Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:WPTC
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones: edit · history · watch · refresh
Current Tropical Cyclone Collaboration of the Fortnight
Hurricane Fifi
Currently on Peer review Currently on Featured article candidates
(link)
(link)
(link)

WikiProject
Tropical Cyclones
WikiProject home (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Newsletter (talk)
Archives: 1 (t) | 2 (t) | 3 (t) | 4 (t) | 5 (t) | 6 (t)
WikiProject template (talk)
Article requests (talk)
Merging discussions (talk)
Finished articles (talk)

Assessment
Main assessment page (talk)
→ Assessment tables (talk)
→ Assessment log (talk)
→ Assessment statistics (talk)
→ Unassessed articles (talk)

Noticeboard edit
TC Collaboration of the Fortnight (talk)
→ Hurricane Fifi
On Peer review
→ None
On FAC / FLC / FPC
→ Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004) (link)

Tropical cyclones Portal

I just created this wikiproject, after several months of contemplating doing so. I hope everyone working on hurricane articles will get involved. I went ahead and wrote a bunch of guidelines, basically based on current practices...naturally since this is something I just wrote it doesn't necessarily represent community consensus and needs to be discussed. That discussion should probably go here for now...although eventually we may make these pages a little more structured. For a general TODO list, see the "tasks" item on the project page. Jdorje 23:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] FA flood

So, reading the thousand discussions surrounding User:Danny's thoughts about the next goal for Wikipedia, including Danny's contest and 100,000 FAs, there seems to be a call to find all the FA-quality articles we can find, and make them FAs. We have a lot of hurricane articles that are close, or at, FA quality, yet that don't have the flag. For example, we have 35+ GAs, and we can easily make half of those FAs. So, the question is, with the current climate that begs to identify all high-quality content, do we want to flood FA with a ton of hurricane articles? (Not all simultaneously, but sending all that we can over a period of time.) We can also try sourcing Tropical cyclone, and submit it to WP:DC... Titoxd(?!?) 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, flooding by tropical cyclone articles. Ironic :) That's a good idea. I'll start with the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season, which I recently finished redoing. link. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems that the only issue is to define what makes a list and what makes an article... as well at the ACE table, which I imagine must be somewhere. But that is a different story... which other articles are ready to go to the chopping block soon? Titoxd(?!?) 22:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No kidding... Titoxd(?!?) 23:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004)? That should be a FA. Same with Hurricane Georges. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 20:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and i think we can make Hurricane Edouard (1996) an FA. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Let's wait until 1933AHS passes and then let's send the other ones in. Titoxd(?!?) 02:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the next closest one is Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004), given that it has all sections (SH, preps, impact, aftermath), as well as an impact pic and some storm pics. Should this be on the assessment page or here, BTW? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, in the assessment page, but now that we're here, perhaps Bonnie should be next, after Fabian/Gustav/Katrina history are done. Titoxd(?!?) 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That could work. I know this is far in the future, but what about Tropical Storm Bill (2003)? I just finished that, and now it's extremely comprehensive and long. Could you give it a look over (needs a copyedit I'll bet, which you are great at). Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure. We're just going to need two lists soon: an FA queue, and a list of articles I have to look at... Titoxd(?!?) 04:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, so true. Actually, I was thinking we should have two FAC's at the most (3 is a bit too much). One would be the big impact/lots of info storm article, while the other is the lesser impact one that comprehensive with not terribly much info (like fish storms and low-impact storms). Should we make an actual FA queue, primarily for the lesser impact storms? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If we get any articles within this portion of the project to A or FA, check to see if the pages have a box mentioning/including them into the meteorology/weather events project. I did a quick search of a couple of the grades (FA and A) which only showed 3 meteorology articles reaching those two levels before I threw in a meteorology box on top of the Katrina article. It does not appear that the tropical cyclone project articles get included in meteorology automatically, and they clearly appear to be within the scope of that project as well. Just an FYI. Thegreatdr 20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I put Tropical Storm Bill (2003) up for FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • FA'd. Which one is next? Titoxd(?!?) 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Bonnie? Hurricanehink (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 14:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur, and that makes us three, meeting the rule of thumb we used to use... go ahead and nom it. Titoxd(?!?) 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Could someone else nominate it? I'm pretty busy lately, and I'm not sure if I could adequately handle the FAC nom. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Copy that, working on it. Titoxd(?!?) 06:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
On FAC now. Titoxd(?!?) 06:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool. The only problem I can forsee is the South Carolina tornado damage, which is listed as fair use. I'm not sure if that is an adequate fair use rationale, and it could still be public domain due to being from NWS website. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Something found on an NWS website does not mean it was taken by an employee of the government as part of their duties. NWS does often use photos from private individuals, we should never assume that NWS site = public domain. – Chacor 14:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I said it could. We don't know who took the picture. It could have been a NWS employee, for all we know. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
IMO, when it comes to images, the best way to approach images is to assume works are copyrighted unless proven otherwise. It's not safe to assume that it was an NWS employee who took it unless explicitly stated... in fact there have been deletions of some images on commons for that very thing - private images used by the NOAA that Storm05 uploaded under PD-NOAA. – Chacor 14:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, Bonnie is FA'd. What's next? Titoxd(?!?) 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Henri (03)? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Any other suggestions? Titoxd(?!?) 21:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. How about some more effort to bring, um, tropical cyclone to FA? There has been some effort lately...it would be nice to have as many people in the project as possible to bring the centerpiece article up to FA. Personally, I'd consider it embarrassing to have the main article brought to FA last. Thegreatdr 21:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You're preaching to the choir here... ;) Although that is indeed correct. Tropical cyclone is far advanced, but there is still a little bit of work left. At the same time, there are a few articles which have been ready for quite a long time, and that essentially can occupy the slot on FAC while we're busy fixing the flagship article until it is ready and in FAC condition. Titoxd(?!?) 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Also Tip. I see his name a lot, but he has a very short article. Good kitty 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here goes nothing. I put Henri up for FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier if someone went into all the GA-class articles and decided which could be inched up to A-class. (I am biased in some of them, and also I will generally not upgrade to A-class unless it is at (or will be at) FAC or if there is supporting opinions) CrazyC83 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I've done a lot of work to about half of them. That said, I'll update the assessment page with the remaining GA's. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
An FL Flood is also a possibility.... Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I just put List of retired Pacific hurricane names up for FLC. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this isn't much of a flood, having just one FAC at a time. 2006 PTS articles are pretty good, probably good enough to pass in an FAC, though it's practically guaranteed they will be changed in the future with the post-season reports. I'm sure the FAC people are getting sick of the low impact storms all the time, but unfortunately we don't have any bigger storms ready yet. Tropical cyclone is undergoing work. Eye (cyclone) could work as the next one, seeing as we have yet to have a non-storm or season FA (IIRC). No retired storms are ready, despite several being GA or A class. What does everyone want to do? Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I put 1995 Pacific hurricane season up for FAC, JTLYK. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KatrinaNewOrleansFlooded.jpg

Would this pic have any chance being a Featured Pic. I think it may need a little brightening, but other than that, is amazing. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks a tiny little bit grainy, but otherwise it shows New Orleans flooded very clearly... typhoonchaser 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Quality is balanced by the "historical importance" part of WP:WIAFP, so it could have a chance... Titoxd(?!?) 04:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a hope if you ask me. The quality is bad enough that it needs the historical offset: this image of flooded NOLA isn't the only one (and IIRC isn't the most famous one), so the historical value isn't really there IMO. A more serious problem is the image doesn't have a proper source! The description is "AP Photo/US Coastguard". It is tagged as PD-USGov, but the sourcing is to a couple news sites: one of which is 404'ed. The original image should be on a US Govt site somewhere and could well be at a higher resolution/quality (which could make the FPC viable).--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't you guys help out with GA nominees?

There are quite a few articles related to this project at the Wikipedia:Good article candidates. It doesn't require any credentials to review articles for GA as long as you are careful to follow the instructions written on that page, and to follow the Good article criterias. You would also help out us reviewers, it is sometimes difficult for us to assess NPOV and coverage of those kind of articles.

Fred-Chess 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not like everyone knows about the subject of the article. Passing TD9 (2003) was my first GA passing.Mitchazenia(7700+edits) 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
One main reason is that a lot of us feel a potential conflict of interest in passing something related to the project. In the past it has come up, and no real agreement was reached as to whether or not WPTC members should be passing WPTC articles (Failing, though, is a whole different ball game, because that usually means it's really not good enough). – Chacor 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I for one would trust your guys' opinions more. I find it more likely that an article would be passed that contained major lack of needed information (that we just didn't know was needed) than one of you trying to glorify the project by passing them easily. Besides, they can always be caught latter and delisted. GA is a casual procedure and no big deal. --SeizureDog 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewers cannot be heavily involved with writing the articles though...it is one thing to be involved in the project, but another to be writing the articles a lot (and putting them up). Yes, there is a backlog - and some articles have even bypassed that by going straight from B to A class - and ultimately FA - without even going GA (see Hurricane Fabian and Hurricane Edith (1971) for example). CrazyC83 18:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd help, but seeing as half of them were nominated by me I might be a little biased. That said, I did review one or two I did nothing for. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Featured topic?

Anyone want to try to get a Featured topic out of the WPTC? We have some options, all of which will take some time. Here's some ideas I had.

  • Retired Pacific hurricanes- Out of the 7 retired Pacific hurricanes, one is an FA (Iniki), one is a GAN (Ismael), and the rest shouldn't be too hard, excluding Fefa and Fico. A List of retired Pacific hurricane names article would have to be created, as well
  • List of retired Atlantic hurricanes- This one will be difficult. It has the most important storms, and of the 68 names there are still a lot that need a lot of work on. Seven are FA's (Gloria, Mitch, Floyd, Allison, Fabian, Dennis, and Katrina), eight are GA's or A's (Audrey, Camille, David, Andrew, Georges, Keith, Charley, and Ivan), and four are stubs (Edna, Janet, Gracie, and Flora).
  • Billion dollar U.S. hurricanes (2005 inflated)- With 42 of them, this one might be a little hard, but at least there is plenty of information on them. Included are billion dollar retired Atlantic hurricanes from above, Hurricane Iniki, Hurricane Juan (85), TS Leslie (00), and TS Claudette (79). Seven are FA's (Gloria, Iniki, Mitch, Floyd, Allison, Dennis, and Katrina), Eight are GA's or A's (Audrey, Camille, David, Andrew, Georges, Leslie (00), Charley, and Ivan), and there are no stubs
  • The most powerful tropical cyclones by area of development or impact- There's eight of them; Inigo, Ioke, Linda, Wilma, Cyclone 5B, Gafilo, Zoe, and Tip. This one might be a little difficult. None are FA's, only Linda is a GA, and Cyclone Inigo would have to be created.
  • 2003 Atlantic hurricane season articles- I'm not sure whether it would qualify as a featured topic, but this would be extremely easy. All articles except for Isabel and Juan are GA's or above (including 3 FA's), and the season is a GA.
  • 2005 Atlantic hurricane season articles- Similar to the above, though more work is needed. 8 articles are still starts (including Rita, Stan, and Wilma, all retired), though 3 storm articles are FA's (with the main article and the list of article being featured), and 12 are GA's.

Any thoughts? Anyone interested in trying for one of those or a different featured topic? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd say 2003AHS is the easiest to work on, and should perhaps be the trial nomination. After all, improving the hurricane season itself isn't that difficult when the storm articles are already developed considerably. Titoxd(?!?) 22:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The retired Pacific hurricanes shouldn't be done simply because I'm not certain Fefa and Fico were retired for being damaging rather than for some other reason. 2005 AHS might be good, I suggested it ages ago. Ditto for 2003 AHS per Titoxd. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, EPAC retired canes would be pretty easy, which is why I mentioned it (it took 10 minutes to think of 2003 AHS). You're right though; unless we find out whether they were retired for damage, it might be difficult. The biggest problem with 2005 is that it needs major redoing/expanding for three articles. Once I finish Isabel and Juan for 2003 AHS, I'll FT it. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
2003-05 AHS's are the obvious choices at this stage. Season's are the obvious topic choice, though any list is viable.--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Another I thought of, although it will take considerable work and several more articles, is 1995 Atlantic hurricane season being a very memorable year (although overshadowed by the insanity of 2005). CrazyC83 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but you're right, it will take considerable work. The best quality article in the season is Felix as a GA, which still could use some more work done to it. The four retired hurricane articles all need a ton of work (Opal especially), and the rest of the articles would have to be made (ideally). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hee hee hee

Well... apparently, we're overloading WP:FA. That's... always good, isn't it? :D Titoxd(?!?) 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's funny :) Well, they wanna split us with meteorology, so we're gonna have to overload them even more if we want to be our own category :D Hurricanehink (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you see the one on WP:VPM a little while back: "What is with Wikipedia and hurricane articles?". As for FA they've noticed the problem that GA had a while back, lets get GA to split us into our own cat first. No wait, we don't want any Hurricane GA's do we? They should all be FAs...--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting new feature

As reported on the Signpost, the MediaWiki devs have developed a new feature that allows us to create "sortable" tables. An example use for this new capability is shown in the List of Arizona hurricanes here (scroll down to the table and click on the arrows). What do you guys think about this? Titoxd(?!?) 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That is cool! I like that. I can't think of a lot of articles that could benifit from it, but it's still a cool feature. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ooo, I can think of some ways to use it. Explanations can wait.--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvios in articles

When re-writing Typhoon Shanshan (2006), I noticed that a good chunk of the original article's impact section had been copied verbatim from news sources. This is clearly copyright violation, and we probably should check Storm05's other articles for possible copyvios. – Chacor 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember some other authors had this problem in the past, as well. Curious, do you have a copy of the text and where it was taken verbatim from? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[1] Last paragraph. The moment you see "Saturday" in the text alarm bells should ring. Copied from here and various other sources. Re-arranging the copied text to insert them at different places isn't enough. Compare: "Also in Nobeoka, a 42-year-old man was found dead Sunday in a crushed bedroom littered with roof tiles and glass splinters while an 84-year-old woman farmer was knocked dead by a fallen tree outside a greenhouse, according to local police" v.s. "Also in Nobeoka, a 42-year-old man was found dead Sunday in a crushed bedroom littered with roof tiles and glass splinters while an 84-year-old woman farmer was knocked dead by a fallen tree outside a greenhouse, according to local police". – Chacor 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Damn, I'm surprised about that. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A plea concerning the extratropical cyclone articles

I've been fairly absent from the tropical cyclone project as of late due to filling out some related meteorology stubs and getting them up to at least B class. Also, the work on the extratropical cyclone article and our recent Late November 2006 Nor'easter offshore the Southeast has led me to create and fill out other extratropical cyclone/blizzard/nor'easter articles. I've noticed a couple of people currently and previously in the tropical cyclone part of the project have been assigning extratropical cyclones equivalent Saffir-Simpson categories based on their central pressure. Please don't do this. Extratropical cyclones are larger systems with broader wind fields, and I'm worried that calling some 970ish cyclone that affects the East as a category 2 hurricane is going to lead the unknowing to an incorrect conclusion for its maximum sustained winds. Thegreatdr 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization of the tropical cyclone article

That is one long article...it may take a while for several of us to make it an FA. =) I added a number of links when there were cn's in the text, with a couple of them eliminating some factual errors (like the 18 annual typhoons the Philippines were supposed to receive!) It's so long, that there may be a number of other factual errors within the article. Direct links were make into refs, some no break spaces were added where numbers and units were side by side, and the sections were reordered into (what seems to be) a more logical order. This is only my second attempt at improving an article from GA, so feedback (positive or negative) would be appreciated. Thegreatdr 03:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been meaning to work on that article for a while, and after finals are done two weeks from now, I'll try to overhaul it as well. But thanks, though, the article really needs it. More eyes can't hurt... I will check the new additions soon. Titoxd(?!?) 05:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extratropical cyclone on Main Page

While everyone is drooling over the History of porn being Today's Featured article, I don't think many have realized that Extratropical cyclone will be on the Main Page after that. It's WikiProject Meteorology's first FA, so it would be nice if we kept an eye on the article while it is in the spotlight, as we know how that usually goes... oh, and congratulations to the parent WikiProject would probably be nice too. :) Titoxd(?!?) 05:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help reviewing cyclone GAs

Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates has been getting a heavy backlog, and we could use some help slimming it now. Of particular problem is your guys' section. I just passed Tropical Storm Arlene (2005) which had been waiting for almost a month and there's plenty where that came from. A lot of the problem seems to be that you guys make too many good articles but are, let's face it, boring to read for the non-cyclone fanatic. Not that that is your fault, it's just all of those important details that you need to include go right over our heads. So I think it would be better if your own members review the articles. They would know what to look for and might actually enjoy learning something about "Tropical Storm Kal-El (2036)". Just...make sure not to be bias, ok? --SeizureDog 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. – Chacor 14:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Data source on TC satellite and other info

Tropical Cyclones data observed by TRMM/PR,TMI,VIRS, Aqua/AMSR-E and Midori-II (ADEOS-II)/AMSR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.124.224.224 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Not usable.

Earth Observation Research Center, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
JAXA/EORC, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

– Chacor 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just in case we didn't know already...

We apparently do have the shortest FA in Hurricane Irene. See WT:FA. Titoxd(?!?) 07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? No wonder there was so much controversy at its FAC. Let's see how long that lasts until Nilfanion wants to go for the gold (6.3 kb). Hurricanehink (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Records

Just wondering, what article has the most sources so far? Storm05 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Katrina has 113, that's probably the most or at least among the highest in our project. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the most. Tropical cyclone comes close with 104, though, and by the end of the expansion/cleanup, it will probably have more. Titoxd(?!?) 05:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question about "articles not under the scope of this project"

This is something I just noticed. Why is it stated on the main page of this project that the tropical cyclone, Saffir-Simpson scale, and storm surge are not within the scope of this project? Thegreatdr 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Originally, they weren't, as the scope was restricted to storm articles. Gradually, the scope has expanded, so that probably is out of date. Titoxd(?!?) 23:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the line implying that they lie outside the project. I like the idea on the underlying line in the code mentioning perhaps a top 10 could be listed. If we chose to do so, how would we determine a top 10? Thegreatdr 03:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe people should suggest the 10 most important ones which we will choose from. In addition to the three there, I nominate (in no particular order) Eye (cyclone), Hurricane Katrina, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, 1991 Bangladesh cyclone, Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology, Typhoon Tip, and Tropical cyclogenesis. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I also nominate Tropical cyclone scales, as SSHS is not used around the entire world. The other ones seem acceptable to me, and would be the ones I'd think about first. Titoxd(?!?) 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Great idea. So should we put the 10 of them in? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd think Catarina (2004) would trump 2005 Hurricane Season. It would avoid POV, and we'd have a southern hemisphere candidate. Tracy of 1974 is another alternative. Thegreatdr 23:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, tough call. Catarina was meteorologically interesting and fairly important, but so was 2005 AHS. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
We've been slowly trying to eliminate many of the general articles from an Atlantic-centric point of view to avoid POV tags...it's best to be proactive. If Catarina is not important enough, Tracy's devastation of Darwin around Christmas 1974 was significant. Thegreatdr 01:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why not all three? Storm surge isn't particularly important, and it is a stub after all (not something we should be advertising in our top 10). Also, rainfall climatology, while important, could be removed from the top 10. That way, Tracy and Catarina could be added, which are two important southern hemisphere articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why ten, for that matter? I think 2005AHS qualifies, (over $200 billion greens qualifies it, IMO) and rainfall climatology is important as well. Titoxd(?!?) 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Ten is a nice neat number, though I suppose we don't have to limit ourselves. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So is twelve. Just ask girls... ;) Titoxd(?!?) 02:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, true. I was also thinking, we should have the 1970 Bhola cyclone, not the Bangladesh cyclone (I forgot which one was the deadliest). Hurricanehink (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bhola. There needs to be a S. Hemisphere one. Cyclone Tracy has fallen from grace. Its also good to have one of those weird midget cyclones they have down there. Good kitty 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

<--- Well, provided no one disagrees, there will be two southern hemisphere storms. Is everyone alright with these twelve? Tropical cyclone, Tropical cyclone scales, Tropical cyclogenesis, Eye (cyclone), Storm surge, Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology, Hurricane Katrina, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, 1970 Bhola cyclone, Typhoon Tip, Cyclone Catarina, and Cyclone Tracy Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Having a second southern hemisphere storm would offset two Atlantic cases. I'm ok with it. When Good Kitty mentions Tracy has fallen from grace, I assume they mean the article, not the storm? Thegreatdr 16:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea. Alright, I'll put the 12 in. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So, do I push all of those to {{Top-Importance}}? Titoxd(?!?) 04:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, tough call. On one hand, they are probably our 12 most important articles. On the other hand, 12 seems like a lot for the absolute most important articles. What is the precedent for other projects? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
A whole lot of projects assign importance ratings based solely on the project (e.g. The Beatles is Top for WP:BEATLES, but it probably isn't going to be Top for WP:1.0), so we're safe there, I think. Titoxd(?!?) 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Storms article naming

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:

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)

[edit] Assessment graphs updated

OK, I've updated the graphs that I had originally posted on Archive 9. A few observations from there:

  • We should reach the 800-article mark before the end of the year, if the rate of article creation keeps up.
  • We're clogging up GA; they can't keep up with the pace we send through there. Perhaps we should start assessing some of those articles ourselves? Should we skip GA in some cases and send straight to FAC?
  • Most of our A-Class articles don't last long there; they're pushed up to FA status. That's usually good.
  • There's been a sharp increase in our rate of FACs after October of this year.
  • At any given time for the last four months, there's between 115 and 120 B-Class articles; it seems the number is stuck there. Same with Start-Class, which is stuck between 400-410, and Stub-Class, which has been a flat line since year, hovering at 155 articles. These articles are mostly hurricane seasons.

Also, I posted two additional graphs, which I found to be very useful. The first one shows our validated content; as apparent there from the slopes of the graphs, our rate of approval at GA, FA, and our A-Class assessment page is either equal or greater to the rate of creation of new articles. The other graph shows each classification as a percentage of our total articles; when the left and right edges of the graph are compared, there are definite differences in the numbers from May to the numbers now. Sometimes the rate of improvement appears slow, but over time, it adds up. Hopefully, these will be helpful for the newsletter, which should be in the production stage right now... ;) Titoxd(?!?) 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Tito, go away. Me still not with it yet- weekend with any luck ;) Good job on the graphs of course. An interesting thing to carry out could be a categorisation of our articles, a pie chart showing storm articles, seasonal articles, and others maybe? However you would have to do your own analysis not just rely on mathbot's work then...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I can probably do a pie graph for seasons, storms, tropical cyclone meteorology, meteorologists, and other articles, but it would be a current graph, since it would be a royal PITA to do with respect to time. Remind me about that Tuesday, since that's the earliest I can work on it. Titoxd(?!?) 04:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Tito, you could use the tables recorded in the newsletters to get some graeter detail for the storm articles without a hefty expenditure of effort. Obviously much of anything would be a PITA.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting?

Great work with the graphs. Would it be possible to the categorization more easliy by breaking up the WPTC into the three categories? Meteorology has their articles split by topic (tornado, floods, etc), so splitting it by seasons, storms, and other could keep things organized so things wouldn't be too difficult. Is such an idea feasible? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean having an assessment table for the storms, a separate table for the seasons, etc? Titoxd(?!?) 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Something like that. Mainly, I mean splitting the {{hurricane}} template into seasons and storm like the {{meteorology}} template splits the tornadoes from the floods. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's some issues to consider there:
  • Having an assessment table for part of the project is doable (WP:BEATLES does it), but not necessarily a good idea (BEATLES has indicated that it wasn't as good an idea as they had expected). Having more articles makes Mathbot slower too, as it has to read more categories, so it is something not necessarily ideal either.
  • Meteorology's intentions are to allow the sub-projects to split away completely into separate projects, a la WPTC, so it's not necessarily the same situation either. Do we want to split off into WikiProject Individual tropical cyclones, WikiProject Tropical cyclone seasons and WikiProject Tropical cyclone meteorology? We don't have that many editors specializing in certain areas, as everyone chips into pretty much everything, so I don't think that is necessarily a good idea.
We can probably try something similar to Military history's task forces, but again, it depends on the level of autonomy that we want to give each task force, and the level of responsibility each one gets. Titoxd(?!?) 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, that makes perfect sense. Nevermind about it, then. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season Articles

Storm articles
Enlarge
Storm articles
Season articles
Enlarge
Season articles
Records articles
Enlarge
Records articles
Meteorology articles
Enlarge
Meteorology articles

The season articles are way behind most of the other articles in the rest of the project. I was wondering if there were any plans to work on them. I checked a lot of them and, for most, its been a long time since any changes have been made. Would anyone be interested in attacking the most recent season articles for each basin first? Put off anything going on in other season articles and work on the post-2000s to bring them up to B-class. This has worked well for the Atlantic, but in the other basins, there are only two I think that are higher than Start.

I started a little bit on 2000 Pacific typhoon season. I've added all the infoboxes and images. Someone needs to come up with a consistent naming system, and someone else needs to make track maps. The unofficial storms should be sifted to a different section if that is how it works. (Or maybe split the article between the W Pacific (including JTWC) and the Philippines?) Most importantly, the article needs copy under each section. For other basins, the Southern Hemisphere articles and one Northern Indian Ocean need splitting. Good kitty 19:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you do have a point. Our season articles do need a bit of work. As I promised above, I uploaded graphs of our assessments in specific areas, and put them to the right. Our storm articles are in good shape, with almost 25% of articles being GAs or better; however, our hurricane season articles are poor almost across the board, as they are most of the time "too big" for just one person to do. I also found that a few articles have had no change in assessment since Mathbot began running stats on April 27 (even before the logs existed!), and it would surprise me that many have had no edits at all since then.
For the record, this is the way I divided articles:
Overall, the storm articles have progressed a lot, but we still need to summarize them into season articles, which have precedence over storm articles. However, a lot of the 1800s season articles are almost doomed to always be starts, as there isn't enough interest nor enough information to improve them. Titoxd(?!?) 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
One solution I've found for the summarization of storm articles in the season articles is basically copying the lede, although this should only be done for articles with good sized ledes or GA and above. Completely agreed, though, that the seasons are being ignored. This is a good example of the rough transition from WPTC 1.0 to 2.0, for the lack of a better term. 1.0 was when we were providing a good base, when sources and lots of info wasn't that important. As we transition into 2.0, we're getting done what's easy (for the most part), not really what's needed. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As to why the images look like teh crap, I have no clue. Click on them and look at them directly (not through the image description page, but straight from the server) and they look fine, but when made thumbnails... eww. Titoxd(?!?) 03:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That is very weird. Well, it's the effort and data behind it that makes them good tables. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-class articles

Looking at the great tables above that Tito made, it makes me realize that A-class articles are very underused. Basically, they are divided into articles that are ready for FAC and those that still need a good bit of work. Do we really have much of a use for A class? Those that are A right now could either go right to FAC or down to GA. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are supposed to be at least a rough sketch of our FAC queue. Since 1995PHS is done on FAC, which ones are viable to be put on FAC next? Any viable candidates should be raised from GA to A. Titoxd(?!?) 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't think of any. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hurricane Erika? We can always get the rainfall pic later... and Tropical cyclone needs a week to be completely ready, IMO. Titoxd(?!?) 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Great idea. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Here goes nothing. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Tropical_cyclones_ecfa.html"