Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

WikiProject
Tropical Cyclones
WikiProject home (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
| 10 | 11 |
Newsletter (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
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)

Tropical cyclones portal
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

H. Katrina

In an effort to improve the Hurricane Katrina family of articles, a new project has been proposed:

Evolauxia 11:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. This should happen. I counted at least 30 related articles, and little discussion on Katrina occurrs on this page or the 2005 page. Why not have the Katrina articles together on a separate, daughter Wikiproject? Hurricanehink 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Commons Category

I created a new Category at the Commons, [Category:Tropical cyclone impacts] (it is plural because tropical cyclones impact in more than one way) for damage photos, rainfall charts, etc. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. There are so many hurricane pictures (maybe 10,000 of them?), categorizing them will be a task beyond monumental. — jdorje (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this will be worse than going through every last tropical cyclone article. I'll try to help over the 4-day weekend. Hurricanehink 21:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned that's a project for the far future. Just make sure to categorize new pictures somewhere under commons:Category:Tropical cyclones so we'll be able to find them. I have made a few categories for media for individual storms, like commons:Category:1928 Okeechobee Hurricane or commons:Category:Hurricane Dennis - probably all FA should get categories like this which can be referenced in the external links. — jdorje (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Before this would go any further, should it be subdivided? Like Jdorje said there are thousands of them. Maybe it would be better to go by decade, or even by season. All of 2005's would be all be apart in one huge glob of a category. If this is going to happen, it should go Basin, then decade, then season, then by storm if necessary (like the Okeechobee Hurricane or Dennis). Hurricanehink 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Should the non-commons images be categorized? There are a lot of images that are on this Wikipedia, and are pretty disorganized. Hurricanehink 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone cares, I categorized all pics from 2003-2005. I added categories like Category:Category 3 hurricane images and Category:2005 Atlantic hurricane season images. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Button Bars

When they were first started, they were met with some fierce resistance. Then, only certain users opposed them. Now, they are in use back to 1959, but for what? Numerous people in the past and present have questioned their usefulness, and I for one agree. They don't help for navigation. If you are on an article's page (say for example Hurricane Elena) and you want a link to Hurricane Kate because the article mentions it, there should simply be a link in the article for Kate. For anyone that supports them, what is the use of them? I propose all of them be deleted, mainly due to how little effort it takes to go to the season page and find the storm you want. Hurricanehink 21:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

They are useful in certain occasions; it is useful to go from the first storm in a season to the next in order, especially when doing research for a complete season. However, in cases where the button bar points to a non-existent article or section, they just shouldn't be used. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
They are potentially useful, I'll agree. But in their current form they are not useful because (as I said elsewhere) most links just go to the same (season) article. You can't use the button bar to jump from storm to storm because they will quickly take you to somewhere the button bar is not shown. Much more useful would be (if it is possible) to add to the navigation quicklinks or toolbox entries on the left of the page. — jdorje (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
For some seasons, I guess I can see their point. 1985 (6 storms), 1995 (6 storms), 1996 (4 storms), 1998 (6 storms, though Earl and Charley will probably be merged), 1999 (5 storms), 2003 (5 storms), 2004 (6 storms), and 2005 (16 storms) could be useful, but for seasons with only a few storms (or none at all), there's really no point. Hurricanehink 02:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

With the 2005 season having 27 storm articles they make sense now. I have a suggestion here. How about we scrap the button bars and replace them with something comparable to the "five seasons" section of the season infobox?--Nilfanion 10:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The button bar is fine for 2005, but other seasons like 1997, which only have one article, don't really need it. What did you have in mind with the five seasons? Hurricanehink 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I meant imagine replacing on, say Katrina, "Part of the 2005 AHS" with "2005AHS: Jose, Katrina, Lee"; so giving the links to the previous/next storms in the infobox. It's an idea--Nilfanion 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
But what if they want to go randomly through the season, like checking the Category 3 hurricanes only, or if they wanted to double check another storm? (Like on Katrina's you wanted to check Cindy). Hurricanehink 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It was just a suggestion, personally I think the button bars are a good idea. The only niggle is the Greek letters, but we can't do much about that.--Nilfanion 17:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to just raise a point here. 'I' is fairly hard to select from the button bar, could we use spaces or something to make the letters easier to select?--Nilfanion 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. No idea how to fix it. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Some statistics

These are the following statistics on article class for each basin (storm articles only):

Atlantic-

  • 5 Featured articles
  • 4 A-class articles
  • 55 B-class articles
  • 116 Start articles
  • 2 Stub articles

Eastern Pacific-

  • 1 featured article
  • 0 A-class articles
  • 4 B-class articles
  • 13 Start articles
  • 1 Stub articles

Western Pacific-

  • 0 featured articles
  • 0 A-class articles
  • 1 B-class article
  • 16 Start articles
  • 4 Stub articles

Total-

  • 7 Featured articles
  • 4 A-class articles
  • 62 B-class articles
  • 154 Start articles
  • 13 Stub articles

Retired Atlantic-

  • 3 Featured articles
  • 3 A-class articles
  • 27 B-class articles
  • 36 Start articles
  • 1 Stub article

Retired EPAC-

  • 1 Featured article
  • 0 A-class articles
  • 1 B-class article
  • 4 Start articles
  • 1 Stub article

Retired WPAC-

  • 0 Featured articles
  • A-class articles
  • 1 B-class article
  • 11 Start articles
  • 0 Stub articles

I don't know about you, but I don't really like that ratio. Out of the 240 tropical cyclone articles, 69% are start class or lower. Something should be done about this. The number of start articles should be going down, not up. Fortunately, the retired hurricane articles aren't as bad, at least in the Atlantic. However, if we are really the overzealous masochists we say we are, we should do something about it and prove it! :) Hurricanehink 18:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the good thing is that we know what the ratio is, and that we know we have to fix it. Ideally, we can start with the retired storm articles, and perhaps look at some B-Class articles that have been edited recently and reassess them. Perhaps it is time to start the Cyclone Collaboration of the Fortnight already too, as we have very active editors, just all of them doing different things. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Yea, the retired storms should be first. Good work starting the TCCOTF. Hurricanehink 01:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Unless we keep our rigid rules for creating new articles, the ratio is not going to improve. However many articles we improve to FA-class, 20 times that many new articles will be created. And the only thing we can do about it is to keep merging them. — jdorje (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
For non-retired storms (becomes more important since in 2006 and beyond, I believe an article is automatically created for storms), B-Class should be the target. Any beyond that are bonus. CrazyC83 18:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Article statistics
 
Grade		 Apr May
Featured article FA 7 7
A 4 5
Good article GA 0 3
B 62 66
Start 154 177
Stub 13 12
Total 240 263
percentage
≥Less than B		 69.6 71.6

(Stolen from Chemistry Wikiproject) This is for storm articles only. I suppose the only good news after a month is that the number of stub articles has gone down. Hurricanehink 00:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember, storm articles only. Hurricanehink 18:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)



Article Criteria

I archived the old discussion so we could start anew. What is the criteria for creating an article now? Every 2005 storm has one, and there are a lot of articles that didn't do much yet still have an article. Should we agree that, provided there is sufficient information, an article can be made? In this, the sufficient information is only relavent to impact, unless an other characteristic has enough information. This can allow for lower notable storms like Felix to stay- mainly due to information. This allows for the existence of Hurricane Epsilon which, prior to the every 2005 storm article, was kept on the basis of its difficulty for forecasters. Is this fine? Hurricanehink 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Epsilon doesn't deserve a seperate article on notability. Yes it annoyed the NHC, but schadenfreude does not make it notable. When I upped Irene's quality, similar information was found, its just with Epsilon we were looking at the time. My opinion is 2005AHS says all (Atlantic) named storms are notable enough for an article. Notability isn't redundant, but I see its use as "Why does Lee have an article when Cindy doesn't have one? - merge it". In other words minor storms are allowed articles, but they shouldn't get one if more notable ones (of that season) don't. The "pure-information" rule (the season article should always be fleshed out before storm articles are added) isn't that big a change really, as before 2002ish online info dries up (on "unnotable" storms). It is possible someone could go and do hefty offline research and get good stuff for older minor storms, but thats not going to happen.--Nilfanion 11:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, but that's for a different discussion. My plan would allow for, theoretically, all storms to have articles, provided there is sufficient information. Realistically, that doesn't go back to far. For my scenario, I believe Epsilon had the sufficient information. Hurricanehink 15:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think what you and I said are similar phrasings, both would allow all storms to have articles. I just phrased mine in the sense that acknowledged the net is our source, but if someone did do research offline they could get us way back. In both the scenarios we describe Epsilon would keep its article (and the other 2005AHS storms). What I meant is using the old-style notablilty rules Epsilon should have gone, its not that unusual for a long-lasting storm to be a pain for the NHC, and it did nothing apart from that.--Nilfanion 16:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Experimenting with new features

I don't know any graphs, tables or templates that I want to work on (other than the hurricane-produced tornado chart) that does not exist now. Since new features are added at times, I think that the early-season storms, before we start getting big, devastating storms, would be a good time to make experimental new features to evaluate. (Last year, it seemed that the big storms were when we did most of the experimental new features - which are all operational) CrazyC83 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The track maps are still evolving, we should get them to "finished". I think there are some slight issues with them at this time. If you look at the track maps of TS Lee and TS Gamma (for example), both storms which had a significant non-TD-or-stronger period, TD color triangles are used. IMO this is confusing, as if you just glanced at the track-map, the triangles look more impressive than the circles. IIRC it is circle for tropical, triangle for subtropical and square for extratropical, which would mean those are circles anyway. I think when the storm is below TD strength, we should use a smaller shape for the data points, that obviously expresses the weaker nature of the storm then, to someone who isn't aware of what the shape distinctions are.--Nilfanion 08:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The triangles, squares, and circles are all sized to be the same area. You think the triangles and squares should be smaller? — jdorje (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That could work, IMO an eqilateral triangle looks bigger than a circle of the same area. How about making all 3 shapes smaller when the speed is below 35kts? --Nilfanion 22:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Most of the big features seem to be done, so if anyone has any other ideas, shout them out. Hurricanehink 15:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Another idea would be to write current watches and warnings in Portal:Tropical cyclones/Active tropical cyclones. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Ivan - Continuous colors - Nilfanion
Ivan - Continuous colors - Nilfanion

How about this for a major change to the track maps? Instead of showing category instead show windspeed. For a start this is more neutral for worldwide storms (ie the Australian ones). I created a test image using Ivan's trackmap. I have used the preexisting color scheme and turned it into a continuum, what do people think? The precise points where the colors are fixed could be altered (check the image summary), this is more to ask if people like this concept.--Nilfanion 18:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then we would have to change all of them, and I don't see if the cost-benefit analysis of doing that would warrant all 100-odd track maps to be changed. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That is true, but I think we do need to update them. We don't need to attempt what I suggested here (and I'm not advocating we should), but the inconsistency between them and {{Storm colour}} should be fixed.--Nilfanion 22:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The minimum values you suggested are incorrect - the low ends for each color should be 0, 35, 65, 85, 100, 115 and 140 knots. CrazyC83 04:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, where the colors are fixed could be altered. This is more a question of if people like the concept. Note, with the new STS color, green is effectively taken out of the progression. Because of the potential difficulties in coding, I am not convinced this idea is worth the effort; though I like the idea. However, I strongly believe the track map colors should be updated to correspong to the storm colors, it is confusing and means some of the image tags like on Katrina's are flat wrong.--Nilfanion 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Green was effectively taken out of any progression since the kilometric discussion at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics that ended with the current scale being adopted. I do agree that the old track should be updated to the new scheme; I believe that was going to be done sometime, but it just went out the back burner, I guess. Jdorje, is there a way we could help in changing the track maps, or would you have to do all of them? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I meant that the addition of STS takes the green out of the continuous color scheme concept. Jdorje, how much effort would it take to change the track maps to use a different color for each windspeed? If it is easy enough, is it worth doing?-Nilfanion 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I am against using continuous colors for individual windspeeds. This makes the map more confusing to the viewer by adding even more colors, removing the simple one-color-means-one-thing association that is intended. Also, it doesn't really make it less US-centric since, for instance, the Australians don't use 1-minute windspeeds anyway. — jdorje (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, we will eventually have to update all of the track maps. I have held off on doing this because it seems every couple of weeks the new color scheme enters a new phase of discussion. But once we are agreed that the color scheme is stable I can upload new ones. The way to do this is with a bot: since generation is entirely automated, this shouldn't be too hard. However a bot would have to be approved (I think) and I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Finally, it might be wise to get rid of the old versions of the track maps: with about 1,000 track maps at 500k each, that's 500 megabytes of images, which is reasonable; however, with 3 different copies of each track held on each server (because old copies of images are retained) we are looking at a sizeable amount of data. — jdorje (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
As you're going to be uploading images to commons, you need to request a bot flag at Commons:Administrators. (If you need to get rid of the old versions, you may need to ask a Commons admin there, as I'm unable to do so with an enwiki sysop flag). Ironically enough, the last discussion of the color scheme was overwhelmingly opposed to any change to it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jdorje, you are right on the continuous concept, it was just possibility. The great color debate is starting again on 2006AHS this time... It seems to me that there is a plurality in favor of the current scheme, which means it will probably be retained (maybe with a minor tweak), if a bot was created for this purpose could we at least get the maps updated to the current scheme, which most people prefer to the originals? Then its only a bot that has to do the work if we change our minds (I hope not).--Nilfanion 23:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a seperate issue, "Severe tropical storm" needs a color change (I presume we still would use it in {{HurricaneActive}} for West Pacific storms); it is currently #007700 (very dark green)--Nilfanion

I changed it to a very faint aqua, still discernible from the tropical storm color, but very similar to it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It works really well, its a natural progression from TD and TS and is intermediate between TS and C1.--Nilfanion 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Need Help with this

I am creating a new sup-page for the Hurricane Katrina article. For now it is called Notable Figures of Hurricane Katrina disaster (I was unable to give it a better name). I was about to start on it when I realized that this will take a LONG time if I did it all by myself. So far I only added a basic info and some sub-sections but thats how far I went. So if anyone is interested you can help me find and add infomation in this new article I am making. Storm05 17:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Saffir Simpson Scale incorrectly used

I am really confused as to why all non RSMC Miami and RSMC Honolulu articles include the SS scale. Each basin has its own scale, which in the case of the North Atlantic is the SS scale. This is also used by the NOAA for the NE Pacific and C Pacific. Now if people are going to insist on putting the SS scale in for articles such as Severe Tropical Cyclone Monica then you have to include all the other scales from around the world as they have just as much right to be called global scale, although none actually are. In the case of Monica it would also make it a Super Cyclonic Storm, a Cyclone Tropicale Trés Intense (Very Intense Tropical Cyclone), and a Typhoon. Obviously this would look odd which is why only the local scale should be used in the information box. Although to be honest it looks very odd at the moment having articles for the SW Pacific etc with the SS scale on them when it just isn't used there.

Just because the NHC uses the SS scale does not make it global. Now if it causes problems with the colours of the information boxes then someone just needs to sort out the colours for the appropriate basins otherwise the articles are wrong. All the scales are listed on the WMO page here. P.K. 09:20, 30th April 2006 (GMT)

The reason that Saffir-Sampson is used on all articles is to facilitate comparison between tropical cyclones in all basins. The other basins do not have scales with as fine a subdivision as SS on hurricane strength systems; with the exception of the Australians. We do not claim SS is a global scale, we just made a choice on the most usable scale for a standard comparison. Dropping mention of SS from Australian articles would be bad, as a reader would see "Category 5" on Cyclone Larry and "Category 4" on Hurricane Dennis, and incorrectly interpret that as saying Larry was stronger. In making our choice to be Saffir-Sampson, we are following the same practice as the WMO. The 2005 panel on tropical cyclones requested that the WMO distributed the SS scale and the RA V 2005 committee meeting mentions implementation of SS for RSMC Nadi.--Nilfanion 13:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, isn't the SS scale the most well known? As long as they say, "Cyclone Monica continued to intensify to its peak intensity of 185 mph, a Super Cyclonic Storm or the equivalent of a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir Simpson Hurricane Scale. " I think that's fine. The local measure should go first, but given that the SS scale is used for the largest portion of the world (Atlantic and E/CPAC are larger than any other warning area), I think it should stay. Hurricanehink 13:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Why confuse things? Cyclone Monica *was* a Category 5 on the SSHS, not the "equivalent of" a Category 5. It was a "Super Cyclonic Storm and a Category 5 storm on the SSHS". — jdorje (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Not quite true. The scale that RSMC La Reunion uses is just as fine as the BoM scale is with three categories above 63kts. What I'm saying is the boxes have to say it is an equivalent category .. on the SS scale, not an actual category .. on the SS scale. What I've noticed is some articles in non SS basins just state the SS scale with no reference in the information box to the real category or that it is an equivalent category .. on the SS scale. There is no problem with using the SS scale for a comparison, but it needs to state what I've mentioned above with the local scale first.
I'm not quite sure what that comment means in the WMO report when it refers to a "modified Saffir-Simpson scale." It also mentions distribution of the IMD's scale for the North Indian Ocean as well. Also I can't find any comment to using the SS scale for RSMC Nadi in there, which page are you referring to? There is certainly no mention of it by the FMS here.
It depends where you are as to which scale is known. If you are in the SW Indian Ocean you will know the M-F scale, if you are in the Australia you will only know the BoM scale etc.P.K. 21:55, 30th April 2006 (GMT)
Well, most of the articles that contain the SS scale by itself are hold-overs from the time when we didn't have {{infobox hurricane multi}}. Those are fixable, but someone familiar with the other scales has to go do it. But they should have the SS also, for the reasons given above. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
For several weeks now {{infobox hurricane}} supports multiple scales. My understanding was the "multi" template was just a test-bed, but after seeing how you guys set it up there I added this functionality to the regular infobox. There is no need for 2 infoboxes here, though of course there is room to improve on the regular infobox. — jdorje (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the local scales should be used, but NHC users seem to make up the majority of TC users. Rather than having a one-on-one discussion, we should ask every WPTC user a poll on what they prefer. All they would have to do is pick which one they want. It could be set up like this.
In your opinion, what scale should be used on all tropical cyclone articles?
A) Only the local scale.
B) Only the Saffir-Simpson Scale.
C) The local scale should be used first, with mentions of Saffir-Simpson Scale accordingly.
D) The Saffir-Simpson Scale should be used first, with mentions of the local scale accordingly.
E) Other (fill in).
This does not make this a Democracy. It just gets the opinions from all registered users, most of which don't even come here. Are the options fine, or should they be changed? Hurricanehink 22:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
We have to have one "global" scale if we are to have a color-coded system; we cannot have different color systems be applied to all basins. The only logical choice is the SSHS, since this is the existing already-implemented one, the one that most TC editors are familiar with, and the one used by the NHC which provides by far the most information and historical data. The local scale should be given too, of course, so I favor option (C) which is what I implemented some weeks ago into the {{infobox hurricane}} template. — jdorje (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is the current system is (C) as Hink mentions (My preference). It is only the BoM and SS scales that are numerical. The others are indicated by qualifiers to the name; which is already there. How about we create two infobox templates, changing the global one from stating "Category X (storm name) (SSHS)" to "equivalent to Category X (SSHS)" and making the other the NOAA area one? --Nilfanion 22:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

{{infobox hurricane multi}}? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I am not at all sure how to do this (or even if it is possible), but perhaps we should change the infobox colours to match the sustained wind, rather than scale category, of the cyclone. If this is possible, it would make scale categories irrelevant because sustained winds usually determine the category. I'm not sure whether to use a 1-minute (United States) or 10-minute (Japan et. al), though the NHC says that 1-minute winds are 12% higher than 10-minute averages[1]. So I suppose it's possible to convert them. Along with using the sustained winds to colour the infobox, we can include the category (if it is relevent) along with the scale.
In a completely relevant aside, this discussion reveals that this Wikiproject desperately needs an article on tropical cyclone scales so all of these scales can be compared in a meaningful manner, which would include the sustained wind, which is used in the scales. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think people would rather retain the category colors, as it would undermine the meaning of seperate colors. I agree we need scales in one article (not Saffir-Simpson_Hurricane_Scale) and not a subsection of Tropical cyclone.--Nilfanion 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It should be a ten minute average used for the colours really if it is done that way. That is what the WMO standard and what the vast majority of RSMCs use.P.K. 10:00, 1 May 2006 (GMT)
As it is only in the NE Pacific and Atlantic that one minutes are used we can keep it seperate; have a (1 minute) in {{infobox hurricane}} and have (10 minute) {{infobox hurricane multi}}. We should stick to 1 minute speeds for the NOAA regions though, for the same reason that we should use the BoM scale first for Australian storms; its what the national press of the affected areas use.--Nilfanion 10:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
(See also Severe worldweather page that lists the warning centres and their areas) Could be problematic for the NW Pacific. JMA (RSMC Tokyo) uses 10-minute averages (alongside HKO, China, the Koreas), but the JTWC (which is what the Philippines-PAGASA; Singapore-NEA; Malaysia; Thailand; Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands etc use) uses 1 minute means... NSLE (T+C) at 10:41 UTC (2006-05-1)
So.... lets not go there. Fix the colors in terms of the SS category, which can be worked out for 1 or 10 minute speeds. I have added an extra field "wind type" into {{infobox hurricane multi}}, it defaults to give "sustained (1-minute average)" but if the field is specified changes to "sustained ({wind type}-minute average). Then it can give the data as it is provided. All storms outside of Central/East Pacific and the N Atlantic should be changed to use the multi infobox. Would that work?--Nilfanion 11:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to say I found this on the WMO page which confirms that ten minute averages should be used. (Page 90) How do I put in this 10 minute average bit to the box? I've been trying to change it on the Mala article without success. This multi box should really default to ten minute averages anyway with the SS only box defaulting to one minute averages.P.K. 12:13, 1 May 2006 (GMT)
Agree there actually, thats easily corrected. What you needed to do was add: "| wind type=10".--Nilfanion 12:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Solution?

I have added an "equivalent" field to {{hurricane status}}, altered {{infobox hurricane multi}} slightly. I altered Cyclone Monica to use this. What do people think?--Nilfanion 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly better than before.P.K. 10:00, 1 May 2006 (GMT)
I am concerned about Cyclone Tracy though, should we just use the BoM conversion table here to assign it a SS equivalence?--Nilfanion 10:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
200km/h in ten minute averages converts to 125kts in one minute averages so without an actual sustained wind value from the BoM no SS category can be applied. The BoM best track does not include a sustained wind speed however for Tracy.P.K. 11:53, 1 May 2006 (GMT)
Whoops! I just redirected {{infobox hurricane multi}} before I saw this discussion, since it is (or I thought it was) obsolete now that multiple scales are handled by infobox hurricane. However I do strongly feel that multiple infoboxes is counter-productive since it takes more work to keep them in sync. Also, calling something the "equivalent of" is incorrect; a storm with 185 mph 1-minute sustained winds is a Cat5 on the SSHS, regardless of where it forms. Finally, I don't know what should be done with the "max winds" field of the infobox, but it certainly needs to distinguish between gusts, 1-minute sustained, and 10-minute sustained, and this needs to be done for all storm articles (which will take a lot of work). — jdorje (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that it has to be converted means the one minute average calculated is only an estimate and so it can only be an equivalent category and not an actual category. Also it makes it look like the SS scale is used in basins where it isn't, whereas saying equivalent to category .. shows that it isn't but can be used for comparison. P.K. 9:29, 2 May 2006 (GMT)
Yea, I agree use one infobox the multi box is just a temporary solution while we find an acceptable solution; best to work it out on a seperate template. On how to do windspeeds: The solution that springs to mind is to use an if statement to allow gusts like the one used to implement the Australian scale. Then make the sustained wind type a simple switch (as I implemented on multi), which defaults to 1 minute (most articles are Atlantic hurricanes) but can be changed to 10 minutes easily. On the "equivalent to", calling Hurricane Wilma "equivalent to" a Cat 5 is not incorrect but it is a pointless tautology. How about on storms outside the NOAA basins having Category X (SSHS) (Unofficial)? (Again that could be a simple switch) Actually this seems easy enough to do without outbreaking EPac/Atlantic articles, but all other basins would need a careful watch.--Nilfanion 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I live in Australia so in reference to Tropical cyclone scale when talking about cyclones that are not from Atlantic it should be stated that it is Safir-Simpson scale of equivilancy if u are comparing it to Safir-Simpson scale. As If I read a article on a Aussie Cyclone and it made landfall was a category 4 I would assume it was a 4 on the aussie scale since Safir Simpson scale equivilancy was not mentioned. The same criteria should be used for other basins i.e SW Pacific, SW Indian, North Indian and the NW Pacific.

Also the statistics in the summary box also needs to show this.

A lot of people use Wikipedia for information and it would be good if it was the most accurate it can be. This includes using scales for the correct origins or state that it is the equivilant of a catgeory 3 on the SSHS for example. AussieMark 11:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That is the same way I'd read it and I'm not even in Australia! Surely the point of an encyclopedia is to teach people new things and so it gives them a chance to read up on the various regional TC scales.P.K. 10:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone scale article

As Madeline said above, we need an article on cyclone scales. We originally had Tropical cyclone classification schemes, which I merged into Tropical cyclone, but now the relevant section in the tropical cyclone article is huge. So, should I unmerge it? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good idea. That would help all around, as the tropical cyclone article is too long, and the classification schemes are important. Hurricanehink 23:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Unmerged. It would be nice to make this one quite comprehensive. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment examples

Wouldn't it be useful to have an Article progress grading scheme for tropical cyclones? The list that is currently there might not be particularly useful for tropical cyclones. I was thinking Hurricane Floyd for FA, Hurricane Nora (1997) for A, Hurricane Andrew for GA, Hurricane Frances for B, Typhoon Chataan for Start, and Hurricane Inez for Stub. I personally don't agree with Andrew, but it's the lesser of two evils. There's no way Katrina is GA class. I think it is a solid A, especially with all of the subpages, but that's for a different discussion. What do you think? Hurricanehink 13:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What could work better is links into the histories of articles. Then we don't have to worry about constantly changing the reference points (I hope Inez can get better than a stub); and could use the same storm at different quality levels.--Nilfanion 13:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting idea. That could work very well, but is there an FA that has gone semi-evenly from Stub to Start ...to FA? The three FA's I worked on, Floyd, Iniki, and Gloria, all went from Start to A class, so none of those could work. Tracy shouldn't be mentioned because that is B class, IMO, as it is. What about the others? Hurricanehink 20:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what a good example to show all 5 classes is, but if we look carefully enough at the FA articles I'm sure we can find one with an even progression (they didn't get assessed at B-class but that's just because the work on them was so fast). I don't think Andrew is a good A-class article because I don't think it's A-class; it's basically just a rehash of the TCR. — jdorje (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Tangentially related to this: WP:WVWP has now given us an Assessment log, which we may find useful to monitor for vandalism or changes. The best thing: no one has to do anything to update it! :) Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

New Tropical Cyclone Collaboration of the Fortnight

Cyclone Tracy has been selected as the new Tropical Cyclone Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help to improve that article!

Also, it would be nice for more people to go around there and voice their opinions, it feels a bit lonely in there at times. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Natural disasters structure

Cyclones, hurricanes etc are now listed in the root of the above category, whereas earthquakes and other types of natural disasters are located in subcategories. Should wind-related disasters be moved to subcats as well?? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 12:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It should as this is dealing with the same theme as earthquakes. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
After having looked around I realised that there already are quite a few cyclones under Category:Weather events. Another option is Category:Tropical cyclones. I am not sure where to put them. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 16:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps moving earthquakes to the root of the category instead? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Please put all cyclones in Category:Tropical cyclones, or just ask on this talk page and we'll figure it out. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe no storm article should go under Category:Tropical cyclones or Category:Weather events or Category:Natural disasters. Every tropical cyclone fits into all three of these categories, and we cannot populate them with 200 storm articles and expect it to be useful. But every storm is already categorized into several of the sub-categories of the Tropical cyclones category. Thus it should be easy for someone to browse through Category:Natural disasters, for instance, and find a storm they're looking for that hit Florida (Natural disasters->Tropical cyclones->by region->United States->Florida). We do, however, need to make sure every storm article is categorized correctly by season, basin, region, and strength. — jdorje (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, in my opinion the same reasoning should apply to earthquakes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, and all other specific-event articles that are in these categories. If they fit into one of the subcategories, they should not be placed into the main category. — jdorje (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree. Thanks for taking care of the storms. There are only a couple of hard-to-classify articles left now. I will see what I can do with them. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 06:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A- and GA-class articles

Apparently we now have both A-class and GA-class articles. A is *above* GA, but GA gets the {{GA}} tag while A has nothing. This makes little sense to me, and I doubt we will use A much if at all. Should we campaign for the merger of these two classes? — jdorje (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I personally wish there were more categories. For me, the ideal scale would be a numerical value from 1 to 10. 9 to 10 are FA's (some FA's are better than others, IMO Floyd is better than Iniki due to more information), 8 is A, 7 is GA, 5-6 is B, 4 is decent start, 3 is moderate start, 2 is bad start, and 1 is stub. Plus, the GA tag could still be on the A class articles, as used in Claudette, David, and Ivan. Assuming we are trying to get all articles to FA or GA class, as someone mentioned elsewhere, the GA tag could be like it passed the inspection. Any article without it means it still needs some work. Hurricanehink 16:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering that I'm the one who pushed the most for the split of the classes, mostly due to the inconsistencies in quality of GAs, I'd say that any A-Class article has a passing chance at FAC, so it should not have any trouble meeting Good article criteria. The problem is, A-Class has a strong meaning in the Cyclones WikiProject, as we do have our own set of criteria to compare it with, and any article that has passed A-Class examination is guaranteed to be of high quality. This is not the same of other WikiProjects, who barely pass GA for a stubbish article and say it is in the same quality range as Hurricane David or similar (which annoyed me a bit). Titoxd(?!? - help us) 17:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Also, David is an A class, while Irene or Andrew are GA classes. There's still a big quality difference in good articles. Hurricanehink 20:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me that GA-class is somewhere in between A and B classes; A-class articles which are also GAs retain {{GA}} after all. That division seems reasonable; any Cyclone Wikiproject A-class would (almost) surely pass a GA nom, but I'm not sure if any article that can pass GA nomination would rate as an A - Irene springs to mind here.--Nilfanion 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, with the debate currently going on Template talk:Grading scheme, it might. I still think Irene can be an FA if polished up. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue against that possibility - its just why should we bother with getting such a minor storm to FA status at this time; it would be more useful to get other articles improved IMO. Anyone fancy Lee on the front page one day?--Nilfanion 21:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If any effort is needed to improve a major storm, it is for Katrina... we only need to flesh out the Impact section, but no one does it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Tropical_cyclones_Archive_5_0cb8.html"