Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/Tables

SHEM articles

First, given that the SHEM articles are in the process of being split up, should the tables be split up here as well? That is, list as far back as we will go with the season articles, and put the storm articles under those section. Is that fine? That creates a problem with the South Atlantic, as Catarina is included there. We have a few options. Should we put South Atlantic tropical cyclones in a sub-category in the Atlantic hurricanes section? Should South Atlantic tropical cyclones have their own section entirely? Lastly, should we even include South Atlantic tropical cyclones in this page at all? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, South Atlantic tropical cyclones can be included here. Add another section, they are unique from all the rest. List South Atlantic tropical cyclone, Cyclone Catarina and any others. RaNdOm26 11:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that those are the only two, and neither relate to an official WMO agency. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We have the article on the SAtl TCs and the article on Catarina. That's all that is needed - seasonal mention of Catarina are inappropriate. As for this page just list Catarina in its own section corresponding to User:Nilfanion/Directory/Storms/SAtlantic-Nilfanion (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Paint it blue!

There are a ton of GA's out there, but we have an extremely low number of A-class articles. If you see a GA that particularly stands out, or one that you'd like to see it on FAC someday, feel free to change it to A-class. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I will asses some of the articles that failed FAC as A class.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they were on FAC, that doesn't mean they should be A-class. A-class should be for GA articles that go above and beyond. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody see if they think Carrie 72 is up to par for A-Class? I recently got it up to GA, and I think it's one of my best articles personally. Juliancolton (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You should check your watchlist from before Darren's spamfest. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bah, see, the task forces are already causing confusion... Juliancolton (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Once they're all implemented it will be much simpler. It's just a momentary chaos, like the carmageddon. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Table for SWio basin

Since last year, the MFR starts to not rename cyclones which enters the basin from the AusR basin. So, I added AusR cyclones that enter the SWio basin in the SWio Table (if really agreed). Also since this year, Bakung entered the SWio basin as a 'remnant low' or 'Remnant Low 03'...do we need to add Bakung to the SWio table? Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it should only be the letters from storms the MFR named. It's like Atlantic. If there was a crossover storm, it would be listed in the Atlantic but not EPAC, which is fine. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. But are you sure? Since MFR also designated those systems which came from the AusR basin. For example, 2014's Kate was 04R and 2013's Bruce was 03R. And this is the same as the WPac basin too (with only numbers though). Typhoon2013 (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The tables are there for organization purposes. Having additional columns and numbers defeats the simple alphabetical system. I suppose we could switch to number based going back to ~2000 (when they switched from letters to numbers), but afiak Bruce is the only storm that wasn't named by MFR that got an article (and that appears in AUS anyway). I'd feel differently if there was a TD that got an article but wasn't named, but that hasn't happened. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)