Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 47

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.

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Upcoming merger of WPTC and other meteorology WikiProjects into WikiProject Weather

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a very odd RfC to evaluate. Overall there is broad agreement that there are significant issues with the current involvement and coverage of weather-related topics. This merger proposal is the proposed solution to address these issues. Much of the support for it was stated with little elaboration on reasons for that support so may be taken to agree with those premises. The most substantial arguments in opposition are that the proposed merger does not actually address that participation issue but further discussion led to all almost all the opposition to being withdrawn or amended. After that discussion played out, there emerged a clear (although in the case of some discussion participants, reluctant) consensus to proceed with the merger of the wikiprojects. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Last year, there was a discussion held on whether or not to merge all of the existing meteorology WikiProjects (with the exception of the Climate Change WikiProject) into a larger WikiProject, WikiProject Weather. The discussion ended with a slight consensus to merge the various WikiProjects into one. The discussion was held because the Meteorology WikiProjects other than WPTC have long suffered from manpower and interest issues, with the WikiProjects besides WPTC and WP Severe Weather remaining either at minimal activity or becoming outright defunct. WPTC is currently the center of gravity of the Meteorology WikiProjects, in terms of both manpower and activity, and this will probably remain the case even after the merger. Right now, work is currently under way behind the scenes to prepare for the eventual merger, which will probably happen sometime this summer, within the next 1–3 months. Please see the linked discussion for more details. Essentially, the former WikiProjects will all become large task forces operating under WP Weather. Most of the existing WikiProject pages will remain, but will be renamed to task force pages, while the new WikiProject will be getting its own pages. The biggest changes will come in the overall categorization of articles and coordination between the various topics. After the merger, everything will be managed under one large umbrella, but the internal dynamics within each major task force/former WikiProject will remain pretty much the same, for the most part. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that the proposed changes involved in merging are turning weather projects into task forces for WP:WEATHER and moving over all project subpages. Article assessment will remain as it was, although in the case of WP:MET, it will be more organized. WP:WEATHER is designed to supersede WP:MET and fix the issues involved with it. The goal of this is to share resources and make cooperation easier considering how many articles have significant overlap. In the case of WP:SEVERE, I feel that a less ambiguous name should be discussed and chosen for it since almost all types of weather can be "severe weather". Noah^Talk 03:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey

No! WikiProject Tropical Cyclones is a very distinct project of its own, do not merge it with any other WikiProject. If it isn't broken, then don't fix it. WikiProject Tropical cyclones has no problems, except possibly too many members. Therefore, don't merge it. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Almost every other weather project IS broken. Hell, even WP Met itself isn't really doing that great, which is concerning. The fact that we have several defunct or nearly dead projects is partly why we are bringing them all back together. It allows for easier organization and coordination. Noah^Talk 11:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

But can't we fix it in some other way? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Support, per nom. I was in opposition back on August but I was unable to give my arguments against it thus I was silent regarding it. Now, I have fully changed ship and I'm in favor of it. Mario Jump 83! 12:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Support While I initially opposed this idea, I have changed my mind and am now in support of the merger. – 🌀Hurricane Covid🌀 _(contribs) 17:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Iff the existing wikiproject talk page templates do not get modified. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral on the proposed merger. As long as the internal structure changes little to none (e.g. a merger that is practically in name only), I guess I could support it. Even though I feel that WPTC should be left as its own WikiProject (maybe combined with WPNTS). I presume that this merger will be a "light" one, given what I've been told by the users who proposed the merger, so I do not feel that it is problematic in and of itself. However, I do not feel that this proposal will automatically resolve the root issues that it was formulated to address. Editor recruitment/retention and interest in the non-cyclone topics is and will continue to be a major hurdle going forward, merger or no merger. I don't think a merger will solve any of those issues by itself. Yes, a WikiProject will probably improve our categorization of the articles, WikiProject work awareness, and maybe even help out a little with the coordination, but that will probably be it for the immediate benefits. What we really need here is a massive undertaking to get more editors to join us and to keep the ones we have from leaving in the first place (outside of real-life issues). And maybe a project to help get users interested in and working on other weather articles as well. I think that these editor-based initiatives would be better suited to addressing our workforce and user interest issues. The proposed merger could definitely solve some of our problems and even make some of our ongoing work easier, but I really don't see how it will address any of the underlying root issues with our workforce. WPTC is currently the nucleus of the Met WikiProjects right now. Even after the merger, the "former" WPTC roster will continue to overwhelmingly dominate the membership and the activity of the new WikiProject Weather. By the way, I feel that we should get more of a wider discussion on this proposal from our own WPTC editors (and maybe other Met users as well), as it appears that not many of them were actually aware of the original discussion. I do not feel that we should actually go through with a merger unless the said merger is agreed to by a wide consensus. If this happens, I know that many of our active users will take issue with it. However, it appears that we are indeed heading towards a general consensus to merge the weather WikiProjects. Regardless, we should hear the input of more of our fellow editors first. I will not oppose the WikiProject mergers if that is what our editors want, but truthfully, I don't think that this proposal will solve our editor issues in the non-cyclone areas of the Met WikiProjects. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Support I originally opposed this. However, I see the full argument presented, and it's true -- many weather projects are suffering from a lack of people. While I do have a very special connection with WPTC, I realize that no matter what, it will not matter if it is merged or not. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 21:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
VERY strong oppose - Do not merge · No. WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, among others, focus specifically on certain divisions of weather; this helps to give more focus by persons interested in one or more of said divisions to focus on them. All above opposes, otherwise, I concur with. ~ AC5230 talk 04:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@AC5230: I want to explain that those divisions aren't going away. One project doesn't mean that suddenly there are no more divisions for specific topics. These divisions will continue to exist, just in a slightly different manner than they do now. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history is a good example of the planned organization with its numerous task forces for different topics. We don't need as many taskforces as they have since we have significantly fewer members to go around, but that shows how divisions can still exist within a single project based on topics or interests. Noah^Talk 10:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind then. It does not matter whether I oppose it or not, I do not have a choice; the merger will occur anyways. I'll also have to jump on the Support bandwagon. ~ AC5230 talk 14:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No. So you're turning the fifteen year old WikiProject Tropical cyclones into a redirect to this lump of unrelated topics without even considering other users' views. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Chicdat: You need to remember that tropical cyclones are not unique and are a part of meteorology that cause floods, tornados etc. As a result, the topics are not unrelated as you claim and yes we are considering other peoples views but when the benefits outweigh the arguments presented, what are we supposed to do...
  - Very reluctant yes I've decided that I'm going to do as much as I can for Wikiproject Weather, and not against it. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Just for the record I do support merging all of these projects together as there is a lot of project rot and article rot going on. This would help us pool our resources. Noah^Talk 20:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral, I think this is necessary for the sake of the other Meteorology projects, although I am unhappy to see WPTC merged.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 00:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not that happy, but times do change. This isn't 2000s, we are entering 2020s. Mario Jump 83! 09:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose – This will change nothing, so what is the point? Combining all these projects together isn’t going to improve anything. The same people are going to work on the same articles, so the “pooling resources” argument makes no sense. This is just a case of fixing something that isn’t really broken. United States Man (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- @United States Man: This really is a case of trying to fix what is broken and improve standards across the board, as we have a massive blind spot when it comes to floods and the coverage of the weather outside of tropical cyclones and the United States. You may not like it and could argue that pooling our resources and combining these projects into one isn't going to improve anything, except it already has given us a better idea on what articles we have around the various projects and what we need going forwards to become a better wikiproject.Jason Rees (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  - I don’t agree with you. That’s not a surprise because I don’t ever remember agreeing with you on anything. Lie to yourself all you want, but all that’s gonna happen is a bunch of the same. Tropical cyclones and tornadoes will be the main articles and everything else will be lagging behind. It will be no different than it is now, so this is all just an unnecessary change to fix something that isn’t broken. Just because you think it’s broken doesn’t mean it is. United States Man (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    - @United States Man: I firmly believe that Wikipedia's coverage of the weather is broken and needs to be fixed and no this isn't me lying to myself, as I'm not the only one who feels that Wikipedia's coverage of the weather needs improving and that this is the best way of doing so. In fact we have external sources telling us that Wikipedia's coverage of the weather is broken. As a result, I firmly believe that this is not an unnecessary change but a long overdue one, especially since the projects as they stand are confusing and so broad that I would not be surprised if people were put off from joining them. As I have previously said what is a non-tropical storm - a tropical depression? a tropical cyclone? a hurricane? What is severe weather - flooding? a tropical cyclone? an extratropical cyclone? You may not like the approach that we are trying to take but I strongly feel that by working together, pooling our resources and combining these projects into one is the best route forward and do not need you telling us that we are wasting our time just because you don't like it. In fact your comments just spur me on with the merger as people have told me before, that no one wanted to work on tropical cyclones in the JTWC AOR but we now have people working on them. Jason Rees (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to work on the parts of this that you say are so bad? You can't be all talk up front and then be MIA when it's time to work on this stuff. I really only see you working with tropical cyclones. My whole point is that simply combining these projects isn't going to fix what you say is broken. Combined or not, users are still going to work on the exact same articles they always have. The same goes for me; my interest and knowledge mainly lies with U.S.-centric events (hence, my username). So, I just don't feel this will accomplish and/or change anything in the long run. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like I'm probably right. United States Man (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware that I can't be all talk up-front and be MIA, when the time comes to work on this stuff and while I mainly work with TC's, I have already started to look into and work on articles for Floods in Fiji, Fiji's tornado's as well as its [climate]. Yes some people will continue to work on the same sort of articles that they always have, but others won't and I am encouraged to see articles such as 2020 Zagreb flash flood, the Weather in 2020 and others pop up. I realise that we are taking a very big bite of the cherry here but the rewards are endless if we get it right: as an example, I was able to liaise with the RA V TCC and get the name: Yolanda changed to Yasa and push back over the name Sina being added to the naming lists for the SPAC in replace of Sarai. I should also note that these articles will hopefully take some of the pressure of the tropical cyclone seasons in the WPAC and NIO, by allowing us to take some the impacts of the monsoon away from the TC's.Jason Rees (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Just chiming in, it's OK if people continue only editing their preferred area of speciality. We have the same thing with some people only editing articles in a certain basin. There are going to be discussions on an article-by-article basis, and there are going to be discussions that affect the entire project. In that latter category, we are rarely talking about topics that only affect tropical cyclones. For example, the hurricane track map is used in other projects. Most links and project resources are useful for every project. If there are issues in TC articles, then a similar issue is likely also affecting nor'easters, blizzards, severe weather, and flood articles, because all of these weather events have some overlap. United States Man (talk · contribs), you mentioned your focus on US events, which makes sense. A lot of people focus on a certain area. Jason mentioned Fiji, but he should've mentioned the United States. By having all weather articles together, we can have a project focus on all of the different weather events in the United States, such as tornadoes by each state, which I think is a doable goal. We have lists for tropical cyclones in almost every coastal state - only Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia don't have dedicated lists. I think one of the best things a WikiProject can offer is these large ambitious goals. We'll still have goals like the featured topic for storms in 2018, and for every retired storm. By having concrete goals and documenting their progress, we will one day have the best weather database/directory/encyclopedia anywhere in existence. That is a noble goal. The tropical cyclone project has arguable already done that, given that there are over 3,000 articles, hundreds of lists, individual season articles going very far back. People routinely cite and use our work, and the WPTC members should be proud of their work. I think we can aim for something bigger, using the great standards we already have in the tropical cyclone project, to imagine a better Wikipedia with this top-down focus of all weather events being a shared goal. Yes, some people will still have their topics of interest. We should encourage that and try fostering editing talent for all weather types. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Supportstorm (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Strong Support I think this will be a good thing for Wikipedia and for our project. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 06:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussions

Questions and comments are welcome below. (Please do not fire off questions at me, since I am not aware of all the details and I only recently learned of that discussion.) This thread should not be archived until after the entire merger process has been completed. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Why should we though as WPTC isnt that distinct and has a large overlap with NTS, Floods, Tornados etc. Jason Rees (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. Still oppose and not changing my mind. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Stop going down the lines of WP:I don't like and explain why we should have separate wikiprojects for Non tropical storms, flooding, tropical cyclones etc when there is such a large overlap. For example some TCs cause floods and Tornados which means that they would be classified Jason Rees (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's fine for articles to have two WikiProject templates on the talk page. For instance, floods caused by a tropical storm could be classified by both Wikiproject Floods and WPTC, as is happening right now. Just like there are alternatives for deletion, there are also alternatives for merging. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Just asking here: When would this merge happen? Regards, LowercaseGuy chow! 13:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@LowercaseGuy: from what I have seen, the merger will happen within the next 1-3 months, per @LightandDark2000: 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 13:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@LowercaseGuy: This likely will take multiple months to complete. There will only be a few people doing all the changeovers so things don't get messed up or too confusing, but it will be a multi-month process. We have to make sure everything is setup correctly and functioning before the merge formally happens. I can tell you that the defunct and mostly dead projects will be the first ones to merge and WPTC will be the last one to fully integrate over. This will be a behind-the-scenes process for a while so nobody should worry too much. Noah^Talk 13:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Quick question: will the task forces keep the same names as they currently are as WikiProjects (Tropical cyclones, Non-tropical storms, floods, severe weather, climate) or will the names change? – 🌀Hurricane Covid🌀 _(contribs) 17:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneCovid: Personally I think that some of the task forces will be better of being renamed. For example what is a non tropical storm? A hurricane? A tropical depression? Ultimately I would like us to establish taskforce for tornadoes, floods etc. Jason Rees (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I have some question: Once the WikiProjects are merged, how the Hurricane Herald, Frozen Times, and the Tornado Tribune will be run? As a single large newsletter, like The Signpost, or remain separate? Mario Jump 83! 22:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarioJump83: What? I thought the Storming News got renamed to Tornado Tribune. They don't both exist at the same time. Also you forgot Frozen Times. – 🌀Hurricane Covid🌀 _(contribs) 23:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Forgot. Mario Jump 83! 23:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So the discussion about ITN highlights the need for a few things. One, we need to have an article for every weather type for every part of the world, such as List of Indonesia tropical cyclones, List of Egypt floods, or List of New Zealand tornadoes. Second, we need to have a page to highlight actual weather records (and not just the every day high and low temperatures, rainfall, stuff of trivial nature) - this would eventually be organized in an article like Weather of 2020 (for which there needs to be a 2021 one). To better figure out what's going on in a yearly basis, we would have yearly articles for every weather event, such as Tropical cyclones in 2021, Tornadoes in 2021, whatnot. Having coordination between all of these projects could help cross-reference the weather events for every year and area... eventually. Next, we need to have a main page to the portal to highlight current events, such as recent landfalling tropical cyclones, but also deadly floods, wildfires, and tornado events. As mentioned above, there is significant overlap between tropical cyclones and these other projects, which is why they should all be part of the same WikiProject. Some advantages: more reviewers for GA/A/FAs, a more centralized repository of weblinks (covering every weather type in every part of the world, which is useful if you're looking for just Bermuda, or if you're looking for just tornadoes), bringing more users into the same project could lead to collaborations that otherwise might not have occurred. The online weather community is large, but it's not infinite. There's Facebook, Storm2k, Force 13, and other various groups and websites, all sharing the same information that we try collating into articles here. If all weather events were in the same project, then I believe we could bring together people worldwide in a much more productive fashion. We could still have task forces, such as for just Atlantic hurricanes, or just for blizzards, or just for wildfires. Some of us have preferences, and we should encourage everyone to edit based on what they're most passionate about. A lot of times, that is what they know, so of course our coverage is going to skew more recent. However, having a more worldwide and top-down approach would help fill in gaps. It's a big undertaking, but I think we can if we all get on the same page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: If you think that the mere merging of Wikiprojects will solve the problems of people power on non-TC wikiprojects, then you misunderstand why WPTC has more resources and where and how they manifest. Seddon ^talk 18:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Re @Seddon:, the intention of merging the WikiProjects is to unify all weather articles in the same project. There already is a lot of overlap, such as the map generator (used also by extratropical cyclones), links (think of NCDC or other links that are useful for TC's and all other weather types), and the fact that tropical cyclones often overlap with tornadoes, non-tropical storms, and floods. Having a larger weather project means more reviewers, and having more users in the same broad project means we could have more collaborations that otherwise might not have occurred. Sure, some people interested in tropical cyclones will still probably only edit tropical cyclones. That's fine. By that logic, we should just have a Wikiproject for Atlantic tropical cyclones, because there are people who only edit Atlantic tropical cyclones. I believe the WPTC has also run into a bit of a wall over the past few years. The global and historical coverage has gotten quite good, but that's only one small part of the picture. We still need a lot of top-down articles, such as lists by area (TC's in Bermuda), or lists by year. The lists by area work well alongside other weather types by area. If every article in the WPTC was a GA or FA, but the rest of the weather articles are only starts and stubs, then there is a huge gap on the website. Tropical cyclones are just one part of a much bigger picture. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

As I just said offwiki, in my opinion it would be premature to close this discussion until some editors active in the other (non-WPTC) affected wikiprojects have offered their opinions. Maybe individual user talk page notices would help that along. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GAR

Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Rough plan for carrying out the merger

Below is a rough plan for how certain aspects of the project merger will be carried out. It is still very much preliminary and subject to change and more additions will likely come. Noah^Talk 17:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Organization

~~WPTC will become a task force (technical) underneath WP Weather, named "Tropical Cyclones Project" and treated as a subproject~~ Consensus against this part. Noah^Talk 20:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Taskforces for ATL, EPAC, WPAC, NIO, and SHEM will be kept entirely.

These will be added to the weather project banner and have wikiwork generated for them
Renamed to workgroups and will be nested underneath tropical cyclone task force

Graphics, anomalous cyclones, and 2018 FT taskforces will be partially deprecated (in the case of anom cyclones) or otherwise remain the same (in the case of the graphics and 2018 FT)

Also renamed to workgroups
Not included on the wikiproject talkpage banner
Graphics will actually be removed from underneath tropical cyclones and serve for the whole weather community.

Season articles, storm article, and meteorology task forces will be entirely deprecated

Season and storm article taskforces aren't widely used as most collaboration is done by basin
Meteorology task force will be superseded by the general meteorology and meteorological instruments and data task forces
These will be kept for historical purposes

Assessment, Guidelines & Resources

All assessment will be standardized across all of weather with one set of assessment guidelines and a single page for A-class reviews/removals
All resources will be on a single page for all of weather
Style guidelines will be developed for different types of weather, however, they will be located on the same page

Project pages

All project pages will be kept and ~~moved over accordingly~~ (no deletions)
The WPTC talkpage will still function as a place for TC related discussions
Certain pages will be modified or deprecated (major ones mentioned above)

Discussion

Any discussion related to the plan should take place here if need be. Noah^Talk 17:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there a confirmed date for the beginning of the merger?--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no confirmed "start" date, but it will probably begin this summer, likely within 1 or 2 months. WPSVR will be merged first, and WP Meterology may be after that, so WPTC might end up being merged last. WPTC should be fully merged into the Weather Project around September or October, and I expect the entire merger to finish around that time, or soon afterward. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A-class reviews should be done at a Met level, not just WPTC, to have more users. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: The WPTC assessment page will be deprecated and kept as a historical page. Likewise for all the other projects that are now underneath WP Weather. The changes will be implemented in the coming months as I get around to doing it all. Noah^Talk 01:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I approve of what the plan is here. TC articles are generally in pretty good shape, and there's a lot of overlap between what this project does and the other weather projects. I'm hopeful we'll have more collaborations in the future, as significant once-in-a-century events happen yearly. Also, I believe the newsletter should be merged to cover all weather articles. If we are already going through the effort of documenting our progress, and our current events, and already sending it out to users, I think it could be useful having one newsletter on "Wiki World Weather", or some cute title. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Consensus for a "Louisiana Compromise"... above plan will be modified to match that. Noah^Talk 00:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose an alternate to Noah's plan above. Although there is clear (yet rather local) consensus for merging of the project, I suggest retaining WPTC as a subproject of WP Weather. An example of this is WikiProject Louisiana, which shares a talk page banner with WikiProject United States. If this proposal were to be carried out, WPTC articles will still be categorized under Wikiproject Weather, but supported by WPTC. This will retain WPTC's name and subpages.

WPTC is a large wikiproject with numerous task forces and subpages (including its own newsletter). It also has a rather long history, having celebrated its 15th anniversary several months ago. I personally think that this is a win-win proposal, as some users have expressed reluctance about merging WPTC. I'd like to hear your thoughts about this proposal @Hurricane Noah, Jason Rees, Hurricanehink, United States Man, MarioJump83, CycloneFootball71, CodingCyclone, Chicdat, LightandDark2000, TornadoLGS, ChessEric, AC5230, Seddon, HurricaneCovid, Nova Crystallis, Locomotive207, Supportstorm, Jasper Deng, and HurricaneParrot: and anyone else whom I missed. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 01:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: *GASP* HEY BRO! WELCOME BACK! GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN!...Oh whoops sorry. Got carried away. LOL! Anyway, I like this proposal you made. The WPTC is a large enough project to stay on its own. In fact, I believe all large projects under the WPWeather should have subsections.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Thanks for the warm welcome!! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 01:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

LOL!! LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Support – I think this sounds like a good idea, though for technical reasons, WPTC will have to be listed as a Task Force on the WP Weather template, in order to the template to properly function. I'm fine with either option. The pages are going to be retained either way (it's honestly only a matter of titling that's the difference at this point), and WPTC will still be incorporated into WP Weather. On that topic, Hurricane Noah's proposal to rename WPTC to the "Tropical cyclones project" seems to accomplish the same purpose as well (and they both seem to be similar proposals at the moment, the only difference is that WPTC loses its own WikiProject status). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I proposed above to treat the larger projects as subprojects (ie WP Weather/tropical cyclones project), but they have to be listed as task forces for technical reasons. Even in the WP Louisiana route, it is a task force underneath WP US. Every project will remain as a task force at minimum. The two larger projects can be treated as subprojects, but should be nested underneath the weather project. Keep in mind we need to build up the main project, which is why I believe they should be together. The US and state projects have hundreds if not thousands of editors collectively. We have roughly 200 at most, likely less. Noah^Talk 01:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal and the reopening/rehashing of this discussion as we need to step away from tropical cyclones being a separate project and focus on the bigger picture of improving the weather articles on Wikipedia. This is because tropical cyclones are only a small but important part of the world's weather and are going to become rarer and rarer with climate change etc.Jason Rees (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

”This is because tropical cyclones are only a small but important part of the world's weather and are going to become rarer and rarer with climate change etc.” This statement makes no sense to me. Tropical cyclones will always occur and no evidence supports them becoming rarer because of so called “climate change”. Plus, consensus can change on Wikipedia, so that is no reason to try to squash down a good idea. United States Man (talk)|

I didn't say that tropical cyclones would never occur but just that they are getting rarer and rarer, as a result of climate change or at least that's the scientific consensus. Also yes while consensus can change on Wikipedia, I do not see that rehashing the discussion that was literally just closed 24 hours ago is a good idea as it smacks of it being reopened just to get the right result. I also don't think its a good idea as it will just take attention away from the weather project. Jason Rees (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Support – Thank you Destroyeraa. This sounds like a great plan and something I could get behind. That way we aren’t doing away with WPTC, just making it a subproject. Seems like a good compromise to me. United States Man (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Question@Destroyeraa, LightandDark2000, ChessEric, and United States Man: Would you be opposed to having WPTC and WP Severe nested underneath WP Weather and treated as subprojects? Either way they have to be listed as task forces coding-wise for technical reasons, but we can call and treat them however we want. Additionally, as proposed above by me All project pages will be kept and moved over accordingly (no deletions). Noah^Talk 01:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no problems with this whatsoever. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes the most sense. Don’t rename them and just keep them as subprojects. Treat them as taskforces for templates or whatever but retain the wikiproject name and identity. United States Man (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@United States Man:Just to be clear, what I was referring to is we have it listed underneath WP Weather in the title of the page, but it retains its project status. The function does not change except for specific areas that are standardized across all of weather (assessment and resources), however, the pages are nested underneath the parent project. This would make it easier for people to navigate between the different areas and make it easier for outside editors to find areas requiring work. It is a minor cosmetic change that could have a decent impact. I get you don't want projects to go, and I am offering to treat WPTC and WP Severe as projects. By subproject, I mean that in the sense that they are entirely underneath the parent, but still retain most of their independent-ness. We need to attract editors to other areas and build up the main project, which I believe this will help to accomplish. Noah^Talk 02:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Nvm, it appears clear people want the LA route even though we have a vastly different situation. I will begin implementing that later today. Hopefully, a navigational template at the top of pages will accomplish the same thing I wanted done. Noah^Talk 10:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. I think that I'm fine either way as long as nothing important is deleted. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 02:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Support I forgot to put that on my post earlier. I was trying to point that earlier, but didn't know quite how to say it. Thanks Hurricane Noah.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Another WikiProject I am a part of, US Presidents, is a sub of WikiProject United States, and I believe that is a similar organization to what would occur if this is carried out. And, again, welcome back Destroyeraa, ChessEric couldn't have put it better. Jay Tee 🕊️🇺🇸 02:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Support – Makes sense, and it's a good middle groun, especially considering that WPTC has a lot of articles under its scope, is quite active, and, as you said, has a long history. On another note, welcome back, Destroyeraa. It's great to see you safe, healthy, and in one piece. :D codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 02:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment We are serious about expanding coverage of events outside the United States and non-TC related ones. As an example, Hurricane Leslie (2018) impacted France, Spain, and Portugal as an extratropical cyclone, causing significant damage. There are many areas that are lacking in coverage that need attention. Noah^Talk 02:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah:, I actually do have a healthy interest in tropical cyclones that affect Latin America, and I know others specifically interested in WPAC, NIO, and AUS cyclones. We have the manpower to update articles there, it would just require a more organized structure. I think after the merger we should re-examine basin taskforces and set some goals to improve coverage of non-American storms. Jay Tee 🕊️🇺🇸 03:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

support This sounds like a good idea, would support this route for the Wikiproject. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 04:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Support If Destroyeraa proposes something, I'm in. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Chicdat: Just to be clear here, do you have any valid reasons for supporting this proposal bar that Destroyeraa proposed it.Jason Rees (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  - Yes. It's a "middle road" between completely merging WPTC and keeping things as they are. 🏳️‍🌈 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Task forces not being included in the WPTC template

Some task forces are being excluded from Template:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. They are the following task forces: storms, seasons, tropical meteorology, Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclones, and anomalous tropical cyclones. On July 7, I requested that they be added. It was declined because I had not established consensus for them. I don't see how this is true. I didn't create any of them, and they had been in the template for years.

So, should the following task forces be included in the assessment template, or not? (For reference: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Season articles task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Storm articles task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Meteorology articles task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Southern Hemisphere task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Anomalous cyclones task force)

🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: @Hurricane Noah: made the argument that these task forces were not really needed in the assessment banner as we get ready for the transition to WP:Weather, when they are duplicates of other taskforces and nobody really uses them. As a result of this objection and your lack of providing coding for them your edit request was turned down until such a time as a consensus was established for them, being put in as even though their taskforces/workgroups they don't need to be in the banner per say. When I look at the coding of the template, I see that the SHEM taskforce is already in the banner.Jason Rees (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

They are not duplicates. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Most work is done by basin, which is why the basin workgroups are still in the template. We really have no need to have taskforces dedicated solely to storm articles and season articles as most work is carried over between the two sets of articles. The tropical meteorology taskforce is not needed as the general met, met biographies, and met data/tools taskforces in weather handle that. As Jason said, SHEM is already included in code, but isnt showing here for whatever reason (it shows on article talkpages but not the template). Anomalous tropical cyclones covers such a small set of articles that it isnt worth including in the template. I oppose readding all of these. Noah^Talk 16:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that tropical meteorology should be merged. But anomalous tropical cyclones actually covers at least 50 storms. You have the 17 SATL major storms (there are more in the other systems section), Subtropical cyclones Katie and Lexi, Hurricane Huron, perhaps Tropical Storm Vamei, the 14 major medicanes, 2006's Storm 91C, maybe even Pablo's type could be included. As for the storm and season task forces, they're important to the project. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Small comment: By removing those task forces from the template, you all ought to discuss dissolution of those task forces as a whole. Denying these task forces spaces in the template, especially when we agreed on making WPTC a subproject instead of fully merging it (which would allow WPTC to keep its task forces), removes the purpose of a task force in the first place: which is to organize specific sets of articles onto their own categories and the like (for easy tracking and collaborative article work). Without those categories, progress tracking on these task forces would be unfeasible. Chlod (say hi!) 16:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I already stated above which were planned to be deprecated and nobody objected to that. The only objections were to moving the WPTC and WP Severe pages underneath WP Weather. The plan was to tag some as historical if they are being deprecated entirely. The excess weight needs to be trimmed off. Three of them aren't being used (for various reasons) and the fourth has such a small range that it isnt worth having tracking. Noah^Talk 18:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Proposal #2 was meant to be an alternate to [your] plan (and not an extension), and was the final consensus on how to carry out the merger. Destroyeraa's proposal, however, didn't include provisions on deprecating those task forces, nor did participating editors agree on cutting those task forces out, since they !voted under the impression that proposal #2 was an alternative to your plan and not an extension of your plan. Nobody objected to the provisions of your proposal since they chose the alternate option. I don't see how cutting the aforementioned task forces out as of now is grounded on proper consensus, especially when you never mentioned in the Proposal #2 discussion that you were going to apply some of your ideas in your original proposal, nor did you specify what would be done to task forces in that same proposal. Chlod (say hi!) 18:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm alright with dissolving those task forces, but only if you have the proper reason to do so. Right now, I just can't see a consensus-based reason for that. Chlod (say hi!) 18:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I can understand the case for deprecating some of the task forces. People these days prefer to work on certain basins rather than focusing specifically on storm and season articles, meaning those two task forces aren't really relevant anymore. The meteorology articles and anomalous cyclones task forces can be subsumed under the more general meteorology project. I'd rather see the Southern Hemisphere task force split by basin rather than removed entirely, though I see it's been left as is.

My main takeaway from this is that people shouldn't be supporting proposals or jumping on "support" bandwagons without understanding the finer details of what they're agreeing to. This is especially so since discussions here aren't strictly a vote, and we have more latitude to discuss aspects of proposals that each of us may not fully agree on even if we agree on the general direction. It's a worrying trend, in my opinion. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 02:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Issue with previous newsletters

Hello all, I just realized these newsletters get ignored by the archiving bots on talk pages since there's no signed ~~~~ at the end of them. I'm surprised I didn't realize until 18 months after the fact. – The Grid (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That's why I got OneClickArchiver. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 09:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I use that all the time as well. It's just maybe for future newsletters, a remember to sign the newsletter - it can be done anywhere within it. – The Grid (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Newsletter issues

Hey there. I don't know who runs the newsletter but I thought I'd let you guys know of a few issues there are with it.

Templated talk page messages should almost always substituted as messagesg shouldn't change over time. I've noticed that the newsletter template isn't being substituted.
The mass message sending feature is what's generally used for sending out newsletters. AWB likely isn't the best fit here.
Leaving the entire newsletter on people's userpages is overkill. It is wayyy too big for a talk page message. Please consider following common practice for newsletters and shortening to a list of links rather than tossing the whole single page edition on the talk page at once. It really messes up readability and makes it difficult to read the talk page. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Chess: First, if you want to complain about the project, you should actually join. Second, the newsletters are not edited after publishing, and substing them would add a great deal of unnecessary text to the talk page. Third, there aren't any active mass message senders here. Fourth, instead of the entire newsletter, some users opt for a link to it instead. Also, you can just scroll down if it makes talk pages difficult to read. Fifth, here's a complaint you missed: issue 49 was set to deliver yesterday and still hasn't been delivered. Sixth, no one runs the project. And seventh, if you think this would make the newsletter better, be bold and do it! 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  - (talk page watcher) @Chicdat: I don't think it's necessary for someone to join the project so that they can "complain" about the project, it will block out actual feedback (like above). I agree with all three points presented, though yes, the third is optional. Newsletters are edited even after they are released, which may pose an issue towards substituting, however that can easily be fixed by catching any errors beforehand and adding an "as of" somewhere. Substituting will not add "a great deal" of unnecessary text, it would only add 6 characters, so I don't see your point there, plus whatever minor inconvenience that might be caused by substituting will not outweigh the benefit of large portions of user talk pages not being at risk of being replaced by something unpleasant. AWB, or even manual editing is definitely slower than mass messaging users, which messages multiple users at once. Yes, no one runs the project, but this issue has been brought up here on the project's talk page because no one runs the project, and input from the community is needed so that the issues can actually be discussed, addressed, and fixed. Akber mamps 10:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    - No. After the substing, 50,000 or so bytes of text find their way into the section. Furthermore, if there was a spelling error in the (substed) newsletter, and someone corrected it after the publication, the substed talk pages would still have it. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot how subst worked. The issue with the newsletter's wikitext being too large can be fixed by either:

Archiving older discussions to reduce wikitext
Not doing anything at all
Just replacing the full-text newsletter with a link since scrolling down and clicking on a link to get to where you want to see is barely any effort at all, + the benefits of seeing the corrected version if there are any mistakes

As for errors, before publication, it shouldn't be that hard to just scan through the newsletter for issues and fix them before it's done. Plus, even if a mistake makes it through, it either would be ignored or not noticed at all. Akber mamps 11:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a condensed version could be created, like what the WP:Signpost uses. This would avoid spam/clogging user talk pages even when substituted while still managing to convey the headlines and key information in the newsletter. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I like it. Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive XXXX/Opinion piece and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive XXXX/Member of the month. I also see that issue 48 has been postponed to July 11/11 July. (thanks!) 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example of how the new newsletter would look. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of having just the headlines and a subtitle/brief description of each segment instead of subpages and associated links, since our newsletter isn't that big (for now). Though I guess we could use subpages if/when the newsletter's expanded to address the whole of WikiProject Weather as proposed in a section somewhere above. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that this is a real issue. Substituting the content would actually create another problem, since this would introduce a static, large chunk of prose onto the users' talk pages that doesn't update when the newsletter issues are revised and will end up taking up more space in the editing window. Transcluding the templates, which we do right now, is perfectly fine. Not only does it send the full newsletter edition to those who want it, but it minimzes the content in the editing window. Concerning userpage length, there is no restriction on how long or short the pages have to be. If the page's owner feels that it is getting too long, they can always archive. I think that we should keep things the way they are, for the most part. We could potentially introduce a third option, for an abbreviated version, but honestly, this would create a third category on the newsletter page, and that would create even more work for our distributors, who would have to consider not two, but three possible options when distributing. Honestly, I think that this is extra work for a non-issue. We have more pressing concerns to deal with, such as content creation and fixing technical issues. This isn't really worth the time or the energy. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This really isn't an issue. I don't think that it's that long, and I believe that we could even make it longer. We don't seem to be getting any complaints about this other than the one above. Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It's exactly why I unsubscribed. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I also think that the newsletter has become too large as it stands and wonder if we really need to be putting two or three separate opinion pieces.Jason Rees (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

New track map generator

Hey everyone, @CodingCactus: and I created a new track generator (he did most of the work) and I guess I'll present it to you now. Here it is! There's no prerequisites, just enter the coordinates on the website. I hope you enjoy! codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 03:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@CodingCyclone: This will be of little use if it cannot read machine readable formats. Plus I doubt it's hardened against cross-site scripting. It also is missing other features like the ability to substitute in a higher-resolution version of the background and other options.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It's good enough for casual use, and AFAIK (from off-wiki comms) the issue with the background resolution is currently being addressed. At the very least, I would say kudos to CodingCactus and CodingCyclone for a good attempt at making the track map generator more user-friendly for computer noobs such as myself. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Sorry to ping you again, but CodingCactus was able to create a system to read HURDAT files. You can paste the file in or upload it, and it will parse it. Thank you for the suggestion. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 22:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jasper Deng:, thanks for your feedback! I just have a few questions about the points you have raised here.

Firstly, with regards to "This will be of little use if it cannot read machine readable formats" are you asking for a option for you to just upload one of those table things with the points on instead of inputting each point manually? I can try and make that happen if you wish (it's certainly doable).

Secondly, I'm slightly confused about your point of it being vulnerable to xss as this site has literally no opportunity for user input to be either attempted to be displayed as raw text, or sent to a sql database or anything of the like. So would you mind elaborating on where you believe the site is vulnerable so that I can fix it.

And thirdly, the map used in the generated image is a very high resolution, but I am currently working on having the option to use an even higher resolution image. Unfortunately I will be unable to use the highest resolution image available due to just how insanely large it is, it would take many many minutes to just place a single point on it.

Thanks for your feedback (sorry if I did something wrong in this reply, I don't really do any editing or anything on wikipedia, so I'm not aware of what the correct practises are when conversing on here) CodingCactus (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: CodingCactus (not a sock, seriously) and I will work on parsing the HURDAT files, etc. Right now, it's a bit of a work in progress, and we can add those features. We just wanted to announce this so that people who have a hard time running it can just use the website. As for the XSS concernts, the input is only numbers and dropdowns, and it's all parsed anyway, as other CC said. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 17:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add that I'm hoping a downloadable version of the new track map generator will eventually be availale, since you can't always rely on having a solid internet connection. That being said, I'm happy that someone finally made a user-friendly track map generator.

LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Tried making one and it's good! Kudos to the developers! :) 🌀Hurricane Parrot🐦 03:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A recommendation: can the background on the track generator be further wider like the normal track maps generated by others; eg. Meow, Supportstorm, etc. But overall, that's amazing. Thanks! 🌀Hurricane Parrot🐦 03:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneParrot: Hey there, thanks for your input! I can certainly make that happen. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 23:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok so, can we use the track maps in Wikipedia ? (just a question) Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 13:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Tropical Depression 08W (2021)

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Tropical Depression 08W (2021) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Red link categories

Hello, WikiProject Tropical cyclone folks,

This is just a general message that should you want to change the talk page banners on weather-related articles and they create nonexistent, red link categories, like Category:Project-Class Pacific hurricane articles and Category:Category-Class Pacific typhoon articles, you need to create the category. According to WP:REDNO, red link categories either have to be removed from the page or the category needs to be created. By not creating these categories, they appear on Special:WantedCategories and you get editors like me, who know nothing about weather-related phenomena, messing around with your talk page templates in an effort to remove these red links. I think y'all would prefer someone knowledgeable to handle this so you can avoid this by just creating these categories yourselves whenever you alter these talk page templates. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for creating these categories, it's greatly appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge Provisions

Since there continues to be objections to the merge, please look at each provision part below. Noah^Talk 18:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Provision 1

1.1 Taskforces for ATL, EPAC, WPAC, NIO, and SHEM will be kept entirely.
1.11 These will be added to the weather project banner and have wikiwork generated for them
1.12 Renamed to workgroups and will be nested underneath tropical cyclone task force
1.2 Graphics, anomalous cyclones, and 2018 FT taskforces will be partially deprecated (in the case of anom cyclones) or otherwise remain the same (in the case of the graphics and 2018 FT)
1.21 Aforementioned renamed to workgroups
1.22 Not included on the wikiproject talkpage banner (anom cyclones has a small scope)
1.23 Graphics will be removed from underneath tropical cyclones and serve for the whole weather community underneath WP Weather.
1.3 Season articles, storm article, and meteorology task forces will be entirely deprecated
1.31 Season and storm article taskforces aren't widely used as most collaboration is done by basin
1.32 Meteorology task force will be superseded by the general meteorology and meteorological instruments and data task forces
1.33 These will be kept for historical purposes

Discussion

Please state which parts you support and object to. Supporting without mention means you support all and likewise, opposing without mention means you oppose all provision parts. Noah^Talk 18:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose all except number 32 I'm fine with keeping things the same, fully merging WPTC, and Destroyeraa's Proposal #2, but not deprecating task forces. But if consensus is very clearly leaning in your direction, I will strike this. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Chicdat: Can you please clearly explain your thinking as this isn't a vote and surely you can see that the Weather Project is aiming to tidy up and standardise all of the articles related to the weather on Wikipedia.Jason Rees (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Drive by question – @Chicdat: Why would you strike it if consensus forms to support this plan? To be blunt, it's a bit of a confusing reason... codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 23:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Pardon my blunt language, but you're making no sense whatsoever. You want to keep the task forces, but you're opposing point 1.1 which is in favour of keeping the basin task forces...? And you aren't opposed to point 1.32 which involves closing down the WPTC meteorology task force? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  - @KN2731: I support point 1.32 because I support merging the WPTC meteorology task force. It is a duplicate of WPWX. But the other task forces are not duplicates. They do not need to be merged. And as for 1.1, I didn't see that one. @CodingCyclone: I meant if consensus is very clearly supporting the other plan, the task-force-merging plan. @Jason Rees: I don't see anything untidy or not standard, about the storms, seasons, or anomalous cyclones task forces. And on Wikipedia, everyone says it isn't a vote – but as they say that, they vote. And if an editor votes against how the discussion is going, the editors on the other side try to change the outlier's mind by continuously replying to his/her post. There's a reason I'm disagreeing with everyone else. And if things don't go my way, I won't put up a fight. I'll just drop the stick and walk away from the discussion, like I'm doing right now. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Strong Support as WPTC has too many taskforces that don't really do anything and have failed, as a result I strongly feel things need to be cleaned up.Jason Rees (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all – An agreeable plan. This is better, simpler organization. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 23:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all per my comment in the section above. People prefer sorting by basins these days, and the season/storm article and meteorology task forces are either no longer relevant or superseded by new ones. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all as per others, basin-based task forces seem to be the ideal separation based on how people contribute to the project. — Iune talk 22:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all, per others' reasoning. I am open to a similar solution for WPSvr. Destroyer (Alternate account) 18:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all, per reasoning above. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 03:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all – I don't see any issues with any of these changes. In fact, I believe that they are a necessary part of the merger process. Also, I believe that some of the original task forces (Graphics and Meterology) should be moved under WP Weather in general, while some of the others should be deprecated. The main basin task forces should remain and transition into workgroups, as suggested. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Provision 2

2.1 All assessment will be standardized across all of weather with one set of assessment guidelines and a single page for A-class reviews/removals
2.11 All resources will be on a single page for all of weather
2.2 Style guidelines will be developed for different types of weather, however, they will be located on the same page

Discussion

Please state which parts you support and object to. Supporting without mention means you support all and likewise, opposing without mention means you oppose all provision parts. Noah^Talk 18:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Support all because if a project is being merged, all of it should be merged. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I support all of these as I firmly believe that Wikipedia would benefit from assessment being standardised, resources being on a single page and style guidelines for different types of weather.Jason Rees (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all – Streamlining things will make it much easier for people to find. I didn't know about the ACRs for months after I joined WPTC because they were wedged onto the general assessment page. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 23:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Support 2.1. Hopefully this will help A-class reviews (and other assessments e.g. GA reviews, FACs) get wider input. As for 2.11, I'll need clarification on what resources we're referring to – links to every single weather-related scientific journal, warning center, disaster reduction agency, news sources, etc. for every single type of weather for every country is going to be extremely tedious and difficult to navigate. I'm not opposed to 2.2 but I don't see much point in putting every style guideline on the same page besides making it more painful to find the set of guidelines you actually need. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all — Iune talk 22:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose 2.2 The current WPTC style page is already rather long. Adding five other task forces will make reading and scrolling even harder. Destroyer (Alternate account) 18:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa and KN2731: There would be subsections giving brief overviews for style topics, similar to how season article storm sections provide an overview of a storm and have a main article giving much more detail. Only the major details (general guidelines across weather and most important guidelines from subtopics) would be on the main page to keep its size in check. The resources would follow the same route with general resources for all weather and the most important ones for the subtopics on the main page with the rest on subpages. Resources largely consist of links and databases. Noah^Talk 23:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we? We must have detailed pages on the guidelines and also our resources to help our own editors. The WPTC style page isn't too long, and actually, having longer WikiProject pages could be more beneficial, for some topics. Remember that a page isn't considered to be too long unless it exceeds the readable prose size limit. And if that happens (which I find extremely unlikely), then we can have shorter sections that are forked off into more specific subpages dedicated to those topics, if necessary. But we need to have detailed pages for the guidelines and the resources, and as usual, it's best to keep as much information in one place as possible. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Support all, this seems like it would help out, with having everything on the same page and standardized, per Jason Rees above. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 03:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all – All of these changes make sense. I also feel that we should have a single page for our resources, with subpages for specific areas in greater detail, if necessary. Some of the article standards and assessments pages, such as the A-Class review page, should be moved under WP Weather, along with their corresponding templates. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Provision 3

3.1 All project pages will be kept (no deletions)
3.2 The WPTC talkpage will still function as a place for TC related discussions
3.3 Certain pages will be modified or deprecated (major ones mentioned above)

Discussion

Please state which parts you support and object to. Supporting without mention means you support all and likewise, opposing without mention means you oppose all provision parts. Noah^Talk 18:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Support for Provision 3. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 04:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Support 3.1 and 3.2, oppose 3.3 per my !vote in section 1. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all - Some pages will need to be modified or deprecated as things change and is a natural part of Wikipedia.Jason Rees (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all – per previous reasoning, this will better organize WPTC as well as WPWX as a whole. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 23:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all and I suppose WP:SEVERE will be getting similar treatment, since this was a major sticking point in the earlier discussions with them. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all — Iune talk 22:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all, sounds reasonable enough. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 03:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Support all – Per the above. No issues here. Some pages will have to be modified as needed, but the others can continue to function as they are. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Research on Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones

Hi, just letting you know, that according to our research "Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones delivers the highest quality content of all Wikiprojects on English Wikipedia". source. :) Pundit|utter 11:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pundit: I saw that a couple days ago! The research paper is quite interesting, and also highlights what we need to work on. I was quite surprised to see our project leading in quality. :) codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 20:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@CodingCyclone:Many thanks! It is my pleasure - we were also quite surprised, but hey - this is what research looks like :) Many thanks for your awesome work. Pundit|utter 08:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Typhoon Morakot

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Typhoon Morakot —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. HurricaneEdgar 03:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

Please don't archive this until the end of Cyclone Cup. This is probably very necessary for some participants out there. Mario Jump 83! 06:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The last equivalent of a sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006 to re-evaluate FAs for the new requirement for inline citations. By the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed through the Featured article review (FAR) page, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of FAs has been undertaken since then, resulting in a number of FAs that have not been reviewed for many years.

WP:URFA/2020 is a November 2020 list of 4,527 FAs that have not been reviewed at FAC or FAR for more than five years. You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, sometimes a minor tune-up, and listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so that a FAR can be avoided. And even if an article has deteriorated enough that it does need to be submitted to FAR, the FAR process is an intentionally deliberative process, allowing ample time for improvement.

Can hurricane editors familiar with the WIAFA standards run through the older FAs listed below and indicate which are still in compliance? One or two editors suffices, and a non-hurricane editor can then verify. Perfection is not the goal, rather the URFA process seeks to identify which FAs are good enough and which need to be submitted to FAR. Yes, you can review your own nominations—we're glad you're still watching them! Check for text that has become dated or was not cited when standards were more lax, MOS:SANDWICHing that my have creft in as drive-by editors drop in images, and anything else you would normally check in an FA review.

Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory". Once independent editors, experienced with the FA process, concur, those articles will be moved to the "Review not needed" section. Those not meeting standards are eligible to be submitted to FAR.
Any editor can help review the articles on the list. Improvements needed should not be noted at URFA/2020 but can be instead noted in a section on the article talk page like == URFA 2020 suggestions == or == Featured article review needed==, and a diff to those notes can be provided at the URFA page. If article talk has been notified of deficiencies, it can eventually be submitted to WP:FAR.

It would be helpful if hurricane editors would first check the 2006 nominations listed below, and indicate at URFA/2020 which are still at standard (then moving on to 2007, and so on). Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at FAR, and the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495, Jasper Deng, I like hurricanes, Weatherman27, LightandDark2000, Cyclonebiskit, SMB99thx, Juliancolton, TheAustinMan, Nova Crystallis, SMB99thx, Chicdat, ChessEric, Hurricane Noah, KN2731, Yellow Evan, Knowledgekid87, and CyclonicallyDeranged: - are any of you available to help look through the old FA's and help make sure they're still up to FA standards? I know a few of these are mine. Some of the main issues are going to be deadlinks, short sections, and any other issues you find. Please list them on the talk page. Thanks in advance! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Hurricanehink ... I'd like to get these ticked off the list. They don't have the scourge of other kinds of articles, which have been chunked up with useless images over the years, and generally just need a run-through to make sure things are still up to snuff. As soon as one hurricane editor reviews each on the list below, could one of you sign off at WP:URFA/2020 by indicating "Satisfactory", and I or others will then come along and look in ? These should be among the easiest to remove from the older FAs list. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would be willing to take a look at a few of these, when I am ready.🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox) 17:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I don't have any articles in mind at the moment, but I do recall reading a handful that are no longer up to GA/FA standards. Take Hurricane Catarina, for example. I don't feel like that article currently meets GA requirements (needs more met info). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of borderline good articles, but I believe we should focus on maintaining these featured articles. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

And pace yourselves :) Once the 2006 FAs are processed at WP:URFA/2020, we will move on to 2007 ... and so on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm busy with tornado articles right now, but I'll help when I can.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes! I'll do a few. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

FAs last reviewed in 2006

@Hurricanehink: maybe over the weekend. But not today. Also I might be doing CVUA. I also have tests/quizzes next week. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be this weekend- this is just another one of our long term projects. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Has there been any progress here? I would like to begin reviewing the oldest to get some moved off of WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I was looking over the various "XXXX Pacific/Atlantic hurricane season" articles, and note that many of them share similar issues with unsourced sections. Most noticeably, the "Storm names" and "Season effects" sections towards the bottom tend to be unsourced or undersourced. Many of the articles also seem a bit shorter and emptier than more recent articles in these series, but dealing with the unsourced sections would probably go a long way into patching up these articles. CMD (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing one of those articles, 2003 Pacific hurricane season, to FAR. If I have time to do so. Mario Jump 83! 08:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR

I have listed the aforementioned 2003 Pacific hurricane season at FAR here. The current model for these articles in my mind is 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which passed FAR in July 2020. I would be interested to know if there are other great models that could be used to enhance not only the 2003 article but the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season and 1995 Pacific hurricane season also listed above. CMD (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

goodbye guys

Hi guys, over the last couple of months (starting in like March 2021), I have been becoming increasingly inactive. I have decided to make the decision that I will retire. I have lost interest, and I hope to one day regain interest but for now, I am retired. However, I really would like to know if someone could finish some of my drafts. You don't have to, but I really would like someone to finish them. Anyways goodbye, and as always, stay safe, Cyclone Toby 21:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Agencies for WPAC timelines

Which agencies should be used for WPAC timelines? Timeline of the 2018 Pacific typhoon season currently uses PAGASA, JMA, and JTWC. Noah^Talk 13:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No longer inactive?

Can i put myself out of the inactive section due to a recent edit and future edits to a draft for Typhoon Chanthu? CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@CyclonicStormYutu: You don't need to ask :) You're free to move yourself out of the inactive list whenever you wish to. codingcyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 19:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Track map website becoming an official generator

Hello, fellow members of WPTC. Today I come to you with my first big proposal: to make the track map website that @CodingCactus: and I created (link) an official generator alongside the one that people use. We believe it is now up to speed, with it being pretty much exactly like the other generator. It takes manual input, and can parse HURDAT, IBTrACS, ATCF, and JMA best track files. It is much easier to use than the current track map generator. I would appreciate it if you take a look and offer your own comments down below. Thank you. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 20:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@CodingCyclone: I strongly feel that there needs to be an option to make a track map without having to specify wind speeds since not all systems have windspeeds published by the warning centers. I also feel that the maps should be made using the official data and scales from the RSMC rather than the SSHWS, so that our articles and maps are consistent.Jason Rees (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: If you leave the wind field blank in the manual input window, it will color the dots grey. As for the other issue, I believe that all track maps use the SSHWS, so I don't really see how that is an issue. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 21:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@CodingCyclone: In my opinion it is original research for us to compare systems to the SSHWS in the track maps, when they haven't been compared to it by others. I also feel that we shouldnt be automatically colouring dots grey if they dont have windspeeds as after all there are systems that are thought to be Cat 5's but do not have any windspeeds like Cyclone Mahina. Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have another recommendation: Can we have an option to remove extra points on the track map generator (example: as a mistake)? Because whenever I always finish making one and I always clicking "new point" as a mistake, it's a hassle to repeat again because I cannot generate the map without putting details on the points (It says "Please fill out this field"). Overall, I really like the generator sooo much. Kudos! 🌀Hurricane Parrot🐦 07:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneParrot: sorry for the late reply, should be done now. Definitely a vital feature, thanks for bringing this up. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages (she/her) 21:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

While very convenient, I'm personally against using the online generator until the higher resolution base map is applied. The current version is more coarse than the one currently used by those of us with the program. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I support this one. Very easy to use, the input and track points are clear, like the track maps currently being used and created by the main track map generator. Looking forward to use it soon here. 🌀Hurricane Parrot🐦 05:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft space

Is there any reason there's been such a habit of putting storm articles especially active storm articles in draft space and then having them set there? In the past month, there's been delays on getting articles out for Henri and Grace while active, and right now we have two active land threatening storms in draft space that were hurricane strikes, one of which I was planning to work on once its in the live Wikipedia. In the Eastern Pacific, we have three land impacting hurricanes stuck in draft space. There are also several drafts of articles that haven't been touched in months so I don't really see the point in not publishing them as long as they aren't speedy deletion candidates. Given the large accumulation of abandoned drafts that have complied in the last several months and the apparent ineffectiveness of draft space for active articles, I'm proposing a mass move of a bunch of articles (especially ones from recent storms which are likely to be highly viewed in the live Wikipedia and thus improved) in draft space to the live Wikipedia, and think we should phase out using it at least for active storms, and for historically storms in which completing a draft is more time consuming, to use userspace, which worked really well for the first decade plus of the project. I'll compile a list later. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Typhoon Jebi (2018) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Jebi (2018) to be moved to Typhoon Jebi. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Resuming editing

I have been rather inactive in the past month or so, but I believe I will begin making more edits soon. Gummycow ^moo _milk 21:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

How to rank most active seasons by named storms in WPTC articles?

Dear members of the WPTC community,

I am not sure if this is the appropriate venue to request such a discussion on this topic. However, because the implications of my question apply to multiple basins, I feel this page would be the best location to establish consensus and serve as a reference for future seasons and users.

As the 2021 Atlantic hurricane season (AHS) has become among the most extreme in terms of named storms, I have felt it necessary to emphasize this activity in the context of all Atlantic seasons. Consequently, I provided some historical context on the 2003 AHS article after this year's Peter formed. Also, I provided similar context on the 2021 AHS article and 2017 AHS article after Rose formed. I admit my edits were worded ambiguously, as I explain below. My edits no longer appear on these articles, and I am not intending to challenge any subsequent edits.

However, after reading the edit history to the 1969, 2017, and 2021 AHS articles, it is becoming clearer to me that multiple users, including myself, disagree on how the most active seasons in the Atlantic (and possibly other basins) in terms of named storms should be ranked. I describe the two contrasting options below:

Option A: On one hand, we could rank each season individually by how many named storms they had. Under this criteria, the most active Atlantic seasons would be:

1. 2020 (30 storms)

2. 2005 (28 storms)

3. 1933 (20 storms)

4. 1887 (19 storms)

4. 1995 (19 storms)

4. 2010 (19 storms)

4. 2011 (19 storms)

4. 2012 (19 storms)

4. 2021 (19 storms)

10. 1969 (18 storms)

10. 2019 (18 storms)

12. 1936 (17 storms)

12. 2017 (17 storms) (Pay attention to the italicized rankings.)

Outside of Wikipedia, an ABC News article used Option A to consider the 2019 AHS the eighth most active in terms of named storms (at the time).

Option B: On the other hand, we could group all seasons with the same number of named storms under one ranking. Under this criteria, the most active Atlantic seasons would be:

1. 2020 (30 storms)

2. 2005 (28 storms)

3. 1933 (20 storms)

4. 1887, 1995, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2021 (19 storms)

5. 1969 and 2019 (18 storms)

6. 1936 and 2017 (17 storms)

7. 1949, 1950, 1954, 2003, and 2008 (16 storms) (Notice how the latter rankings are different?)

Outside of Wikipedia, a Forbes article used Option B to consider the 2019 AHS the fourth most active in terms of named storms (at the time).

Complicating the situation further is that the NHC does not rank the 2019 AHS's total named storm activity in their final monthly summary and CSU (which the project routinely cites)'s 2019 AHS verification simply acknowledges that 2019 was the ninth season to have at least 18 total storms.

Also, outside of the Atlantic, the 2014 and 2016 Pacific hurricane season articles currently use Option B to classify them as the fifth most active in terms of named storms. However, under Option A, 2014 and 2016 would be the sixth most active Pacific hurricane seasons.

If you are a WPTC member, I ask that you respond to the following question with a reason, given the background context described:

Should we use Option A or Option B to rank the most active seasons in a particular basin in terms of named storms in article ledes? Alternatively, what other options should we utilize?

Personally, I use Option B to rank seasons in the Atlantic and elsewhere in terms of named storms, which is why I made my edits to the 2003, 2017 and 2021 AHS articles as such. I feel that the latter option draws more attention to the number of storms instead of the seasons themselves, which is what the rankings are about in the first place. However, I know that not all users use my system. Moreover, a search through WPTC talk page archives reveals my question has not been discussed.

Once we establish consensus to my question, I would also like to discuss at what point in the chosen ranking would it no longer be notable to acknowledge this information in a season article.

Please do not hesitate to message me if you want me to clarify something. Thank you for your understanding and participation!

Hurricane Andrew (444) 01:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT:It's OR for us choose how to rank them. We need to rank them according to how RS's do it. Noah^Talk 03:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Hurricane Andrew (444) 04:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I take then, that an article lede should not state that [x season] is tied with [abc seasons] for n th most / fewest named storms in a season, unless that statement is backed by a reliable secondary source. Drdpw (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that is the case (which is why I have been editing certain article ledes recently such that there is a reference that states the sentence you have highlighted). Hurricane Andrew (444) 23:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding article lede paragraphs, note the difference between what is currently stated as fact in a couple of articles, and what can be backed up by a reliable secondary source:

1) The 1933 Atlantic hurricane season set the pre-weather satellite record for most tropical storms formed within a single season, and currently ranks as the third-most active Atlantic hurricane season, only behind 2005 and 2020. True, until surpassed by the current or a future season, but OR without a citation somewhere in the article affirming the up-to-date fact. Here is a referenced fact that will not change over time.

The 1933 Atlantic hurricane season set the pre-weather satellite era record for most tropical storms formed within a single season with 20, and remained the most active season until 2005, which had 28 storms.A.

2) The [2011 Atlantic hurricane] season is tied with 1887, 1995, 2010, 2012, and 2021 for the fourth-highest number of total storms since record-keeping began in 1851. True, except for 2021, which now has 20 tropical cyclones, but also OR without a citation somewhere in the article affirming the up-to-date fact. While the 2011 reference cited below does state that the 2011 season is 'tied for the third most-active hurricane season', that's outdated and so a new citation would be necessary. Here is a referenced fact, the first part of which will not change over time.

The season was one of the most-active hurricane seasons on record with 19 named storms. Only eight other seasons have had as many or more named storms: 1887, 1995, 2010, and 2012 had as many, and 1933, 2005, 2020, and 2021 had had more.B C <a citation would be needed to establish that 2020 and 2021 had more than 19 storms> (The list of seasons could be put into a note to de-clutter the lede)

Another, more simple way to word it might be:

The season was only the sixth since record-keeping began in 1851 to have 19 or more named storms.B

3) The 1995 and 2010 articles make the same uncited and out-dated claim, 'tied with A, B, C, and D for the X th-most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, with 19 tropical storms'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdpw (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drdpw: In all honesty, I would be fine with the project simply using the referenced facts that will not change over time (i.e. sixth Atlantic season to have 19 storms). Not only will that save us having to update this trivia and find new sources in future years, but the simple facts also are more objective in my opinion. After all, I personally believe that Accumulated Cyclone Energy is becoming a better way to compare seasonal activity given that there is a bias towards more (weaker) named storms in recent years. However, we may need to search harder for sources to cite named storm records for non-Atlantic basins (e.g. West Pacific, Australian region). Hurricane Andrew (444) 16:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Related question @AndrewPeterT: @Hurricane Noah: The 'Seasonal records' subsection at List of Atlantic hurricane records divides its lists of most and of fewest storms in a season between '1851–1964' and '1965–present'. As we and as many secondary sources mix these two eras, should that section be rewritten and the four tables be made into two (one for 'most since 1851' and one for 'fewest since 1851')? Drdpw (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drdpw: I would be in favor of this option. For starters, that article's definition of the satellite era (1965-present) contradicts the timeframe that reliable sources such as CSU's Phil Klotzbach utilize (i.e. 1966-present). Moreover, the NHC does not distinguish between "satellite era" and "pre-satellite era" storms in their report of maximum and minimum Atlantic storm activity. Above all, I believe a simple table would be more accessible to readers not familiar with tropical cyclones. Hurricane Andrew (444) 23:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft for Josie

I've recently been editing an old draft of mine that got declined for Cyclone Josie. If anyone would like to help, then click here. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Undiscussed controverial page moves

@LightandDark2000, ABC paulista, and HurricaneEdgar: Could we please have a consensus before moving all the pages to a so-called "new precedent"? Thanks. Destroyer (Alternate account) 23:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

While some of the new titles could've used a discussion first, I truly believe that this is the new precedent. Regardless of how we choose to handle the naming, I believe that each of those articles should use a combined format, similar to Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. Not doing so would violate WP:COVERAGE and WP:RS (for the storms in which at least one agency or media outlet recognizes the crossover). Perhaps future, more questionable page moves should be discussed first, but I believe that this is the new precedent for handling any storms that regenerate and get renamed (or redesignated) in a new basin. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, some of the articles violate WP:PRECISE. For example, Cyclone Vardah only received one name. ARB 02 was a weak depression that could be added onto Vardah's article without changing the title. As for Shaheen-Gu, the IMD acknowledged that it was from the remnants of Gulab, as its satellite bullitens claimed that Shaheen formed form Gulab's remnant low. Destroyer (Alternate account) 23:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't violate WP:PRECISE because the name "Vardah" doesn't encompass ARB 02 since IMD, the RSMC of that basin, doesn't consider them to be the same system. Also, one acgency acknowledging that one system formed form the remnants of another doesn't mean that they consider to be the same system/storm, and assuming so without direct confirmation from them is WP:OR. There are plenty of cases of regenerations that led to a new designation. ABC paulista (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed before. The discussions started on the Amanda/Cristobal page, but it eventually moved to the WPTC. ABC paulista (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion kinda died, so there was no consensus out of that.Destroyer (Alternate account) 23:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It may have died, but I think that what that means was that there was simply no consensus to merge the articles for the storms that were explicitly brought up. Not that no more mergers could be carried out at all. In fact, I do see some kind of consensus to use the Amanda-Cristobal merger as a precedent to treat other pairs/storm regenerations with a continuous, shared history and some overlap in impacts. Specifically, for cross-basin and intrabasin regenerations in which the official RSMCs recognize the storms as separate, but meteorologically-connected. Some of us in those discussions were looking to set/define a precedent moving forward for similar cases, and I believe that Amanda-Cristobal is our new precedent for identical cases. I believe that all analogous cases with their own articles should have their articles merged into a combined format. But honestly, there probably aren't that many on Wikipedia. I think that most of them with their own articles already have been merged. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Destroyeraa-alt The discussions might not have had official results, but it seems me that they presented a clear favourability toward these kind of merging. ABC paulista (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000 and MarioProtIV: Could you please discuss Trudy/Hanna here instead of edit-warring? Destroyer (Alternate account) 23:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It is my personal belief that Trudy/Hanna should be merged into a single article, given their meteorological relation and the overlap of impacts in Central America. There's even a proposal right now to merge Cyclone Eric and Cyclone Nigel, which are two completely distinct systems (but had sequential, overlapping impacts in the South Pacific). However, I'm not going to unilaterally reformat and move the article unless there's consensus for it. This discussion would probably be more appropriate on Trudy's talk page, TBH. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

If Nigel and Eric are merged, than Alma/Arthur and Ingrid/Manuel are no brainers. ABC paulista (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Im not getting involved with this, but please be careful when moving pages and make sure the titles are correct. An example being Talk:Cyclones Rona–Frank which I corrected the dash issue. I saw after the fact that the title is disputed. Please refrain from making any further page moves until a consensus is established on the matter. Additionally, please make sure to avoid creating douvle redirects. Thanks, Noah^Talk 23:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have seen numerous article titles being moved back and forth w/o discussion. Please stop and discuss the matter. The articles should remain at their original titles until consensus is established for a page move to a new one. Noah^Talk 00:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It's very contentious to move pages without using the RM route. Perhaps we should do that before jumping to a new precedent? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Gordon (1994) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Gordon (1994) to be moved to Hurricane Gordon. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you guys send me the next edition of the Hurricane Herald in my talk page?

Hey guys I didn't get the last edition of the Hurricane Herald in my talk page, I'm just letting you guys know if you guys can send the next edition of the Hurricane Herald so I know what's going on the the WikiProject Tropical cyclone community thanks. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cyclonetracker7586: Please add your name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Member list. Chlod (say hi!) 20:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chlod: Oh okay I'll do that. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Drop argument mess in Template:Infobox tropical cyclone current

{{Infobox tropical cyclone current}} currently takes two positional parameters, which are used to feed into the {{coord}} template of the infobox. This is (incredibly) clunky and is the main reason why we've been using a  between the |lat= and |lon= parameters. I think it's about time that we scrap those two and move on to simply feeding in positive/negative coordinates: something that {{coord}} has supported since 2008. I was planning to boldly make the change myself, but I'd rather ask here first and take comments before doing so.

Current		Proposed
Wikitext	Output	Wikitext	Output
\|lat=15.2\|N\|lon=143.1\|W	15°12′N 143°06′W / 15.2°N 143.1°W / 15.2; -143.1	\|lat=15.2 \|lon=-143.1	15°12′N 143°06′W / 15.2°N 143.1°W / 15.2; -143.1
\|lat=15.2\|N<!-- -->\|lon=143.1\|W	15°12′N 143°06′W / 15.2°N 143.1°W / 15.2; -143.1	\|lat=15.2 \|lon=-143.1	15°12′N 143°06′W / 15.2°N 143.1°W / 15.2; -143.1

Indication of support or approval is appreciated. Chlod (say hi!) 03:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Changes applied. |1= and |2= are now deprecated. See the talk page for additional information and the documentation for new usage instructions. Chlod (say hi!) 07:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather § RfC: Changing the color scheme for storm colors to make it more accessible

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather § RfC: Changing the color scheme for storm colors to make it more accessible. Chlod (say hi!) 02:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Another WP:URFA/2020 reminder

As the 2020 FA sweeps advance, there remain a considerable number of 2006 WP Cyclone FAs from 2004–2006 that have not been evaluated in terms of whether they still meet FA standards or need to be submitted for review. If Project members could evaluate these, and enter commentary on article talk (or mark "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020), that would help get the ball rolling towards either marking these articles as "Satisfactory" or sending them to FAR.

This list comprises a substantial proportion of the older FAs that need review; help from this Project in either marking them "Satisfactory", or entering notes of improvement needed on article talk under a section heading == [[WP:URFA/2020]] == would be most appreciated. If you could each do one a week, we might get these resolved! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to state publicly that I'm not interested in improving my old FA's at risk of FAR. I have limited time these days, and want to focus on more important work - sure, the list includes three retired hurricanes, but lots of storms are retired these days. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:REFUND/G13

Please put the following drafts up on WP:REFUND.

🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

there’s literally no point in saving generic text without any content specific to each year. There’s simply too many drafts that aren’t going to become articles in the near future. They shouldn’t be refunded just to get deleted again down the road. Noah^Talk 12:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Need immediate attention

Please some admin or senior editors close the AfD at Cyclone Jawad and move Draft:Cyclone Jawad to mainspace as its ready. 2402:3A80:6FD:B303:55D:9023:51BF:FF3E (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Weather FARs

Please see the corresponding list of articles that have been FAR noticed here. Many tropical cyclone articles are currently sub-par (particularly older ones) and need help to maintain their featured status. Any help with saving articles that have been noticed would be appreciated. Noah^Talk 15:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Tropical Storm Allison

I have nominated Tropical Storm Allison for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Subtropical Storm Ubá

I apologize. I unfortunately launched the translated Lusophone Wikipedia page before they finished the draft. I didn't know they were developing it. I have a lot of information about the content and so far news and details about the damage caused by the cyclone are coming out all the time. I'm really sorry. I don't know what to do with the created page. Can this mistake I made be fixed? André L P Souza (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Work groups

In Template:WikiProject Weather for some reason it says "work group" instead of task force. Why can't it just be task force instead. The rest of Wikipedia uses task force, why isn't it good enough for us? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Task forces/subprojects are subdivisions of the main weather project dedicated to specific branches of weather. Work groups are subdivisions of subprojects dedicated to a specific subtopic or location of that branch of weather. WP:India has departments and work groups so your statement isn't exactly true. There are plenty of ways to structure a project according to what is needed. Noah^Talk 13:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

National Institute of Standards and Technology plagiarism ?

See Talk:Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana#CCI check

Is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) known to plagiarize Wikipedia ? I am working on the CCI check at Featured article Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana, and everything looks good except this big NIST situation.

There is a lot of copying within going from the FA to other articles (which I will template and attribute later, just haven't gotten to that yet), and there is more to check in the suite of articles for the 1998 Atlantic hurricane season.

More importantly, Earwig turns up a huge swath of duplicate text from the NIST, this page, but that page says it was created two years after ours. Could those knowledgeable please have a look ? @Moneytrees, Sennecaster, Hurricane Noah, and Hog Farm: Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not NIST copies from us or not, I think that per https://www.nist.gov/oism/copyrights and what I know about federal US government sites is that it is public domain and may be attributed via {{source attribution}} to be on the safe side. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

But I'm pretty convinced that we wrote it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I've never copy/pasted from a source, and that page wasn't used as a reference when I wrote it (since it didn't exist at the time) so I'm certain they copy/pasted from us. The use of mph (km/h) conversions with the same rounding from the original units in knots is not common for any source outside Wikipedia. For example, 90 knots (rounded to the nearest 5) converts to 105mph/165km/h while converting to the nearest 5 from mph gives 170km/h. The fact that the page was created in 2011 and the same wording is present in the 2009 revision of the article is sound evidence of them copying. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That is my take as well, but I was quite surprised to see how blatantly they copied! I could have stepped back through the diffs of how you built it to prove the case, but that would have taken me a long time ... I am inclined to put a {{Backwards copy}} on article talk, and {{copied}} on all the other articles that copied from this article, and call Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana a grand success, but I'm still learning how to do these checks, so wanted to make certain this time :) It looks like fine work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Could be safe and do both the backwards copy and the PD-notice. Also, this isn't the most egregious copy ever, other governments are known for extensively copying us across departments. Sandy, you're doing a fine job at all this copyright work, thank you for your diligence! :) Sennecaster (Chat) 20:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sennecaster Thanks! I am struggling still to develop the knowledge, and a methodology, and to figure out how to do the work faster. I consider I am still in a trial phase :)

I would rather not put a PD-notice on what looks to me like clear plagiarism by the NIST; probably biased because the same thing happened to me hugely, and I could not force the journals of ill repute to take the article(s) down, even though I basically own the copyright, having written about 90% of dementia with Lewy bodies.

There is no evidence that Cyclonebiskit cut-and-paste, as he built the article piece by piece, but plenty of evidence that NIST did. I don't feel like unscrupulous plagiarizers should be able to force us to do the extensive documentation that I did at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Alain L. Fymat and User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat. There is no indication of that NIST work existing before our article, and I don't want to dignify their plagiarism with a PD notice. Maybe I'm wrong :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe that people who work on an article can demand attribution or DMCA, but it specifically requires the people who worked on it at the time of copying. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I did all the steps, sent the letters, contacted the Copyright Office about registering my copyright … all for nothing. He thumbed his nose at me and returned the letters; you can’t reach some offshore ISPs. Money is being made all over the world off of my work at Wikipedia. Oh, well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

PS, I will finish up over there tomorrow; quite tired at the end of a long day :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox weather event § Contrast issues in category headers

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox weather event § Contrast issues in category headers. This is related to a recent movement to update the old infoboxes (particularly {{Infobox tropical cyclone}}, among others) to conform with newer infobox styles, and to add the ability to generate modular boxes which can consolidate different scales and/or related weather events (such as the October 2021 nor'easter). This does not affect the current infobox being used for cyclones ({{Infobox tropical cyclone}}). Chlod (say hi!) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Upcoming merger of WPTC and other meteorology WikiProjects into WikiProject Weather

Survey

Discussions

GAR

Top 10 requested articles?

Rough plan for carrying out the merger

Discussion

Proposal #2

Task forces not being included in the WPTC template

Issue with previous newsletters

Newsletter issues

New track map generator

Merger discussion for Tropical Depression 08W (2021)

Red link categories

Merge Provisions

Provision 1

Discussion

Provision 2

Discussion

Provision 3

Discussion

Research on Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones

Merger discussion for Typhoon Morakot

WP:URFA/2020

FAs last reviewed in 2006

FAR

goodbye guys

Agencies for WPAC timelines

No longer inactive?

Track map website becoming an official generator

Draft space

Typhoon Jebi (2018) listed at Requested moves

Resuming editing

How to rank most active seasons by named storms in WPTC articles?

Draft for Josie

Undiscussed controverial page moves

Hurricane Gordon (1994) listed at Requested moves

Can you guys send me the next edition of the Hurricane Herald in my talk page?

Drop argument mess in Template:Infobox tropical cyclone current

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather § RfC: Changing the color scheme for storm colors to make it more accessible

Another WP:URFA/2020 reminder

WP:REFUND/G13

Need immediate attention

Weather FARs

FAR for Tropical Storm Allison

Subtropical Storm Ubá

Work groups

National Institute of Standards and Technology plagiarism ?

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox weather event § Contrast issues in category headers