorje (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our goal should be for this list to line up 1:1 with the list of most notable tropical cyclones.  Of course this is hard since newer storms always have more data.  But there are some very notable storms - like Andrew - that should be on this list but aren't.  And there are some storms - like Gaston and Lili - that have more detail than is justified. — jdorje (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That list is wrong. Of those, the list is Katrina (98), Wilma (37), Rita (36), Floyd (25), Georges (24.5, though it is under construction), Dennis (17.5), Stan (13.6), Gaston (13), Hugo (11.67), and Lili (8.5). A quick check shows the 1900 Galveston Hurricane is 22, Ivan is 29, and Frances is 17.66. Jdorje, that's a good idea. We should make up a list of the most notable storms, and that could be another mini-project. Hurricanehink 21:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we already had an argument over notability in List of notable Atlantic hurricanes.  Of course we couldn't agree on the most notable storms, but it should give a pretty good idea of what's out there.  However it is much easier to find information on storms since 1995, and on storms that impacted the U.S.  It is unlikely, for instance, that Hurricane Janet will ever catch up with Hurricane Floyd in level of detail, even though it is a more notable storm — but we can hope that it will catch up with Hurricane Gaston. — jdorje (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S.  Why all the interest in Gaston?  Sure it did some damage, but it was still less notable than Hurricane Cindy (2005) which everyone seems to want to merge. — jdorje (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about Gaston. I don't really see the point of it. It caused some localized damage, and I feel badly for those in Richmond who were greatly flooded, but it really wasn't that notable. I'll keep to my old philosophy; lots of information does not equal notable. Judge the storm, not the article. I know others think otherwise, but that is my personal belief. I was originally against Cindy, but based on its damage figure I'm fine with it staying. About the notable ones, you are completely right, and it's ashame. Based on its effects, Janet should be just as informative as Floyd, but due to when it was, that's never going to happen. I suppose we're getting there. Floyd was re-done, and Georges is almost re-done. Other low-quality yet notable articles, mark my words, will get the information they deserve at some point in time. Hurricanehink 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have wanted to merge Gaston too if it didn't have twice the substance that Cindy did. When I first read it, gramatical errors aside, it had much more information than the Cindy article did. Still does. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest Articles in WikiProject Tropical Cyclones 

message: * I finished filling out the existing categorizations.
* I made sure all hurricane articles are categorized by strength.  I created new categories :Category:Hurricanes of unknown strength and :Category:Tropical cyclones by strength.
* I filled out some categories for the N Indian ocean basin.
* I started working on the S Hemispher basins, but here I didn't get far.  The hurricane articles are no problem, but the season articles are.  Currently there are three season articles, all with different naming convention.  I feel the convention should be 2005-2006 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season.  However other articles call it seasons (which is just plain wrong, but an easy mistake for northerners to make) or 2005-06 (which will be fine until we get to 1999-2000, 1899-1900, 1500-1799, 0000-999, etc.).
::I started the S. Hemisphere basin pages, so I should be able to help out in that area. I think it should be kept as 2005-06 and for the turn of the century it should be 1999-2000.  Those articles may never happen though, I spent a lot of time just trying to find information on the 2004-05 season. --Holderca1 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: What should be the qualifications for new articles? Ignoring the text requirment (because any topic could have enough information for a new article), how should we decide what articles are worth it and what should be merged back to a seasonal article (if one exists)? Here are a basic outline that will be fine tuned for qualifications:
Atlantic
*Over a certain dollar figure in damage
*Over a certain number of deaths (50 in U.S, figure differs elsewhere)
*Extremely notable (Longevity, extremely unusual location like Vince or Alice)
*Any retired hurricane (already done)
South Atlantic
*Only add storms to the South Atlantic tropical cyclone article unless:
*If there is another Catarina
Eastern Pacific
*Deadly landfalling hurricane (Liza, Pauline, 1959 storm)
*Longevity (John)
*Any retired hurricane (already done)
*Epic damage (Kenna)
Western Pacific
*Important Record holder (Tip)
(See below for possible ideas)
*Over a certain number of deaths
North Indian and Southern Hemisphere
*Over a certain dollar figure for damage
*Over a certain number of deaths
For Western Pacific, there seems to be no continuity. As with any other basin, current storms get an article without much thought. Haitang (which was a Cat 5 before weakening and hitting Taiwan, only 7 deaths), Khanun (only 14 deaths), or Nabi (21 deaths) are perfect examples of this. Maybe it is just my raging anti-sub pages attitude, but I am sure there are other typhoons much more deserving than these 3. The problem is that few know or care about the area until a big one comes. In the last 10 years, 13 storms with over 100 deaths didn't have an article (2 of which I redirected back to their seasonal articles), while all of the recent typhoon Articles caused less than 25 deaths. Were their tracks notable? Not particularly. There weren't overwhelmingly damaging. So why, aside from that they were current, do these have articles? I just want to reach some sort of concensus.
In addition, should storms like Forrest, whose record isn't terribly important but still a record, have their own article when the record and history could simply be mentioned in the seasonal article? 
Feel free to edit the list above to more accurate qualifications. Hurricanehink 03:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't want to too my own horn here or something, but I agree and would think that this season in the WPac (awfully quiet!) the only real "noteworthy" storm was Typhoon Longwang, for the fact it has killed the most people of all the storms this season, and caused quite a bit of damage. Then again, Longwang could still probably be expanded a bit more, with an impact section or something. I say that a NWPac storm should cause at least, say, 75 to 80 deaths or US$50 million in damage, or form at an awkward position to get an article. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 05:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Why would you want to ignore the text requirement?  The text requirement is the only one that's really neutral.  Damage, deaths, and longevity are all just estimates by whatever source you happen to trust (and most current hurricane articles have NO sources for these values).  In my opinion the SOLE criteria should be article quality (not length, but quality).  And yes, the Forrest article is entirely useless, except for the pictures. Jdorje 08:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying that just about anything could have enough for an article. It just would be really boring and repetitive. You could say all the circumstances on its formation, why it moved where it did, elaborate like hell, and have a long article for a pointless storm. We should have a reasoning for making an article other than the text requirment. We need some sort of continuity so we don't make too many articles. This way we won't create too many articles in the coming years. I am not saying getting rid of all the pointless articles (just some), but having a concensus so we don't give an article for every new storm. Hurricanehink 14:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely.  That's why my criteria is article quality, not article length.  By these standards I agree (for instance) that Arlene should have been merged back in, but I don't think Cindy should be.  In particular, no amount of lenghth of text on storm history is enough to justify a separate article, since the storm history can be summed up with a single picture.  But if there's enough info on the impact, then that can justify an article. Jdorje 23:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point about quality. However, if the quality happens to a copy and paste of the seasonal article, I say it should go until either more information is available or more is actually written. Plus, what about Southern Hemisphere storms? When and if someone does a historical archive, what do we do about all of the storm pages? I had the same dillema with the Pacific Typhoon articles. Should those articles be merged in (with the exception of extremely notable) or should they remain as is? Hurricanehink 20:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, but notability is a fairly loose term. Different people may have different definitions of "notable". This is the only reason that I see why it has failed to enter official Wikipedia policy. That's why we need to come to a consensus on exactly what is and what is not notable. We also need to have a criterium for offseason storms. My view is that not all of them deserve their own articles. Intensity should not be a main factor for article creation unless it's a record-holding intensity (a la Tip). Damage post-1950: $100 million minimum (sorry Alex). Pre-1950: $40 million minimum. Deaths pre-1950: 100-150 minimum; there just isn't enough info for storms that did anything less. 1950-1970: 50-100 minimum depending on availability of information. Post 1970: 30 minimum. Those are my typical criterium. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now for the sake of archiving it, can we agree (like we are) judge on a storm-by-storm basis? This page is getting a little long. Hurricanehink 02:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifications for new articles 

message: I have recently gone through almost all the storm articles.
* I added structure where needed.  Usually a short summary, then a "storm history" section, then an "impact" section.  Longer articles generally already had their own structure which I didn't mess with (except sometimes to rename "effects" as "impact").
* I improved grammar, spelling, and wikification.  My guideline for dates is that the first date in each paragraph, and the first date in each month, must have the full entry (like "December 3").  Each following date may be shortened ("the 4th").  Previously some articles were confusing because halfway through the article it gets hard to follow what month you're in.
Jdorje 22:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storm articles 

message: Some time ago we discussed adding new fields to the infoboxes.  Well, I went ahead and added the pressure to the hurricane infobox.  I also used some template magic to create :Category:Incomplete hurricane infoboxes which I believe should become populated with the articles that have no pressure in their infobox (it's empty now; I think it will be built slowly as the caches are replaced).  Next, I'd like to rename "total damages (USD)" as "total damages"; the "USD" is irrelevant since the field has to include the units anyway (including the year) and USD may not always be the best choice; this should be possible to accomplish with a smooth transition using some more template magic. Jdorje 20:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, might not have so many ones without pressures now. Still a great idea. Question: How will the caches be replaced? Mind you, I am more or less computer illiterate, so I am not sure what it means. Do we have do change them one by one, just change the infobox template, or is it automatic? Hurricanehink 21:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know what causes the categories to be updated.  I'm guessing several levels of cache need to be regenerated.  This will happen automatically periodically I guess but I have no idea how long it will take.  Once one of the pages using the template is actually edited it should be updated immediately in the category.  Eventually they should all make there way there...we're not in any big rush here so we can just wait for them to show up. Jdorje 21:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, and I did notice some pages showing that category at the bottom (some WPAC ones, Catarina). Something weird happened, though. In the list of Hurricane articles without pictures or infoboxes, they show every last hurricane season and quite a few hurricane articles that already have pics and infoboxes. I assume that problem will also be solved automatically? Hurricanehink 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infoboxes

message: :::Ok, before we go further with this, I think we need to stop and think about it a little bit.  First of all, we should be using a template for the little storm picture table, that way we can resize or restructure it later if needed.  The table's a little ugly as it is (it is asymmetric and has white space for seemingly no reason), and someone could probably fix this with a little wikitable magic.  Something like  is pretty lengthy, but probably still worthwhile.  We could in theory make it even shorter if we use more clever templating, but this would also cut down on the flexibility of the gallery. Jdorje 07:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be . Jdorje 07:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okeydoke. 2004 done, working on 2003, and will get 2002 later. I am currently trying to align them so they don't overlap by adding more information. I know that every screen is different, but more info can't hurt either way. Hurricanehink 15:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Got them. Now on to 2001's pictures. Hurricanehink 16:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Uploaded 1995-1999. Jdorje 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploaded 1990-1993. Jdorje 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Design

message: gives   NSLE (T+C+CVU) 10:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying trying to add it to my user page but it conflicts with my contents box. Is there a way to fix this? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Hurricane Katrina has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote and help us bring it up to featured standard! Vote here. --Fenice 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: Template:Tropical cyclone has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Tropical cyclone. Thank you. --Golbez 22:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Tropical cyclone 

message: Ive got bad news, the the NCDC website is down because I cant get any storm pics. Storm05 15:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I noticed that the other day. It seems to be off and on. Hurricanehink 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been down for the past several days and it's beginning to annoy the crap out of me. I've been trying to replace images in my hurricane archive and I can't do that when the GIBBS site is down. HSEI site is back up though. It moved to a new URL and was down for almost a week. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's back up, for now. Hurricanehink 01:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad News

message: But look what the people at Uncyclopeida did to the 2005 storms! --->    
Storm05 17:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually like "Silly string attacks the Atlantic coast" the best.  —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ironic thing is their Katrina article is actually better organized then wikipedia's... — jdorje (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You wont Beleive this!

message: I created an estimated track of the Great Havana Hurricane of 1846. The track nearly matches what is described in the article. (note, I had to use a unisys map since I do not know how to work that storm path generator). Storm05 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no best track data, there is no basis for such a map; it constitutes original research. — jdorje (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what happens if the original research comes up short then, if so can we make estimated track maps for pre 1851 storms because im planning to make a track map for the Great September Gale of 1815, the 1837 racers storm ,the Norfolk-Long Island Hurricane of 1821, Great Hurricane of 1780 and the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635. Storm05 20:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good, but how do we know if it is correct? The article says the hurricane hit Cuba then Key West, then Cedar Key, but yours has it making landfall south of Tampa Bay. There's also no evidence for a Florida mainland Cat. 5 landfall. Something like that would be fine for the talk pages, though. In addition, here is an estimated track map. It is by no means official, but see how different yours and its are? They are simply estimates, and nothing is official, meaning, sorry, it can't go in the actual article. Hurricanehink 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we cannot make estimated track maps based on our own research.  What we can do is pester the NHC to continue the best-tracks backwards.  I suspect that in time they will do so anyway. — jdorje (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre 1850 tracks

message: Why the assesment colors keep changing all the time?, like the FA tab which used to be yellow now its Green and the A Class tab which used to be gray with red letters now its Blue. Storm05 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, not sure... Hurricanehink 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  is blue and  is green because they were changed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, and they are Wikipedia-wide, not just for this WikiProject. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assesment Colors 

message: Hurricane Eloise lists Eloise as having had 130 mph winds. However, this is impossible by the current system of measurement; knot measurements are cut off by intervals of 5 kt, and 110 kt is 125 mph while 115 kt is 135 mph. I don't know if we should change it or not. —Cuiviénen,  Monday, 27 March 2006 @ 22:51 (UTC)
:Actually, 115 knots is 132.25 mph which "should" round to 130 mph.  However, the NHC seems to often round it up to 135 mph, probably because the cutoff for Cat4 is 131 mph.  AFAICT there is no way to tell which is which just by looking at the best track info. — jdorje (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, my fault. I fixed it. Hurricanehink 23:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Eloise 

message: The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season on biocrawler.com (a rip off of wikipedia) is incomplete. Storm05 19:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it's just an archive of an old version of the article. — jdorje (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing out of the ordinary: see the list of sites that do that at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That mirror site should update that article. Funnybunny 21:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Look at this!

message: Some crazy user had created a VERY redundant article with next to no or redundant infomation. Storm05 16:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of, thanks. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 03:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Universal Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina]]