Open main menu

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Girth Summit 157 2 1 99 04:54, 26 October 2019 2 days, 17 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 10:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Trajectory mapsEdit

¿Cómo puedo crear un mapa de trayectoria como este? how can i create a trajectory map like this?: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel1779 (talkcontribs) 04:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Dorian outbreakEdit

Do you think it would be worth making a separate article for Dorian's outbreak? I heard reports of 24+ tornadoes. NoahTalk 22:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: as of right now there's no need. The tornado information can be sufficiently contained in the monthly tornado list: List of United States tornadoes in September 2019. Just needs a "see also" link to the page in the impact section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I do think we will need one for Canada's impact though. NoahTalk 22:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Patricia scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the Meteorological history of Hurricane Patricia article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 20, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 20, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, saying "Hurricane Patricia of October 2015 was one of the most intense hurricanes we've ever seen. On October 23, Hurricane Hunters observed record-shattering winds and one of the lowest sea-level pressures in the world. The storm packed maximum sustained winds of 215 mph (345 km/h), a value equivalent to an EF5 tornado. Thankfully, Patricia weakened as dramatically as it intensified as it made landfall in a sparsely populated area of Western Mexico, preventing a worst-case scenario catastrophe. Meteorologically speaking, Patricia was an incredible storm that will be the subject of journal articles for years to come." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:2019 Atlantic hurricane season summary map.pngEdit

Hello Cyclonebiskit, I would like to inform that Tropical Storm Gabrielle and Tropical Depression Nine aren't shown completely or shown on this track map. If you could update it that would be appreciated! From, Purplemountainman (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Purplemountainman: map is updated now~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: Could you update Humberto and possibly Ten and Ingrid? Purplemountainman (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: Could you update Tropical Storm Karen and Hurricane Lorenzo on this file? Thank you. Purplemountainman (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


As far as I am aware, Dorian's official track will end on September 10 because the original circulation died and transferred to another center (At least the OPC suggests this). I haven't seen anything to suggest the storm is still active (officially). There is this, but it is not official in the least. Should the dissipation date be kept as September 10? NoahTalk 03:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Dorian dissipated on September 10. A new low formed to the northeast and became the dominant system. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
In that case, could you please revert LightAndDark’s changes on the main article? NoahTalk 04:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


I get that when i edit things, that i dont add sources( mainly because i don't know how to on this cite), but that doesn't give you the right to just delete the edits. I edit wiki pages because i want them to be updated not to give wrong information. Instead of deleting edits, add sources for the edits for people like me that don't know how to add sources. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kade Ydstie45: I hope I didn't come off as rude with that revert as that wasn't my intention. Part of writing on Wikipedia is including verification for your edits. The burden is on the editor to include the appropriate sources. It's alright if you don't know how to put together a full citation. You can simply place <ref> before the url and </ref> after the url to create a basic citation like this: <ref></ref>. This will allow other editors to verify the information you've included and someone else can fill out the citation for you. Hope this helps! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: Thank you for the information about how to add citations to my edits. Its going to help me in the future and i hope to see you around in the previously edited page!

Disambiguation link notification for September 15Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of United States tornadoes from June to August 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springfield, New Jersey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN Trump impeachmentEdit

Thanks for the detailed summary of your rationale for posting this item to ITN. These contentious noms, that always helps.

Cheers, --LaserLegs (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Michael TrackEdit

Hey CB, I need your input about how to handle Michael. I'm sticking to the rule about leaving out non-synoptic points to make the tracks consistent. The event that a storm hits peak intensity in between the 6 hours is unfortunate but is not really an excuse to be inconsistent in representing the data. In the case of Andrew you opted to follow that rule, but not Michael. I've hit my third revert and got no response on the project talk page so I would like if I could get your thoughts. Supportstorm (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Supportstorm: In the case of Michael, I included the asynoptic point as it's only 30 minutes off from the synoptic one and is of major importance. A note is included in Michael's article to address this difference. It's a unique case among the tracks given the brevity of its Cat 5 tenure and how close the peak is to a synoptic point while not being at that point. In Andrew's case, the asynoptic point is square between 06 and 12z (09:05z) and would be a jarring replacement point. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I get that being close to a synoptic point would make it tempting to just accept it as one. And that it depicts a category 5 intensity. However this makes the track inconsistent from the others and would need a note in the map description stating what is changed similar to the article. This annoys me, admittedly, but the community seems to want it. Thanks for your feedback. Supportstorm (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Supportstorm: after all the nonsense with Lorenzo's track, I've changed my mind about this. Having this kind of an outlier, as tempting as it is, only opens up pandora's box. Notes can be used to mention the peak was asynoptic and not shown while keeping the tracks standardized. I've gone ahead and changed all of Michael's tracks (individual, season, Cat 5, and retired) to reflect HURDAT. Hopefully this will quell things in the future. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Supportstorm: also, when you have time can you update the WPac track documentation? I haven't kept up this year and all of my files are woefully outdated. Thanks in advance! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Notes are going to be useful if you want to go that route. I imagine that there will be a few users that are upset about the change. When I uploaded the corrected Lorenzo track I got pinged in the project IRC and was hated on a fair amount. And the revert war that followed was annoying. As for track data in the WPac, I've been slacking, I only have data until the start of September. Been busy with college things, but I try to get that data up for ya sometime soon. Supportstorm (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019Edit


Do you happen to know what road this is in this picture?: File:April 14, 2012 Marquette, Kansas EF4 tornado.JPG Thanks 420Traveler (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi 420Traveler, just happened across this and figured I'd help out. That photo appears to show K-4 looking west. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Juliancolton: Thank you so much for that, I was wondering so I can add it to a Kansas highway article if it was a picture of one. I will add it to the K-4 article. Thanks 420Traveler (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yungoos and Gumshoos.pngEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Yungoos and Gumshoos.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple thingsEdit

I have been quite busy with my workload over the last couple of months. I will be able to work on Willa tomorrow and Friday for sure. Willa should get a 20-40k update or so soon. I will have HH handle the implementation and merging of the history when he puts his content in. Also, seems like Imelda might be ripe for retirement since AON listed it as ≥2 billion. I do note that a ≥7 billion typhoon won't be retired since it hit Japan. NoahTalk 01:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: sorry for the late reply. No worries on being busy, real life always comes first  . Hard to say if Imelda will actually get retired, the damage is rather localized (NCEI, which the NHC will go off of, places it at ≥$1 billion) and there were only 5 deaths. Typhoons that only hit Japan never get retired since Japan doesn't use the international names, they just use the numbers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Cyclonebiskit".