Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Active discussions
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2018-05-04

WikiProject Tropical cyclones (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Articles for deletion

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Cyclone barnstar.png

WikiProject
Tropical Cyclones

WikiProject home (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32
| 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40
| 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48

Task forces

Seasons task force (talk)
Storms task force (talk)
Meteorology task force (talk)
Western Pacific task force (talk)
Eastern Pacific task force (talk)
Atlantic task force (talk)
North Indian Ocean task force (talk)
Southern Hemisphere task force (talk)
Anomalous cyclones task force (talk)
Graphics task force (talk)
2018 FT task force (talk)
Newsletter (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32
| 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40
| 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48
Project resources (talk)
Jargon (talk)
WikiProject statistics (talk)
Article requests (talk)
Cyclone Cup (talk)
Vital articles (talk)
Style guidelines (talk)
Awards (talk)

Assessment

Main assessment page (talk)
Assessment tables (talk)
Assessment log (talk)
Assessment statistics (talk)

Tropical cyclones portal

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

2018 Global FTEdit

  Bumping thread for 730 days. However long it takes... NoahTalk 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

What's in the topic?Edit

  Tropical cyclones in 2018 (future featured topic)

83 articles
  Tropical cyclones in 2018
  2018 Atlantic hurricane season
  Tropical Storm Alberto
  Hurricane Beryl
  Hurricane Chris
  Hurricane Florence
  Meteorological history of Hurricane Florence
  Tropical Storm Gordon
  Tropical Storm Kirk
  Hurricane Leslie
  Hurricane Michael
  Timeline of the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season
  2018 North Indian Ocean cyclone season
  Cyclone Sagar
  Cyclone Mekunu
  Cyclone Luban
  Cyclone Titli
  Cyclone Gaja
  Cyclone Phethai
  2017–18 South Pacific cyclone season
  Cyclone Fehi
  Cyclone Gita
  Cyclone Hola
  Cyclone Iris
  Cyclone Josie
  Cyclone Keni
  2018–19 South Pacific cyclone season
  Cyclone Liua
  2018 Pacific hurricane season
  Hurricane Bud
  Tropical Storm Carlotta
  Hurricane Hector
  Tropical Storm Ileana
  Hurricane Lane
  Hurricane Olivia
  Hurricane Rosa
  Hurricane Sergio
  Tropical Storm Vicente
  Hurricane Willa
  Tropical Depression Nineteen-E
  Hurricane Walaka
  Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season
  2017–18 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season
  Cyclone Ava
  Cyclone Berguitta
  Tropical Depression 04
  Cyclone Dumazile
  Tropical Storm Eliakim
  Cyclone Fakir
  2018–19 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season
  2017–18 Australian region cyclone season
  Cyclone Kelvin
  Cyclone Marcus
  Cyclone Nora
  18U Flood article
  2018–19 Australian region cyclone season
  Cyclone Owen
  2018 Pacific typhoon season
  Tropical Storm Bolaven
  Tropical Storm Sanba
  Tropical Storm Maliksi
  Tropical Storm Ewiniar
  Typhoon Prapiroon
  Typhoon Maria
  Tropical Storm Son-Tinh
  Tropical Storm Ampil
  Typhoon Jongdari
  Tropical Storm Yagi
  Tropical Storm Bebinca
  Tropical Storm Rumbia
  Typhoon Soulik
  Typhoon Cimaron
  Typhoon Jebi
  Typhoon Mangkhut
  Effects of Typhoon Mangkhut in the Philippines
  Tropical Storm Barijat
  Typhoon Trami
  Typhoon Kong-rey
  Typhoon Yutu
  Tropical Storm Usagi
  Tropical Storm Toraji
  Tropical Depression Josie
  Tropical Depression Usman
  Timeline of the 2018 Pacific typhoon season


  Cyclone Zorbas
  • Liua may be another possible article. NoahTalk 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: this spreadsheet is here if you need it. NoahTalk 20:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

@Hurricanehink: I thought that I would bring this rather large topic to the eyes of the project... I have worked extensively on the EPAC portion and almost have enough for an FT there. I plan to Leslie with Cooper and Gordon this summer. Any thoughts on this topic? NoahTalk 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe a global FT would only feature the seasons, as each individual season could be its own good/featured topic. As usual, WPAC is going to be the biggest holdup. Also, the retired storms will be on the difficult side. I appreciate the efforts for a global GT/FT for a year. Eventually I think that navbox could go on the talk page for Talk:Tropical cyclones in 2018. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: This is displaying all storms involved in the subtopics... there are 60 total articles, but this has multiple subtopics. That is why there is indentation for storms and then for Florence's Met. Although that could be an issue for the SHEM seasons since some storms would not qualify as part of this year, but would for other years. NoahTalk 13:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
You're right. For instance, the 2018-19 SWIO season would need to be a GA, but (thankfully) not Idai and Kenneth. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: How should we handle this? NoahTalk 21:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean handle. All storms with articles in 2018 will have to be a GA or better. It'll be a lot of work, but it'll be impressive when it's done when it gets there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: I mean how would the SHEM be handled since the entire season subtopic wouldnt get included? Should we just have the topic as it currently stands to keep it consistent? NoahTalk 17:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: All of the topics for the SHEM seasons wouldn't have to be included. For instance, Idai being a 2019 storm wouldn't have to be a GA for the overall 2018 topic. Similarly, the 2018-19 season wouldn't have to become a GT for the whole topic, but it would have to be a GA at least. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Have you seen the progress that KN has been making in WPAC? NoahTalk 16:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have! Good job KN, and good job to TY2013 for working on Usman. I might get Sagar and Mekunu to FA eventually (would just need one more FA to make that season an FT) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
No worries! Personally think that there should be an article for Tropical Depression Josie. Like even so, it seems to be more significant than Cimaron. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChocolateTrain: Would you be willing to help get the southern hemisphere up to a good quality for this topic? NoahTalk 01:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Accompanying task force hasn't been linked on this page, so here it is. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  2018 Pacific hurricane season (future featured topic)Edit

14 articles
  2018 Pacific hurricane season
 
  Hurricane Bud
  Tropical Storm Ileana
  Tropical Depression Nineteen-E
  Hurricane Walaka
  Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season
  Tropical Storm Carlotta
  Hurricane Lane
  Hurricane Rosa
  Tropical Storm Vicente
  Hurricane Hector
  Hurricane Olivia
  Hurricane Sergio
  Hurricane Willa

Any thoughts on having a 2018 Pacific hurricane season featured topic within the next few months? My goal is to rewrite Walaka on Monday/Tuesday (and put it up for ACR) to make it better. I want to later rewrite Olivia and Bud to improve them both (also ACR). CooperScience is working on the timeline article currently as well. NoahTalk 19:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm busy with Cyclone Owen now, but I'm nearly done. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chicdat: The first article is the hardest to do usually. There is no time restraint on the work. Keep in mind I have been working on this topic on and off for two years now. NoahTalk 19:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink and Chicdat: I can tell you that the topic isn't going to be happening until 2021. I actually would like to hold off on nominating it (even after the timeline is done) until I have gotten the chance to rewrite the storm articles I need to (Bud and Olivia at this point) and get them to FA. I think it would be cool to have an entirely featured featured topic going into the nomination. I really appreciate the effort everyone has put into the topic. I hope to do this prolific season due justice. Bud will be next storm I rewrite (after Leslie in ATL). I will do Olivia in December most likely. NoahTalk 23:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the entire worldwide topic should be done by 2023 (the 5 year anniversary), which will allow for a lot of TFA's. ~Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: A GT should be doable, but idk about a FT by that time. After Hector, we would need 31 more (32 if we need a couple more WPAC articles). I will continue doing EPAC FAs and move to ATL next year, but it will take more than what I am able to do to get us all the way there in only two years. NoahTalk 19:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
You're right, 11 per year is a lot. It's doable, for sure, but is probably too steep a hill. I'm already committed to Mekunu, Sagar, 2018 NIO, and Alberto. I'm interested in Yutu for the PTS. But that's only 5, and my editing time isn't what it used to be (peak 2007-08 during college, should've studied/partied more, oh well ._.) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Actually, I am going to get involved with finishing off this EPAC timeline article (I will finish August and do October). Nova has expressed interest in helping to finish it and KN may be willing to lend a hand. I do know that KN said he plans to do a bunch of PTS articles in December as he will be done with his months of exams. NoahTalk 21:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The WPAC is gonna be a majority of the remaining work, especially with needing four new articles, and improving five start-class articles. Here's hoping the tropics get quiet soon so we don't have to keep up with the busy active season! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
So the remaining nominations for the EPAC in the likely order of completion:
  1.   Hurricane Bud (2018)
  2.   Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season - CB has been hammering this one
  3.   2018 Pacific hurricane season
  4.   Hurricane Olivia (2018) - I'm working on fixing up this storm rn
  5.   2018 Pacific hurricane season - I will update this article (Bud, Olivia, and ACE) after finishing Olivia
How does this sound? NoahTalk 11:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  2018 Atlantic hurricane season (future featured topic)Edit

10 articles
  2018 Atlantic hurricane season
 
  Tropical Storm Alberto
  Hurricane Florence
  Meteorological history of Hurricane Florence
  Hurricane Leslie
  Hurricane Beryl
  Tropical Storm Gordon
  Hurricane Michael
  Hurricane Chris
  Tropical Storm Kirk
  Timeline of the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season
Adding this in as I plan to work on it during 2021. Just a heads up to everyone... Destroyeraa is working on Beryl and I am doing Leslie right now. I started on Gordon this past summer and plan to finish it in 2021. NoahTalk 22:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Beryl and Chris both up to GA. L&D2K and I will work on Florence, Noah will handle the rest? ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 03:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I will get Leslie and Gordon done. NoahTalk 21:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  2018 North Indian Ocean cyclone season (future featured topic)Edit

6 articles
  2018 North Indian Ocean cyclone season
 
  Cyclone Sagar
  Cyclone Titli
  Cyclone Mekunu
  Cyclone Gaja
  Cyclone Luban
  Cyclone Phethai
@Hurricanehink: I added this topic here as I know you plan to work on it some during the next year as time permits. I believe you said only Titli needed to be created? NoahTalk 22:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Titli created by Nioni1234 and me. I’ll try to work on it when I have time. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 18:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Adding Phethai as DachshundLover82 wanted it. MarioJump83! 12:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  2018 Pacific typhoon season (future good topic)Edit

26 articles
  2018 Pacific typhoon season
 
  Tropical Storm Bolaven
  Typhoon Prapiroon
  Tropical Storm Ampil
  Tropical Storm Yagi
  Tropical Storm Rumbia
  Typhoon Jebi
  Typhoon Trami
  Tropical Storm Usagi
  Timeline of the 2018 Pacific typhoon season
  Tropical Storm Sanba
  Typhoon Maria
  Tropical Depression Josie
  Tropical Storm Bebinca
  Typhoon Soulik
  Typhoon Mangkhut
  Effects of Typhoon Mangkhut in the Philippines
  Typhoon Kong-rey
  Tropical Storm Toraji
  Tropical Storm Ewiniar
  Tropical Storm Maliksi
  Tropical Storm Son-Tinh
  Typhoon Jongdari
  Tropical Storm Hector
  Typhoon Cimaron
  Tropical Storm Barijat
  Typhoon Yutu
  Tropical Depression Usman
Added in the WPAC topic that KN has been working hard on. Prapiroon and Barijat may also be article worthy and should be checked out. NoahTalk 22:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I am going to check Prapiroon and Barijat. I'm going to create these articles first, but if I can't find any more Prapiroon and Barijat information, they'll be merged back into the season article. MarioJump83! 06:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020Edit

Please don't archive this until the end of Cyclone Cup. This is probably very necessary for some participants out there. MarioJump83! 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 2006Edit

@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)

Upcoming merger of WPTC and other meteorology WikiProjects into WikiProject WeatherEdit

  Bumping thread for 415 days. Until after the merger process is completed LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:37, 6 April 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". NoahTalk 03:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

SurveyEdit

  • 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. MarioJump83! 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. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 (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)
  • 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. NoahTalk 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)

DiscussionsEdit

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)

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. NoahTalk 11:56, 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)
  • @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: 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |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. NoahTalk 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? 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 (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? MarioJump83! 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. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 (contribs) 23:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Forgot. MarioJump83! 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)

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. NoahTalk 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)

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)

Problematic draft management & solutionEdit

It has recently come to my attention that several of our article writers have recently experienced troubles in writing drafts for tropical cyclones. Specifically, competing drafts within the draftspace. We've had this problem before in 2017 and possibly in 2018, but never to this extent. What happened regarding the Typhoon Surigae drafts was a total mess and must not be repeated again. For each storm that gets a draft, only one draft should exist in the draftspace at any given time, any other drafts (if they exist) should be merged/redirected. The draft that is made first usually gets the deference; however, if it happens that a later draft is much more substantial or higher quality, then it should replace the earlier draft. Anyway, this is assuming that the authors were careless and failed to check for other drafts. But this cannot happen again, because not only does it force a histmerge (which requires an administrator), but it also wastes time in discussions that should be otherwise unnecessary. A histmerge will be necessary in the case of two or more competing drafts of similar quality and extensive histories; otherwise, the attributions from some authors will be lost in the published article. As such, I'm proposing the following guidelines on tropical cyclone drafts going forward:

  1. Tropical cyclone drafts on new or recent storms must remain in the userspace of the author until notability is clearly established. They should not even be moved to the draftspace until the notability requirements are met.
  2. Only ONE draft per tropical cyclone can exist in the draftspace at any given time. Check the search bar for any possible drafts on the same storm before creating/moving a draft to the draftspace. Search up different titles for the same storm. For example, for Surigae, see if drafts exist under the names of "Tropical Storm Surigae", "Tropical Storm Surigae (2021)", "Typhoon Surigae", or "Typhoon Surigae (2021)". Honestly, this shouldn't be that hard. Just keying in "Tropical Storm Sur" or "Typhoon Sur" should bring up any and all relevant drafts within the search bar. For all recent/ongoing storms, this should be mandatory.
  3. If a draft already exists in the draftspace, DO NOT create another one. Abandon the one that you were working on, and work on the existing draft instead. The only exception is if the draft in the draftspace has minimal content or editing history.
  4. In a worst-case scenario, if someone grows careless and moves a second draft to the draftspace, assuming that both drafts have a substantial amount of content and history, request a histmerge. Do this on the older draft, or the draft with a more extensive history of editing. Use a histmerge template and wait for an admin to make the histmerge. However, if one draft has much more content than the older one, the older one should be redirected into the newer one. Ideally, this step should be avoided at all possible costs, but if the worst comes to pass, then this measure should be used to deal with competing drafts.

Article-writing should not be that difficult nor nearly as much of a hassle as it has been recently. This is not intended to disrespect any of our article-writers on WPTC, but we need to do better. Please consider adhering to the guidelines above for all future storms. If there is no agreement, please note that any user has the right to enforce these measures themselves. If competing drafts show up again, they can be redirected/merged without further notice. Competing drafts will be automatically merged into the oldest draft, unless the older draft is clearly inferior to the newer one, in terms of quality. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chlod, DachshundLover82, LowercaseGuy, Super Cyclonic Storm Corona, CodingCyclone, MarioJump83, Typhoon2013, JoeMT615, and KN2731: Pinging our WPTC editors involved in writing drafts for recent storms, and also other users who may be interested in this discussion. Please leave your thoughts below, but note that we must establish a working policy for managing our drafts moving forward. Because we cannot let another mess like this happen again. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: Thanks for addressing this. I did notice that ever since late-last year there has been some users who quickly begin creating a Draft for storms, especially in the WPac. I am not someone who does begin these Drafts (since I do not know how to start those), but as per LD, in the past that should I manage to make a draft of an upcoming article of a current storm then I begin a draft in my OWN userspace. So I do notice multiple users begin a draft without other knowing or something, but I think if someone does create a draft, then they should mention it in the talk page of the season article reminding other users that a draft is formed - these are my thoughts, though. And I would like to just note that not every storm does require an article imo as sometimes storms do not really affect land, or its impacts and effects info could be fit into the storm section of the season article. I just feel like we shouldn't be TOO excited with making storm articles? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@LightandDark2000: I think it's a good suggestion, but I want to note that I rarely make drafts for recent storms, if any. MarioJump83! 06:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, would it be the worse for someone to know that their draft isn't good enough to be posted in mainspace? It would quite a way to learn their lesson. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Good and nice suggestions. It is so confusing to have two, three, or more articles to work and update at the same time, like the case of Surigae. But, I don't work for recent or upcoming storms, just past ones. LowercaseGuy chow! 07:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I like the guidelines, be sure to keep them. And yeah, Surigae was a mess. I apologize if I any editors felt I was ignoring them there, but really the argument was pointless and gave us less time to work on it, so that's why I used DL82's draft (which would've been chosen anyway according to these guidelines) when I was borught into the argument. JoeMT615 (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I like these guidelines, and thanks for addressing this. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Kinda tired of seeing drafts made for 40-minute old storms that are eventually left alone for extended periods of time. It would be better to simply update the season article until the storm is notable enough to get split, much like how all Wikipedia articles work. 🍪 Chlod (say hi!) 12:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
This makes sense. It is quite disorganized to have many drafts for one storm anyway and would require a lot of history merging when we publish. It certainly makes much more sense for 10 editors (arbitrary number) to be focusing on one draft than having them all focus on their own. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 18:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I’d like to add one proposal. For every active threatening land, there should be a link on the talk page to a draft for the storm, even if one doesn’t exist. If it turns out we don’t need it, then we can salvage whatever info was in there. More often than not, it’ll probably end up being needed (just look at all of the tropical cyclones affecting land that have articles... it’s most of them). So just like the talk pages have a link to the advisories, I think a link should also be added for something like- Draft:Tropical Storm Ida (2021). This will hopefully encourage people to develop the draft before making a sandbox in user space. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree with @Chlod:, we should just have coverage begin at the season article and split it off when the time comes. This whole competing draft thing was a mess and could be damaging in the case of rapidly moving storms.--🌀Kieran207-talk🌀 01:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Merging articlesEdit

@Hurricane Noah, LightandDark2000, JoeMT615, Supportstorm, Jasper Deng, ChessEric, Gummycow, AC5230, Super Cyclonic Storm Corona, Aegeou2, Skarmory, KN2731, Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricaneboy23, CycloneFootball71, AveryTheComrade, CodingCyclone, Chicdat, Jason Rees, Doge1941, DachshundLover82, JavaHurricane, Nova Crystallis, HurricaneCovid, Drdpw, OrzonYT, StormedEditor, and Luke Kern Choi 5: Following the precedent set by Amanda and Cristobal, what about merging other pairs/groups of articles that share the same impacts? The most notable cases of such are Alma-Arthur and Ingrid-Manuel, and I think that Alma's and Arthur's articles would benefit a lot from it, possibly giving them the necessary push for their FA status. Manuel and Ingrid are a slightly different case, but they mention each other a lot throughout their own articles, even more than Alma and Arthur does and Amanda and Cristobal did before the merging, indicating that they also share a lot of info that could be better condensed into a single entity. What are your opinions? ABC paulista (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I could support a merger for Alma and Arthur along the same lines, but I wouldn't support a merger for Ingrid and Manuel. Alma and Arthur are closely-related and do share a meteorological history (though not to the same degree as Amanda & Cristobal), but Ingrid and Manuel were two completely separate systems with no shared MH whatsoever. I think that we can merge articles for storms with a shared MH (especially if they had overlapping impacts in the same regions), but if the storms aren't related by MH, then I don't think that there should be a merger. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I would support Tropical storms Alma and Arthur, but LightandDark2000 is right, and Ingrid/Manuel does not share impacts. But don't go too overboard with it, or it'll end up like last time. (We all remember that, don't we?) 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
They both affected Guerrero, Veracruz and Sinaloa simultaneously, so yeah, they did share impacts. ABC paulista (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral on Merging Alma & Arthur, Strongly Oppose Merging Ingrid and Manuel – I could accept a merger for Tropical Storms Alma & Arthur on the grounds of quality and coverage, especially since the storms had a shared MH and overlapping impacts. However, since Alma and Arthur are not a case of a direct regeneration (because Alma's remnant low merged with a tropical wave before regenerating into Arthur), and I'm hesitant to merge those articles, since I'm not certain if we should merger articles for storms that aren't direct regenerations. I personally feel that we should reserve these mergers for storms that are direct regenerations of each other, but if we will have difficulty fully covering the impacts in two articles otherwise, then I will support a merger for Alma and Arthur. However, I strongly oppose a merger for Ingrid and Manuel. Those storms had no meteorological relation to each other at all. I don't think that having shared impacts alone is enough to justify an article merger. The storms should also have a shared MH, at the very least before we consider merging their articles. I don't think that any storms without at least a related MH should have their articles merged together. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – So, what about the cases where the sytems share a meteorological history, but not the impacts? Should they be merged or kept separated? There are some cases similar to Amanda and Cristobal, but I don't remember any case of both iterations becoming notable enough warrant their own articles, and I'm not sure if the existing articles would benefit from the inclusion of info about their less-notable iteration. ABC paulista (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • This one is a little trickier to me. I mean, if we want to go all-in and include everything then sure, we could merge all of those as well. As of right now though, I think that we should merge only the ones that have articles for both phases of the storm (or all three, in the case of Katrina–Victor–Cindy). I think Hurricanehink has some excellent thoughts on which one of those should be merged. If I recall correctly, he was in favor of merging only those in which both cases of any given crossover had their own articles (and I think he also wanted overlapping impacts as well). I'd personally like to merge all of the cases with a shared MH (at least, for the cases that are clearly direct regenerations), but I don't think that this approach would gain consensus at this time. We may have a few other cases similar to Amanda & Cristobal out there, with a shared MH and overlapping impacts, if we were to use such a narrow scope for merging, but as far as I'm aware, we do not have that many out there. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Throughout these recent debates, I've seen some people using the "shared MH" argument, but it was never defined on what exactly it means, and it should be narrowed down on what cases could be considered as such, otherwise even common cases like systems forming from the same tropical wave, or moonsoon through, could be considered to "share the same MH". ABC paulista (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Matmo and Bulbul clearly shared the same MH. Some Atlantic storms that later became EPAC storms could be argued to have shared a history, like Earl and Frank in 2004, but the difference here is that Frank wasn’t article worthy, and there were no shared impacts. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, what does "sharing the same MH" actually means? If that's gonna be the main valid argument for the merging, at least it should have some concrete meaning. ABC paulista (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The end of one storm’s net history leads directly into another one. This wouldn’t apply to Ingrid and Manuel, which were simultaneous storms, but would apply to Matmo-Bulbul, Alma-Arthur, and others. We could merge some ATL/EPAC storms if we follow this too closely, but if the storm in the one basin didn’t affect land, and it already has a comprehensive section in the season article (as with Frank in 2004), then there isn’t a need for a merger. Having them together makes sense when the MH and impacts are shared. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hurricanehink mobile, and in what cases your criteria would consider to be a "direct" one, and what would be "indirect"? The way I understand, even intrabasin cases like Hurricane Grace and 1991 Perfect Storm should be merged, right? ABC paulista (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The Perfect Storm formed before Grace dissipated, so no, that’s not an example. I’m talking cases where one storm forms, dissipates, and the remnants become another storm, like Amanda-Cristobal, Alma-Arthur. Normally within the same basin, it keeps the same name, like Dean/Erin 01, Ivan 04. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hurricanehink mobile, Alma wouldn't keep its name even if no basin-crossing was involved, since its remnants merged with tropical waves around it before Arthur formed, on a similar process that separated Tropical Depression Ten from Hurricane Katrina, or Typhoon Nuri from November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone. Also, Grace/Perfect Storm is also similar to them because Perfect Storm's tropical transition only happened after Grace's remnants merged with the Nor'easter, on a similar way of how Alma's remnants merged with previously existing meteorological features to spawn Arthur. ABC paulista (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
At no point in Alma's history was Arthur active, so it's a natural progression going from one storm to the other. Ditto TD 10 to Katrina. And yea, I think Nuri and the Bering Sea cyclone should be merged, since you can't tell the story of one without the other. As for Grace and the Perfect Storm, IDK, they were simultaneous storms, not one storm leading to another. That being said, I could see merging Grace. It is the 24th shortest featured article on Wikipedia, and its lead starts with "Hurricane Grace was a short-lived Category 2 hurricane that contributed to the formation of the powerful 1991 Perfect Storm." It's clearly linked to the Perfect Storm, so I wouldn't be opposed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hurricanehink, Grace merged with the Nor'easter on October 30, and the Perfect Storm only transitioned on October 31, 1 day after Grace's dissipation, so technically they weren't simultaneous as (sub)tropical cyclones. Unless if you're counting its previous extratropical existance as the Nor'easter, then they could be considered simultaneous, but then it would also make sense to consider Alma and Arthur as simultaneous occurences since the tropical wave that formed into Arthur existed at the time that Alma was active. ABC paulista (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

True, are you saying they should be merged? Or are you trying to clarify the nature of having some consistent set of rules? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hurricanehink, I'm looking for setting the rules. Even if some case-to-case analysis would continue to be necessary, it's still important to define on what would be the elegibility criteria for these merging, and how that should be done (article title, infobox, MoS, etc.) ABC paulista (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The rule should be that storms with a shared met history and impacts should have the same article. The Perfect Storm/Grace would fall into the case-by-case rule, since it's an unusual scenario, and the storms don't directly lead to one another. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Hurricanehink, again, what could be considered to be a "direct leading"? Where do we draw the line? And what would be the main criteria: MH or impacts, or both would have the same weight on this decision? ABC paulista (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Few storms have any kind of shared met history, that's why I don't think we need to draw the line so firmly in black sharpie, and instead treat them on a case by case basis. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hurricanehink, I don't think I agree. Based on this list, that only considers Atl-Epac crossovers and no either intrabasin or other crossover cases, I firmly believe that there are enough cases to warrant some form of criteria or guidelines. ABC paulista (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record this, this is how I think we should define storms that have a "shared MH:"1) storms that play a direct role in the regeneration/formation of the other storm, OR 2) storms that directly contribute to the formation of another storm. And 3) Both storm cannot have ever existed simultaneously in any shape or form. Regarding what makes a pair of cyclones "the same storm," any storm that directly regenerates into another storm (directly from the remnant low and/or the remnant circulation, so no mergers or splits of any kind) are the same storm, IMO, and should probably be merged in every one of those "same storm regeneration" cases in which both phases have (or will likely have) their own articles. I won't push for this at this time, though. Under this criteria, Amanda/Cristobal could be considered the same weather system (regardless of how the NHC defines whether or not they are the exact same tropical cyclone), and Matmo-Bulbul would also qualify as the same storm. Ten-Katrina and Alma-Arthur would count as related, but NOT the same storms. However, by this same criteria, storms like Grace & Twelve (Perfect Storm) and Ingrid & Manuel WOULD NOT count as being related meteorologically. This is how I think we should determine whether or not a pair of storms should be treated as "the same" or "a related pair of storms". As for whether or not we should merge each pair of "same storm regenerations" and "related pairs", I personally feel that we should only merge storms that were "direct regenerations" in which both phases of the storm warrant their own articles. However, in cases in which there are plenty of overlapping impacts, I could also accept a case or merging articles for pairs of meteorologically-related storms, if such a merger would significantly improve the prospects of getting the new article to GA or FA status; I can potentially support a merger for Alma & Arthur under these conditions. At the very least, we should start with merging all articles for pairs of storms that were both "the same regenerated storm" (as defined earlier) AND had overlapping impacts in the same areas. This is what I think we should do. As for merging other articles, I don't think we should even consider merging articles for pairs of storms that were not actually meteorologically-related to each other (also as defined earlier). However, for the other storms with both a related MH (broader definition, including cases that weren't direct regenerations, like Alma & Arthur) and overlapping impacts, we should consider merging those based on the benefits to both the quality of the merged article and our ability to get them promoted to GA & FA status. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

LightandDark2000, that's not exactly the point. I'm not looking to define how should we treat related cyclones (it's not our attribution to do so, and overrule official, third-party sources over our own criteria is WP:OR. We, as tertiary sources, only follow their statements), but to seek a methodology, a criteria on how to define what cases would benefit from merging. Looking at Amanda's and Cristobal's discussion history, although initially they were merged for being very closely related to one another, most of the users there seem to defend the merging mostly based on their shared impacts, which seems me that, for this process in particluar, sharing impacts have more weight on these kind of decisions than being meteorologically related. I've also seen notability and relevance being used as arguments for similar discussions, so, before starting any merging process, I think we should define first what should be taken into consideration for these cases. ABC paulista (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning support merging Alma and Arthur, Oppose merging Ingrid and Manuel Per LightandDark2000. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 (contribs) 22:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merging Alma and Arthur, Neutral on Ingrid and Manuel Alma and Arthur merged would create a better article with more coverage, I don't believe it's necessary for Ingrid and Manuel.--🌀Kieran207-talk🌀 01:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As someone who wrote the Manuel article back in the day, it's impacts are separate enough from Ingrid that I don't support a merger. Even the Alma-Arthur merger seems a stretch for similar reasons. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Yellow Evan, so, what's your opinion on the merging of Amanda's and Cristobal's articles? I don't remember you taking part on that discussion, and I'm curious about your opinions. ABC paulista (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Extensive and prolific copyright issuesEdit

Hello! I am not a WPTC editor, but I have been advised by WPTC members on this matter. Recently, some concerns about extensive copyright violations (copyvio) have been brought up off-wiki in both the Wikimedia Discord and in the WPTC Discord. I, and a few other members, have investigated and found enough evidence to raise suspicions of regular copyright violations and documented them in my userspace onwiki (table posted here as well). As this issue does not seem to have a pattern of abuse between consistent members but instead seem like AGF misunderstandings of copyright (which is understandable, this stuff is hard), no blocks will be issued for copyright violation (as what was told to me by a copyright-focused admin). Since a mass quantity of articles will go under review, I feel it is necessary to notify the project of such activities.

Currently, I have reason to believe that pre-2015 Western Pacific basin articles have the most copyvio, but there may be some recent articles with copyvio. Therefore, I want to do a full review of the WPac season and its cyclone articles for copyvio sourced off-wiki. I ask for your thoughts, cooperation, and possible assistance once your local season dies down.

Another issue I want to at least make note of as a reminder/warning is to follow attribution per (Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). This is fairly common, as information is split off of season articles from what I understand. This is not as noticeable as a direct copy and paste, but these improperly attributed nowiki splits and merges violate the dual licensing of Wikipedia. Basically, if there is any other major contributor (formatting, spellchecking, and the likes is NOT major, I consider copyediting for readability to be major though) besides yourself, provide attribution. Since this just happened recently, I ask for a cease and desist of this behavior (copying within Wikipedia without attribution). Further concerns about this include improper draft merging, which may not be a frequent problem but is a potential nonetheless. Normal users can fix copyvio from elsewhere. Admins are the only ones who can fix complex cases that require history merges.

I'm sorry if I come off as curt; copyright matters to me as much as proper documentation of cyclones does to you guys. Again, this is not an attack, accusation, or aspersion towards any current contributor. This is noting that there is a chance of extensive copyvio in all content and a review needs to take place, and current merging and splitting attribution is not taking place consistently. Thank you in advance, Sennecaster (What now?) 02:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Table for reference and all fully checked seasons
WPac
Article Diff Source Foundational fixed
Tropical Storm Jebi (2013) 586291293 TP  Y  Y
Typhoon Bopha 526001926 526489543  Y  N  Y
Cyclone Helen (2013) 582829207 [1]  N  Y
Cyclone Lehar 583478674 [2]  N  Y
  Cyclone Sagar 842001691 [3]  Y  Y
Cyclone Amphan 959367375 [4]  N  Y
Typhoon Haishen multiple, including 1007042154, 1007041551, 1007042372 [5]  N  Y
Typhoon Molave 986581657 [6]  N  Y
  Hurricane Lenny Unimportant [7] ref is copyvio ?  Y
2019 Pacific typhoon season 877250632 [8]  N  Y
Typhoon Wutip (2019) 916735624 [9] [10]  N  N
2004 Pacific typhoon season, Tropical Storm Merbok (2004) 52311778, 1008241513 [11]  N,  Y  N
2004 Pacific typhoon season, Typhoon Aere (2004) 52237820, 63142745 [12]  N,  Y  N
2004 Pacific typhoon season, Tropical Depression Winnie 52312197, 363384855 [13]  N,  Y  N
2004 Pacific typhoon season 52666320 [14]  N  N

For seasons with all subpages clean of copy-pasted material.  signifies that the season article has no copyright violations.

WPac
NAtl
Nota bene: readers would be well-advised to remember that WP:CCI people, for whatever reason, use  N to mean "everything is fine, no violation" and  Y to mean "there is a copyright violation here". jp×g 02:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that's an exception here.  N and  Y really means what they mean in this case. Chlod (say hi!) 02:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Co-signing this to confirm that Sennecaster didn't drag my signature into this without permission. Chlod (say hi!) 02:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Personally I am astonished at the fact that this is happening. I have never noticed any copyright banners on articles (except the occasional one on Tropical cyclones in India), but now I am seeing many. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have cleared out all but 3 of the listed copyvios. A few escaped complete razing, but yes, there was direct copy paste in many instances that had to go. After the initial batch is done, I am going to move all of the heavy record-keeping to my sandbox from hereon to properly review this project in its entirety. I am sorry for even having to do this in the first place. I will be keeping an eye on this project as the seasons develop, but I do hope I never have to do this again to WPTC. Please take what I say about licensing and copyright to heart, because you guys have a great project going and I loathe to destroy it like I am. Happy stormwatching, Sennecaster (What now?) 03:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Correction; 5 are left, but they are nasty and involve whole season pages and DISASTROUS merge/splitoffs. I'll deal with those tomorrow with the little remaining sanity I have from the rest of the copyvios on enwiki as a whole. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm interested in joining this effort, and stop this mess we're in, but unfortunately I'm very busy. I'll start off by checking on my own article, Tropical Storm Brendan (1991), especially in the Impacts section, given I don't have enough time to work on it. MarioJump83! 05:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Outdated map and how to handle theseEdit

So, I've noticed that File:2021 Pacific typhoon season summary.png does not display the recent track of Typhoon Surigae. I can't fix this though as the script mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks has too many dependencies and doesn't work. I see someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks already noted that the script/tool is not intuitive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I noticed this too, maybe the creator of the map should be notified?--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 (Formerly Kieran207) 18:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    Honestly, I'd love if there was a simpler tool to make these. This one is far too complicated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    OK, since this thing doesn't work for me no matter what we'll probably need to ask someone who has used it in the past. @Cyclonebiskit:? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Windward IslandsEdit

I have been creating a draft for hurricanes in the Windward Islands and I have been including information for effects on Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago. However, some people do not think that Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago are part of the Windward Islands. Should I keep this info for Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados, or should I delete it? Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 22:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cyclone Toby: Before I say anything, it is good to see you again. I saw you took a semi-wikibreak, hope everything's well. Now, in regards to the draft, looks good so far, I think it would be best to keep, because according to this, Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados are apart of the Windward Islands. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 23:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I would personally object to you guys using the Hurricanes in the Windward Islands title as it has a double meaning and would probably be redirected off to Tropical cyclones in French Polynesia.Jason Rees (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: What would the title be then? I'm quite sure that most people would not be looking for "Hurricanes in the Islands of Barlovento", and I'm not sure of what else to put in there for it not to be confused with French Polynesia. Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 00:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cyclone Toby: Whats the problem with either going by island nation/country name or using the Lesser Antiles?.Jason Rees (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
There’s a lot of overlap... Granted we already have List of Barbados hurricanes. Considering their isolation, maybe it’s ok for it and T&T to have separate lists from Windwards. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
There is always going to be a lot of overlap between several of these lists for example any system that impacts Northern Vanuatu would impact the Solomon Islands. However, the general purpose of these lists is to document the broader impacts a system has had on the area and highlight significant systems, which it can't if we are randomly merging them all together. For example, Namu had a significant impact on the Solomon Islands but not Vanuatu.Jason Rees (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Vanuatu is about the same size as the Windwards though. It’s not randomly merging, there’s a clear geographic basis. Having one for each island means it’s more likely that it will fall out of date. Also, we might not always have records that every island was affected by a given storm, particularly for older storms. A hurricane might pass by Barbados, and given a hurricane’s size and the small area we’re talking, it most definitely also affected the other nearby islands. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Im sorry Hink but it feels like a random grouping since it would be like me merging, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia into one list. We also have to bear in mind that I could in theory claim the Hurricanes in the Windward Islands for French Polynesia or any other group of islands like Hawaii, which is why i don't think it's the right title.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly it might be more useful as the Lesser Antilles. Dominica is close by, and most storms that affect the Windward Islands and Barbados are also affecting St Kitts and Nevis. Ideally the list could mention affects on each island, which could be the basis down the line for storm lists in each individual island. I don’t think that should be a short term focus though. Just getting the entire territory done would be a big help for this part of the world. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink mobile, Hurricanehink, and Hurricane Noah: I definitely could do the Lesser Antilles. However, because of their proximity down south near warm waters where the hurricanes rapidly intensify, there are many, many storms that hit every year, like Florida. So, if we are going to do Hurricanes in the Lesser Antilles, I would suggest we divide it into time periods (2000-present, 1975/1950-1999, etc...). Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 01:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Yea, going by time period but for the whole Lesser Antilles would be more useful IMO. But I don't wanna force anyone to do anything. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Lorenzo (2019) listed at Requested movesEdit

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Lorenzo (2019) to be moved to Hurricane Lorenzo. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Tropical cycloneEdit

We are going to need some assistance with working on Tropical cyclone this summer. There's a lot that needs to be done to improve the article. NoahTalk 18:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone deliver the newsletter!Edit

(edit conflict) The newsletter should have been delivered yesterday. Our usual deliverer, MarioJump83, is too busy. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

CCI NoticeEdit

Hello, WikiProject Tropical cyclones. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. Sennecaster (What now?) 01:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane HuntersEdit

Many storm articles contain a mention of the work of Hurricane Hunters. This link is actually a redirect to Hurricane hunters which is, in effect, a disambiguation article, covering both NOAA Hurricane Hunters and similar flights by other organisations. Is there any easy way to tell whether the links to Hurricane Hunters refer specifically to the NOAA flights (so the links could be made more precise), or to any other specific type of hurricane-observing flights? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: The storm articles you refer to would generally be the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific systems, which would not always be able to distinguish between NOAA and USAF. It might be better if we merged NOAA Hurricane Hunters and the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron into the article and renamed the article to something like Aeroplane Weather reconaseance missions since tropical cyclones are not unique in being flown into on a regualr basis.Jason Rees (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Tropical cyclones".