Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 6

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 6

Upgraded hurricane template

{{Hurricane}} now holds article quality classes. We can (and should) embed other "meta-data" about articles into this template! But what to know for each article? Maybe we should start with the date on which the last quality class was visited and who assigned it, such as {{hurricane | class = Start | date = January 2006}}. Or maybe it's not ambitious enough, and we have to embed the whole explanatory text: {{hurricane | class = Start | reason = This article documents current events and needs to be reassessed when the event is over.}}. Or maybe both, of course. Jdorje 04:18, January 9, 2006 (UTC)

Wow, unfortunately no one responds to this. This is a great idea that will not hurt to be implemented. Hurricanehink 00:48, April 26, 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be done. Hurricane Hurricane # 12 _(talk) 11:49, May 28, 2006 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 6

Timeline article

I have read the 2004 and 2005 timeline articles, changing them to reflect TCR rather than as an advisor. Should every thing in the timeline be refined to TCR? And graphic timeline 2005, should we copy it to another season too? Nilfanion 13:06, April 9, 2006 (UTC)

Might just link everything to the TCR page? You know, the page where they have a link to every storm. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:13, May 22, 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Rainfall

I have expanded the pioneering article in Cyclone Rainfall Climatology USA, and expanded its coverage to one around the world, God helped me. Rainfall has never been covered properly in tropical storm season/individual storm overview... US data is mined from NCDC in private. Many "wikilinks" have been added to the related hurricane/season article, and I added some hurricane images that did not show up here from the Western Pacific (some missing from 2002-2004!) Inline links have been added... not sure how to do enough endnote not yet. I am slowly going back through Montyly Cyclone Global Monthly Cyclone Articles carried out by Gary Padgett since 1997 and adding related rainfall information. Does anyone know if the old Tropical Weekly Summaries archive encapsulated by Jack Beven (and me as a guest author in Jan-Feb 1994) from 1992-1997 is still on the web, or in anyone's inbox? User Talk: thegreatdr 21:36, May 7, 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Good job! Do not know about tropical cyclone overview. Hurricanehink 21:56, May 7, 2006 (UTC)

Does this work, Doc? Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 03:06, May 11, 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, I have not thought about this until now. If any of you all live in places that occasionally get rain from tropical cyclones or their remains, and you have rain gauges, send your observations to me on my talk page along with the name of the nearest town and personal latitude and longitude You (I think you can still find it for free in geocode). Thegreatdr 19:05, June 4, 2006 (UTC)

More WP: 1.0

Well, Wikipedia: Version 0.5, trial for WP: 1.0, is starting, and we need some reviewers for the nomination page. Because our WikiProject has rated most articles, we have the most experience, so we need to help them. & Lt;/spam & gt; :)

More importantly, because there will be a deadline for the static version (not yet determined, but the date of issuance is expected to be late this year), we need to get the most important articles at least {{A-Class}} soon. That includes, IMO, Tropical cyclone (which is listed in Vital article), and at least, Hurricane Katrina. IMO, Hurricane Ivan, Cyclone Tracy, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Floyd, and Hurricane Wilma can make it too, but we have to polish it. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 04:18, May 8, 2006 (UTC)

Are other A and FA articles included? Hurricanehink 21:42, May 9, 2006 (UTC)

For 1.0, chances are. For 0.5, still has not been decided. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 22:08, May 9, 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that we nominate this article: Eyes (cyclones), Hurricane Hunters, Storm preparedness, Common Typhoon Warning Center, National Hurricane Center, Saffir-Simpson Storm Scenes, and Storm Surge.

If they do not want to add a lot of other smaller articles, we have to find a way to make tropical cyclones a static version with a brief explanation above included, and that is a 0.5-inclusive article. Runningonbrains 19:09, May 28, 2006 (UTC)

West Pacific data source problem

Our coverage of NW Pacific is based primarily on data from JTWC. I'm not sure of the exact date of what happened (I know RSMC was founded some time ago, but JTWC retained the naming responsibilities until recently), but currently the RSMC Tokyo is really responsible for everything in this basin. However, we still use JTWC data as if it were official data. This caused problems because the Philippines used JTWC data for their status. RSMC Tokyo uses the following categorization: 35-45 TS, 50-60 Severe TS, 65 Typhoon (NO super typhoon) within 10 minutes speed . See the JTWC site disclaimer: "JTWC products on this website are intended for use by US government agencies Please consult your national meteorological agency or the Regional Specific Meteorological Agency specific to the tropical cyclone products associated with your country, region and/or local area. "

Wikipedia is NOT a US government agency, so we have to use the relevant RSMC data. Incidentally that causes many problems, for example Chaba 2004 is 879mbar/155 (1 min) kts according to JTWC (and therefore Wikipedia) but 910 hPa/110 (10 min) kts according to RSMC Tokyo. In the past "remote" JTWC data is official data (unless RSMC is retroactively responsible - I'm not sure). However, the JTWC now has a lot of responsibility for storms in the Pacific NW as it does for those close to Australia, just protecting the US Navy. What exactly should we do? - Nilfanion 09:39, May 9, 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is that I'm really sorry. I use the Joint Typhoon Warning Center because that seems to be what I use, and then I personally do WPAC from 1958 to 2003 using JTWC. I do not know what to do. Moving will be very painful, but it sounds like a big deal. Hurricanehink 21:40, May 9, 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say to keep using JTWC data until we can find the relevant Tokyo RSMC info, and gradually move it. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 22:10, May 9, 2006 (UTC)

It worked... time consuming but doable. One problem though, season active . The current season has 2 registered TSs - from JTWC data. Tokyo only says one... - Nilfanion (talk) 22:13, May 9, 2006 (UTC)

The Pacific hurricane always lists all identified storms (hence the Philippines-named INVESTMENT is also recorded). NSL E _{(T C)} at 00:48 UTC (2006-05-10)

This is why I used Gary Padgett Monthly Summaries for the storms I added in 2003 and 2004... they include information from all available sources. JTWC has not been an authority, at least since 1999. Thegreatdr 18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For ACTIVE storm - View User: NSLE/Sandbox - modified version {{HurricaneActive}}, using User status: NSLE/Sandbox/Hurricane in part, which is a modified version of {{hurricane status}}. Also, see this used on the User test: NSLE/Sandbox/Typhoon. Mind? "Current storm information" can also provide info from local JTWC and RMSC, explaining differences in readings. I have also made optional pressures, because JTWC does not provide pressure readings, but JMA does, so for storms recognized by PAGASA/JTWC but not JMA it will not be a problem.

I'm sure the same thing can be done for a hurricane past - in fact I believe {{infobox hurricane}} has enabled it, showing more than one wind speed. The article could, again, reflect differences in forecasting, and still talk about both forecasts... NSL E _(TC) at 01: 53 UTC (2006-05-10)

The only problem with this concept is that JMA and JTWC provide the best contradictory path data; like my example with Chaba 2004. Which number should the article be used? JMA data says Chaba is a weaker storm than JTWC, for the list both will be confusing at least. Also what do we do with storms like Tropical Storm 2005 25W? JTWC calls it as TS but JMA does not. Therefore I think it should not be counted for seasonal activities in the infobox; but how to label this section correctly (PAGASA named it)? - Nilfanion (talk) 10:16, May 10, 2006 (UTC)

How about now? Chanchu-Caloy is a cyclone according to JTWC but a tropical storm according to RSMC. Should the title be changed to Typhoon? - Cuivi ÃÆ' Â © nen ( talk o contribs ) , Wednesday, May 10 2006 @ 22:33 UTC

The same problem as I mean above - most likely the storm will be upgraded to a hurricane by the RSMC immediately, so this is a debatable point in the long run. But we have a naming problem with this storm; I think we should call them, whatever Tokyo called, maybe we should embed the name of PAGASA full while in the Philippines? - Nilfanion (talk) 22:39, May 10, 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this suggestion. We always include it to the strongest, and in the timeline notes the difference between JTWC and JMA (see timeline of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season). I will still record it as "Chanchu Typhoon (Caloy)". NSL E _{(T C)} at 04:24 UTC (2006-05-11)

The problem with abandoning it is, illustrated by "Tropical Storm 01W (Basyang)". The RSMC does not consider it TS, so it is not officially - which means that the title is misleading and the current activity of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season is currently 1 storm.-- Nilfanion (talk) 06:43, May 11, 2006 (UTC)

Article formatting

Should we send something like this to all TC editors? It seems that not everyone knows the exact format, and the reminder can not hurt. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:02, May 15, 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. There are some things I did not know before and now I use the guides with Typhoon Chanchu (2006). Send them! Icelandic letter # 12 01:11, May 16, 2006 (UTC)

One thing, though: For more impacted storms, [the beginning] should be 3 [paragraphs] or more. I'm not sure having more than three paragraphs in the lead section is a good idea. What do others think? Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. I do not really think, but four paragraphs will be a bit much. I made the change. Also, something to address is the impact area. I think that it will happen in every country, unless it affects some parts of the country. This could allow the US, Mexican, and Canadian provinces to remain separate. What if, for example, a hurricane hit Nova Scotia then Newfoundland? Or the storm hit the Yucatan Peninsula then the mainland of Mexico? This could allow more leeway. If not, what are some things to discuss? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:51, May 16, 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would be okay, IMO, unless the information for a particular country is detailed enough for us to write about some provinces for that country. The states of Mexico, US states, and Canadian provinces should be reunited into the country if there is not enough info to be worth separated, though. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 02:04, May 16, 2006 (UTC)

How The split impact must depend on how much information really exists. If there is enough information to separate the US/Mexico or Canadian provinces from the country - and other areas of the country are not very short, separate. An example of how I see this should work is on Hurricane Ivan, there is enough info for Florida, really should be enough for Alabama, but other countries should be merged together - either directly to "rest" from United States "or to areas such as" Mid-Atlantic States "or" New England. "Also, if a number of Caribbean islands are affected and there is only a small impact in some of the combined states of the country justified.Preparation and after must follow the same rules as an impact, but they generally have to be shorter and hence less subsections should be used.-- Nilfanion (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, "area of ​​â € <â €

Whoops. I'm talking about the impact field in infobox. Sorry, tired enough when I wrote it. Now that you've brought the impact section into the mix, should the impact area be just a sub-section of the impact section? Otherwise, fully agree on the impact section. Just share it if there's enough info. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 11:43, May 16, 2006 (UTC)

Agree, though we can combine areas in the Impact section if they are related (ie South Florida and Cuba with Hurricane Rita, "Outback" to the inland general effect of future hurricanes). Avoid incorporating areas within the infobox unless it affects most or all areas of the region. CrazyC83 17:00, May 16, 2006 (UTC)

Right, I did not think of that. If not, is the message good to send? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:07, May 16, 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if Rita with S FL/Cuba and the part that touch FL fair - respect for political boundaries and using FL and Cuba will make more sense, even though Cuba needs more info. "Inland Country" is a very plausible idea for a US landing, perhaps with other countries having a split of coastal and inland impacts? The message is fine, it will take the article to the scoring page as A-class as possible and we can adjust when it gets there. I would only emphasize that the history of the storm should not have subsections as a rule (it really should not be long enough for that).-- Nilfanion (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But if there is not much information in Cuba, but still enough to mention, there is no point in having a separate section. Not many storms have many inland impacts, but if there are many, Landmass is a good idea, unless it can be split up like Arlene. Fully agree with the history of the storm. Ivan may be a rare example of a longer-than-usual storm's history, but there is no need for subsections in the history of the storm. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:48, May 16, 2006 (UTC)

For the purposes of this message, the details of the impact are sufficient, most editors have a good feeling about how to do it right in my opinion; and if not, it'll be fine if it's good enough to get into the scoring page. Let's not worry too much here, but handle them on pages relevant to the article. Adding a comment that says "subsections in the history of the storm is bad" in the message will solve all serious problems - just send it later. Ivan's history is a bit too long, but Wilma is ridiculous, if the message can break the format it's a good thing.-- Nilfanion (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I mentioned about how the history of excessive storms is bad. You are right. Most people will only follow this as a guide line. Some storms will not work with this format. I will put it in the template, if that's okay. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The history of the storm should include the meteorological section of the storm, not the damage it causes. The subsections make sense to separate key points from history. CrazyC83 03:02, May 17, 2006 (UTC)

True, the impact section has the damage it causes, but does it really need to have a stormy history of more than 5 paragraphs? Subdivisions, though somewhat set, are not necessary. We need to sum up the information, not to give it all in one big pile. That's the purpose of external links, to provide more meaningless superfluous detail in the article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 11:42, May 17, 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I made it into a template, and I sent it to everyone on the list. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Mitch on the main page immediately

Please add Hurricane Mitch to your watchlist (Click here to do that) as it will appear on the main page as featured article on May 28th and vandalism is expected. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:36, May 17, 2006 (UTC)

Why AHS 2005 is not on the front page of the upcoming FA? Is not this the FA? Or do they not decide when exactly? Icelandic letter # 12 21:15, May 17, 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 is the featured article director; he decides what articles are displayed when. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:31, May 17, 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I see. Icelandic letter # 12 21:44, May 17, 2006 (UTC)

Raul replaces Mitch for 2005AHS, which will be featured June 1st. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 20:19, May 22, 2006 (UTC)

Where in the world User: E.Kurang?

What happens to Users: E. BrownÃ,?, For not making edits since April 2006 or responding to our recent article creations. And there's nothing in the user's page about the reason for the absence (wikibreak, blocked, banned, stopped?). Storm05 17:50, May 19, 2006 (UTC)

I thought he was on vacation, but I'm not entirely sure. He is very calm, though. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 17:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Same as User: Weatherman90, in addition to 4 edits on May 15, he has not made any edits since May 4. Iceland Hurricane # 12 19:48, May 19, 2006 (UTC)

It may be asleep waiting for the season to actually start... or busy with work or something... CrazyC83 18:24, May 27, 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes wish I could go to hibernation during the winter and wake up for the hurricane season... then I remember that I will lose the cold and the snow and then the spring storm season... and search for that best to keep me awake... Dr. Denim 23:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Someone please archive many of these articles. I tried, but I was not sure what to keep and what to do. When the size of the article is on good size, feel free to delete this. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:13, May 22, 2006 (UTC)

You mean this talk page? I just archived 50 sections. I checked what was dead for a month and filed it. If anyone wants to create an archive discussion, just copy and paste it here. - RattleMan 01:47, May 25, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good work. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:49, May 25, 2006 (UTC)

Template: Cyclones

I think this is not a good idea. See also has a certain style for it, and this breaks that style. I think just mentioning the cyclone articles in the View section would also be better. TimL 01:14, May 25, 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a standard navigation template, so I do not see the problem. (see Template: Pageant Agency states for example of Special: Random/Template). Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 01:19, May 25, 2006 (UTC)

Oh, WP: NAV. Well, I think it will look much better:

Other Cyclones

• Externalize
• Subtropical
• Scale-Meso
• Low polar

I do not see the need for a navigation template here.

I also do not see the danger of having one of them, and it's managed to get some feathers out of a Tropical storm, so I'll say it must be fixed. I do not know what other people think. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 04:12, May 26, 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons I created a template is to cut out the view section to a more reasonable size too. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:48, May 26, 2006 (UTC)

I have created a list of {{HurricaneActive2 }} template for deletion

See the reasons here, and please show your views there as well. NSL E _{(T C)} at 02:45 UTC (2006-05-28)

camille

I give camille a little love. I will take the recommendations of peer review and apply them immediately, especially {{Cite web}} templates}}, and more copyedit as needed, even if other articles do not really need them. TimL 01:10, May 29, 2006 (UTC)

Dvorak to Peer Reviews

I have sent Dvorak techniques for peer review. TimL 04:19, May 29, 2006 (UTC)

Cut and paste from other sites

Take a look at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/camille/report.html Is it okay to cut and paste it into Wikipedia articles? Does the public domain apply here? (I think along the lines of how public domain applies to US Government works.) The reason I ask is because this has been pasted word for word into Hurricane Camille (though commented on). thanks. TimL 00:16, May 30, 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. This is not the work of the federal government, and if used, it should be referenced, not copied directly. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's my fault. I am the one who copied and pasted. But I commented mostly because I have rewritten paragraphs one by one. When I have rewritten the paragraph, I let it be visible without having to press the edit button. I think it's fine if the original work is not visible, so I'll show it when it's not exactly the same. Is not that okay? Hurricane Hurricane # 12 _(talk) 00:38, May 30, 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any rewriting. Can you expand it? TimL 00:40, May 30, 2006 (UTC)

4 or 5 the first paragraph is rewritten to some degree. I hope someone can do a more visible rewrite, because I do not have the best writing skills. So I think 4 of the first 5 paragraphs can be recovered. Right? Hurricane Hurricane # 12 _(talk) 00:43, May 30, 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm happy to help here. This is a good resource for Aftermath sectrion but does not need to be the only source. We have many sources to draw from within the article. I will do rough designs after the next few days based on these sources. TimL 00:54, May 30, 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter?

Some of us have talked about newsletters, and I think this is a good idea. This would be a good way to talk to all TC members every month, especially if some of them do not come here. I thought about a few things to include.

• Members of the month - Let's face it, many of us do the hard work here, and nothing is recognized at all. It's time for your hard work to show up a bit.
• Article statistics - Something like this can be updated monthly. The following is only for storm articles.

• Common say - Similar to what is on the Portal page, basically a list of articles that need to be created, expanded, etc.
• FA Wishlist - This is where we put the storm we want to be the FA, but it's not good enough right now. Camille and Andrew came to mind.
• Moon storm - This can be part of a previous month's hurricane that we can choose. If there is a June bulletin, the storm of the moon could be Chanchu, which storm will be explained
• New Articles- This section may be all articles created in the previous month. However, looking at the article statistics, there may be too many (May see 20 more storms). Maybe this could be the best new article.

By the way: Wikipedia: Tropical Cyclone WikiProject/Newsletter list of members. We may be able to inform everyone about this list and ask them to state their preference, rather than sending spam with bulletins they did not expect to receive. NSL E _{(T C)} at 01:45 UTC (2006-05-31)

Or enter it clearly in the first "problem", if it can be called that, so they get at least one, and then they can decide. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. So how should we set the first problem? What should be the title? I'm thinking of something like The Tropical Times , though something less tacky can work. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What about something similar to Signs ? NSL E _{(T C)} at 01:57 UTC (2006-05-31)

Uh, that's a pretty simple title :) Come on, we mashchist is too excited! We have to come up with a name that shows it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So where is the problem making process done? Will a separate page be created, or will it be part of another page? Hurricane Hurricane # 12 _(talk) 01:56, May 31, 2006 (UTC)

The bulletin itself should be templated or made into a subpage, and the rest can go to the talk page of the template or subpage. NSL E _{(T C)} at 01:57 UTC (2006-05-31)

Does that mean we can create a page? Hurricane Hurricane # 12 _(talk) 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the discussion here, but we have to create a page about the first real problem. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the name of this newsletter; it could be " As The Cyclone Spins ", but that sounds like a bad drama... - RattleMan 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like it... Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 06:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more like headline to me; "The Spinning Cyclone" works better. Hey, what about " The Fishspinner ", lol? - Nilfanion (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this month's quote? I think of things like User: Nilfanion/quotes from the NHC forecasters I've collected. Maybe make a quote on this month's storm? - Nilfanion (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you will have a quote from the forecast month for vince ("If it looks like a storm it should be a storm") is a definite must... haha ​​â € <â €

I moved the mailing list to Wikipedia: List of cyclones/Bulletins/Tropical WikiProject Members List, which seems more logical - we can provide better newspaper structure at that time. We can have a/Newsletter showing the current edition, somewhere to archive it systematically and so on. I think content discussion and next issue preparation should be done at the Newsletter talks. This means the talk page contains upcoming versions and the main page shows the last published.-- Nilfanion (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have copied this to/Newsletter. Three parts there: content discussions (these things), format discussions and work on the first newsletter.-- Nilfanion (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do not we change the collaboration from two weeks into a collaboration this month? We can tie it up with the bulletin, publicity can help.-- Nilfanion (talk) 12:39, June 1, 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but the collaboration never existed. The first is Mitch, which I practically do for myself. Tracy was one for a while, but nothing happened. Camille after that, which Hurricane Iceland and other users do most of it. Now Gilbert. It could work, perhaps as part of the FA's wish list. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:21, June 1, 2006 (UTC)

Sound on title and month open members please select (procedure on page)! - Nilfanion (talk) 00:36, June 2, 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the procedure... which page?... maybe I missed it. Denim 17:23, June 2, 2006 (UTC)

They are on the bulletin talk page in/Newsletter # Title amd/Newsletter # Month members each.-- Nilfanion (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

ThanksDr Denim 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Initial image

Looking at the NOAA archive I found some interesting images. First this picture says it shows the first tropical cyclone photographed by meteorological satellites (in the South Pacific in April 1960). The second picture was even earlier, in the mid-1950s. I could not find what storm the picture was showing, from my initial suspicion it was Hazel, but the title says "near Del Rio, Texas," but there was no tropical cyclone in the area in October 1954. ideas appalling it? - Nilfanion (talk) 12:33, May 24, 2006 (UTC)

As a follow-up a paper describing the launch of the rocket in question (PDF). The only situation that makes sense to me is if the storm in question is actually a tropical depression; I can not see any such storms on the track map during the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season.-- Nilfanion (talk) 13:06, May 24, 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that the view is centered in Del Rio?... in this case it could be Hurricane Hazel or Hurricane # 8 according to Unisys storm track archive...

I remember someone saying that there was a td image above Rio Del or Rio grande, but I never saw that picture. Now after I see it, it does not look like td. So who knows, but when we know it, we have to put it on Wikipedia with a storm description of it. Hurricane Hurricane # 12 _(talk) 19:50, May 24, 2006 (UTC)

Do not forget that the first satellite, Sputnik, was launched by Russia in 1957, and the first weather satellite was not launched until February 1959. The 1954 source is incorrect. Check out 1959 storm near Del Rio. Runningonbrains 23:35, May 24, 2006 (UTC)

The source is valid. This is not a satellite, but a rocket that sounds sub-orbital.-- Nilfanion (talk) 23:36, May 24, 2006 (UTC)

It turns out I'm an idiot and did not read his testimony. As for the identity of the storm in question, I do not know. Caption must be wrong: NOAA photo archive has been inaccurate in the past. Runningonbrains 23:42, May 24, 2006 (UTC)

Gasp!... NOAA wrong?... j/k... anywho... Looks like I'm feeling an ordinary idiocy among geniuses... it's a simple thing that makes us confused... haha ​​... anyone... this image identity will bother me until I know what it is... Dr. Denim 11:55, May 25, 2006 (UTC)

I contacted several people involved in a 2004 storm re-analysis of Navy rocket images, and they confirmed that it appeared to be a tropical depression, and was handled as such in real-time. It has a great circulation, and on the daily map, the boats definitely know it's there because all obs are over 100 miles from the center. When I order pictures (which I have at work), people who work for Navy archives start a bit... rather, complain loudly... about the fact the organization's budget is severely trimmed by the Pentagon/White House Building. All I can do is sit there, listen, and agree that it's a shame. Thegreatdr 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I got a question

Because you seem to know about the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproyek (after creating it and all), so I want to ask how exactly the assessment works for tropical cyclones. I'm kind of new to wikipedia (just a few months), so I'm still chasing all the small features. I think it's a good thing, have a ranking system so you can quickly see which articles need the most work. But it seems unique only to some article groups (tropical cyclones, chemsitry, etc.). Why is this, how does it work, and how do I rate another article? Runningonbrains 23:50, May 27, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to get one of those Logs at the bottom of the scoring page to work on WP: WPIT, which I founded. Hurricane Hurricane # 12 _(talk) 11:47, May 28, 2006 (UTC)

Most of the code is recycled on {{v0.5}} (as well as in {{hurricane}}, but there's something else there, so the code might be a bit more confusing). What happens is you make a call to the rating template (all listed in Template: Grading scheme), like {{hurricane | class = A}} , which then places the article in Category: Hurricane A-Class article. This is then read by a bot, who does all the dirty work for you.

In order to have bots to process categories, you need to create subcategories Category: Wikipedia 1.0 rating. Then, you need to create a category tree similar to Category: Tropical cyclone article by quality. All instructions are on Wikipedia: Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Subject Index. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Version 0.5 Nomination

If no objections, I will nominate the article I mentioned above (see More on WP: 1.0). I doubt JTWC or NHC will make it in their pioneering country countries, so I decided against them. I think the mentioned storm article is a good one to include, also including the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. From what I read, I'm sure we can improve the article once they are nominated and accepted. Runningonbrains 06:07, May 31, 2006 (UTC)

Right. However, I will not get through it, because that would be a conflict of interest Super Typhoon Tip size. Good luck. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 06:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Article statistics

I went overboard a few days ago, extending the table on my user page to show the quality of all the Atlantic storm/season articles. I think it sums up the state of our article pretty well - I wonder if it might make more sense in the project space and not my user space, this is a useful summary for all of us I think about; especially in relation to the created Hink table (for newsletters).-- Nilfanion (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability

First, I apologize if this has been mentioned. Personally I would not choose to go through five archived pages for review. Now, how does the storm become 'important'? For example, I noticed that in Talk: Hurricane Faith, Jdorje said that the article should not be based on trivia but based on its impact. So the question is, should an article like Hurricane Faith be made? Is this important because things are trivial? -Tcwd | Talk 15:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Faith is famous for its trajectory. It goes further north than any other tropical cyclone. Unfortunately, the importance is subjective, and Jdorje does not find a famous long-lasting storm (like Ginger). In my book, an article can only be created if there is enough information. Look at Matthew. It only caused $ 300,000 damage, but because there was enough information I made, and now it's class B. For older storms, important = information (basically), but newer storms do not have that problem. Every storm of 2005 has an article, and there's no problem with it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:47, June 4, 2006 (UTC)

What I do not want to see is an argument on the line "this storm is famous so it must have an article". It gets a mention in the season article, if thats all there is to say about it, an article is not justified (though redirects are useful). With the storm of 2005 there was more info available (at least TCR advisor). Faith is a spectacularly bad info - I can not even find TCR for 1966 online (though I may not be looking in the right place). I am all for Faith to have an article, but must have the impact of things that are sourced .-- Nilfanion (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

it seems that if the part in the season report seems to be relatively long over the other then the storm has at least become important enough for someone to find enough information to make it long the article... whatever length it may be... who... btw... did you check the NCDC for the report?... do not remember if they watched people on their website or not... I also have a website somewhere that has a lot of old newspaper articles... if I find it, I'll post it on that page.. Dr. Denim 18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Satellite imagery

It was mentioned I had to drop the note on this page, so I did. =) Most of you know about GIBBS (geostationary) imagery that is currently running back to 1983. Plan at the beginning of next year that will expand back to 1979... very good news. For those who do not want to wait, there is already a polar orbiting image back to 1978 online via NCDC in their section in CLASS. Someone in the LCH office made a DVD of the Atlantic season in the 1970s... which can be ordered via NCDC or by sending a set of DVD-burnable discs to LCH. Thegreatdr 18:40, June 4, 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That's great news! I hope it will help fill some empty space. ÃÆ'slenska hurikein # 12 _(samtal) 11:48, June 5, 2006 (UTC)

Naming of the article

I think we should move the article from the older storm (which most of the old articles precede the current philosophy) from "Storm Name" to "Storm Name", with the exception of retired of course. One problem storm for this is Hurricane Alice; If we follow the Zeta technique, we get Hurricane Alice (1954). Both of these names have a problem that the first Alice of 1954 is actually more important (55 deaths). I do not think Alice2 is worthy of the main article, especially since this is not a unique one now with Zeta has happened. Maybe Alice and Zeta should be moved to Alice (1954-55) and Zeta (2005-06)? - Nilfanion (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What if it's the only use of the name? If only used once, there is no real need for disambiguation this year. The reason for 2005 is because it is possible that the names can be reused in the future. Past names in the old list are done. If the old names are chosen as a substitute name, then the name can be renamed, but there is no real point. On the other hand, because there are some Alices, disambiguator years must be there. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I forgot how turbulent the initial naming list is. Even if they do not retire many names are only used once, even though I feel too much from the old storm to have the main name, I think I will change anything that needs disambiguation. We need to decide what's right for Alice, the storm should not have a major name. Another question should not be Hurricane Emily being a page disambig considering there is no 2005 hurricane? - Nilfanion (talk) 11:52, June 5, 2006 (UTC)

Alice was supposed to be Hurricane Alice (1954), since it was formed in 1954. There is a very small chance that another Alice would get an article, because there is no information beside it. However, if that happens, then the change can be done. Yes, Emily should be a disambiguation page, I think. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:35, June 5, 2006 (UTC)

Move Emily to disambiguation page, leave Zeta as is, leave Alice 2 like this unless we get more info about Alice 1 (so year of formation is years in parentheses), leave the article for the longer called a storm like iff the occasion is the only use of that name. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So basically the storm gets the main page if it is the only usage of that name or is it retired? I will sort out all the useful disambol to know... - Nilfanion (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds true. Good luck with disambol. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:48, June 5, 2006 (UTC)

This will be more difficult than I thought before. The reason why: how many TCs are called Emily? - Nilfanion (talk) 12:01, June 6, 2006 (UTC)

Next FAC

There is a discussion on the FAC assessment judgment page next, but I post a notice here because it is more visible on this page. We are discussing whether Hurricane John or Hurricane Katrina should be next. Of course, Katrina is expected to be a difficult nomination, so that's why we need all the eyes we can get if we decide to nominate it. Tito xd ^{(?!? - help us)} 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Orrrrrr, we can do both : P - Nilfanion (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Storm infobox hurricane

It's rather spacious. Please see my modifications here, compare with this. Also, I think it would be nice to have a year 'jump' at the end of hurricane season. So eg. hurricane season of 1995 will occur:
1990 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2000
or:
-5 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 5
TimL 03:26, June 6, 2006 (UTC)

Interesting little idea there. However, I do not know how useful it is. Personally, I do not use jumper year too much, and when I do, I go from year to year. I do not want to talk to anyone, but I do not think it would be worth the effort to make all those changes. It does not take much effort to click the season page, then go to the season you want. Any other? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 11:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, can not really see usability. NSL E _{(T C)} at 11:43 UTC (2006-06-06)

Yes, I jump once a year by using links or jumping a few years by typing them manually. I have a problem with the "Last Storm Thundered" though. When we say lost we do not mean lost but mean it is lost or becomes extratropical - big difference.-- Nilfanion (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can do what Simple does (see simple: 2005 Atlantic hurricane season) and use "The last storm ended"... NSL E _(TC) at 12:11 UTC (2006-06-06)

Ok, forget the idea of ​​his leap. But other changes make it a bit less widespread that I think is good because it's designed for a quick glance. TimL 15:17, June 6, 2006 (UTC)

Useful links

For everyone interested in editing the article, here are some helpful links I highly recommend.

• http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms - It has information from every tropical cyclone that affected the United States from 1994 to the present. A bit annoying, but good with total damage. Also, it provides information for areas that have few other places. For example, there is much information about the impact of Katrina in Alabama.
• http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/vLND - It has information about tropical cyclones worldwide from 1984 to the present, except the United States and Canada. Not every tropical cyclone is mentioned, but the more damaging it is.
• http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml - This is the National Hurricane Center archive. The Atlantic section has a lot of information from 1958-1969 and from 1991 to 1995. EPAC has been widely from 1988 to 1995. This archive includes a tropical discussion, which can be very useful for the preparation section. If a tropical storm or hurricane is expected to rise more than it actually does, or is not expected to increase as it happens, be sure to mention it.
• http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/re_anal.html - This is the Atlantic storm database from 1851 to the present, although the focus is older storms. The useful part is the best path data, which is the official source for tracking data.
• http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/rsad/gibbs/gibbs.html - Most likely own it now, but if you do not do so, this page has a Public Domain satellite image from August 1983 to present. It's not perfect, but it has years of satellite imagery for most of the world. There are still plenty of storms out there that have no pictures here, and they can be found on that link.
• http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/tcrainfall.html - Rainfall data for all US storms from 1982 to 2005, expansion is ongoing, or just ask our fellow members Thegreatdr.
• http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/hp_roger/hurr_norm/data.html - All destructive US storms from 1900 to 1995
• http://www.dartmouth.edu/~floods/Archives/index.html - Flooded archive from 1985-2006

Some regional links:

• http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/index_e.html - This is the Canadian Hurricane Center page. It has info on tropical cyclones affecting Canada since 1954.
• http://www.pivot.net/~cotterly/hurricane.PDF - It contains info on tropical cyclones that affected Maine from 1635 to 1996.
• http://home.maine.rr.com/mailhot/netrop.html - New England Tropical Cyclones from 1938 to 2004, not sure how official they are
• http://www.vaemergency.com/newsroom/history/hurricane.cfm - hurricane Virginia - 1635-2004
• http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/roth/vahur.htm - More Virginia hurricanes- 1501-1999
• http://repository.wrclib.noaa.gov/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=nws_tech_memos - North Carolina Hurricanes- 1586 to 1997
• http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/history/- Florida hurricanes- 1565-1899
• http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgpb97001.pdf - Florida hurricanes- 1871-1996
• http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/research/lahur.php - Louisiana hurricanes- 1527-1997
• http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/research/txhur.php - Texas hurricanes- 1527-1999
• http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/summaries/- Hawaii hurricanes- 1832-Present
• http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/NHR-Cuba.pdf - Cuba hurricanes- 1906-1998

Enjoy! Does anyone else have links they want to add? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:09, June 7, 2006 (UTC)

Yep, (of course)

• http://www.wmo.ch/web/www/TCP/TCP-home.html - WMO Tropical Cyclone Program homepage, including a final report of a recent regional meeting.
• http://www.npmoc.navy.mil/jtwc/atcr/atcr_archive.html - JTWC archive: report back to 1959 and best route to 1945 for West Pac, with best path and some storm details for North India and the South Pacific.
• http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/rsmc-hp-pub-eg/besttrack.html - best JMA path data. JMA data is often contrary to JTWC (not just 1 minute/10 minutes) but this is official
• ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon2/home/ncc/cyclone/cyclones_newformat.zip (ZIP file) - best BoM Australia track record (1906-2004). As with JMA data it may conflict with JTWC but it is official info.

Actually comment here (I can not help myself). The best line BoM has a continuous wind code (10 minutes) of the form "H1, H2, H3, H4, H5". Minimum wind speed for them is 33, 42, 50, 60, 70 m/s - sound familiar? - Nilfanion (talk) 09:26, June 7, 2006 (UTC)

How can you forget this ?;

• http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/tc_home.html

ÃÆ'slenska hurikein # 12 _(samtal) 11:55, June 7, 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

Some users and myself have been discussing the possibility of expanding Wikiproject Cyclone Tropics elsewhere, namely Simple English Wikipedia. We have contacted some users whose writings are a little too simple here, but would be perfect for Wikipedia Wikipedia. Wikipedia Wikipedia has articles about the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the 1963 season, and a pioneer about Katrina. I propose we create a Secondary Wikiproject to get attention there. Working there is really voluntary... do not worry, we do not kick you out. If you go there, we will keep in touch, and help a little if necessary. Make sure you can use simple words, short sentences, and no spelling errors. Does this sound like a good idea? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:00, June 7, 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why not... long ago I wrote a short article about tropical cyclones on the wiki. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:06, June 7, 2006 (UTC)

• Is a great idea to help in n: Portal: Tropical cyclones, and maybe create some articles there... Tito xd ^(?!?) 04:58, June 13, 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I might be able to do that. I like to write things that smell the news.

Source of the article : Wikipedia