Template:WikiProject Tropical cyclones
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Templates for discussion
- 19 Jun 2024 – Template:TyphoonWarningsTable (talk · · hist) was TfDed by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion
- 19 Jun 2024 – Template:IMDWarningsTable (talk · · hist) was TfDed by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion
- 19 Jun 2024 – Template:HurricaneWarningsTable (talk · · hist) was TfDed by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion
- 13 Jun 2024 – Template:Australian cyclone warnings table (talk · · hist) TfDed by Jonesey95 (t · c) was closed; see discussion
Featured article candidates
- 21 May 2024 – Hurricane Hilary (talk · · hist) was FA nominated by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 19 Jun 2024 – Typhoon Ewiniar (2024) (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by TheNuggeteer (t · c); start
- 07 Jun 2024 – Tropical Storm Yun-yeung (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by OhHaiMark (t · c); start
- 15 May 2024 – 1937 Pacific typhoon season (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Hurricanehink (t · c); start
- 29 Apr 2024 – 1937 Hong Kong typhoon (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Hurricanehink (t · c); start
- 17 Apr 2024 – 1876 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start
- 09 Apr 2024 – 1873 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start
- 08 Apr 2024 – 1872 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start
- 29 Mar 2024 – 1936 Pacific typhoon season (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion
Good topic candidates
- 16 Jun 2024 – 1993 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · · hist) was GT nominated by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion
The topic includes: Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season
Featured topic removal candidates
- 10 May 2024 – List of Florida hurricanes (talk · · hist) was nominated for FT removal by CosXZ (t · c); see discussion
Good article reassessments
- 16 Jun 2024 – Atlantic hurricane (talk · · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Real4jyy (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 05 May 2024 – Hurricane Isaias tornado outbreak (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Hurricane Isaias by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion
- 05 May 2024 – Effects of Hurricane Isaac in Louisiana (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Hurricane Isaac (2012) by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion
- 05 May 2024 – Effects of Hurricane Isaac in Florida (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Hurricane Isaac (2012) by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion
- 13 Apr 2024 – Cyclone Kate (2006) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to 2005–06 Australian region cyclone season by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion
- 03 Mar 2024 – Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to 2002 Atlantic hurricane season by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion
- 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to 2003 Atlantic hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion
- 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Lester (2004) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to 2004 Pacific hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion
- 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to 1997 Pacific hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion
- 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Danny (2009) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to 2009 Atlantic hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion
- 30 Jan 2024 – Hurricane Newton (1986) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to 1986 Pacific hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion
- (1 more...)
Articles for creation
- 25 Apr 2024 – Draft:Effects of Hurricane Ian in Florida (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 204.98.124.205 (t · c)
Click to watch (Subscribe via RSS Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!
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 FT
Bumping thread for 730 days. However long it takes... NoahTalk 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
What's in the topic?
Tropical cyclones in 2018 (future featured topic)
- 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
- Typhoon Shanshan
- Tropical Storm Yagi
- Tropical Storm Bebinca
- Tropical Storm Rumbia
- Typhoon Soulik
- Typhoon Cimaron
- Typhoon Jebi
- Typhoon Mangkhut
- 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
- @Hurricanehink: this spreadsheet is here if you need it. NoahTalk 20:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
@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: 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)
- 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: How should we handle this? NoahTalk 21:13, 17 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: 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)
@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)
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: 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)
- 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 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)
- @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: 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:
- Hurricane Bud (2018)
- Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season - CB has been hammering this one
- 2018 Pacific hurricane season
- Hurricane Olivia (2018) - I'm working on fixing up this storm rn
- 2018 Pacific hurricane season - I will update this article (Bud, Olivia, and ACE) after finishing Olivia
2018 Atlantic hurricane season (future featured topic)
- 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)
2018 North Indian Ocean cyclone season (future featured topic)
- @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)
2018 Pacific typhoon season (future good topic)
- 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)
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)
- I'm busy with tornado articles right now, but I'll help when I can.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:46, 5 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
FAs last reviewed in 2006
- Hurricane Iniki
- Hurricane Gloria
- Hurricane Claudette (2003)
- Hurricane Nora (1997)
- Hurricane John (1994)
- Hurricane Irene (1999)
- Hurricane Esther
- 2003 Pacific hurricane season
- 1933 Atlantic hurricane season
- Hurricane Gustav (2002)
- Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina
- Extratropical cyclone
- Hurricane Fabian
- Hurricane Edith (1971)
- Tropical Storm Bill (2003)
- Tropical Storm Henri (2003)
- 1995 Pacific hurricane season
- Hurricane Erika (2003)
- Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina
- Tropical Storm Edouard (2002)
- @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)
WPTC recruitment guidelines and concerns
While I am very happy to see our WikiProject's roster grow so much over the past, year, I am very concerned that a number of our editors are moving way too fast in recruiting new editors. Given the recent surge in disruptive or incompetent edits, as well as the disputes between newer editors that I've witnessed over the past year, I feel that all of the recruiters need to slow things down and consider the following guidelines for all future recruitments going forward:
- All new editors must display competence. They must not be a time sink or a burden on other editors. WPTC should not have to constantly monitor their edits or clean up after their mistakes. Generally, I would like to see at least 2 months of consistent editing on Wikipedia, with at least 500 edits, though 300 edits are also acceptable. But this isn't a hard rule. As long as any new editors clearly displays competence and maturity, they can join WPTC, regardless of their edit count or length of tenure. The rule of thumb is, if they're competent and mature, feel free to invite those users. If not, or, if you aren't sure, don't issue an invitation. If they haven't been on Wikipedia for long enough (or haven't made enough edits) for you to make that determination, don't invite them. Wait and see if they display the necessary competence and maturity in their edits and through their interactions with others.
- The prospective editors must display a continued interest in tropical cyclones. They must also edit consistently in the area of tropical cyclones, even if those edits come somewhat sporadically. Not just one or two edits to tropical cyclone articles, every few months or so.
- The prospective editors must display good temperament. They must not be combatative, toxic towards others, or display any other serious behavioral issues that could lead to administrative actions. If any new editors are prone to edit wars or attacking others, they should not be here.
- Lastly, inexperienced editors should not be recruiting people to WPTC. At all. Especially if they have yet to develop a satisfactory understanding of basic Wikipedia policies and WPTC practices. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The points in the list above are not set rules; they are merely a set of guidelines. I am not going to ask for the enforcement of these guidelines at this time, either. However, given the recent spree of seemingly nonchalant recruitments, I would like all of our newer recruiters on WPTC to give these guidelines a look and take them into consideration before inviting anyone else to the project. These are the guidelines that I use to determine who to invite and who not to invite (at any given time), and they've worked pretty well for me. Not one of my recruits has been blocked for disruptive editing or incompetence (so far), and none of them have "retired" within a year of their invitation. I do not intend to waste time arguing over what I've written above either. But after our recent spate of issues involving incompetence and user conduct, I would like to see us be more careful and prudent going forward. Thank you. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally, I would like to address something that I've seen regarding the names of WPTC members on our roster. Our standard practice is to only rotate names off of the active membership list and onto the inactive members list if they have not edited on tropical cyclone articles for a year, or if other evidence suggests that they have completely left Wikipedia for some time. (Not including indefinite blocks or bans, which immediate warrant moving the username onto the inactive list and striking out the username.) Otherwise, we generally retain their names on our active membership list for roughly a year following their last edit to tropical cyclone articles. I don't know whose idea it was to remove previously-active editors who have stopped editing only 1-2 months ago, but this isn't right, and it needs to stop. Unless there is clear evidence that the editor in question may have left Wikipedia completely (for example, 3–6 months with no edits anywhere), please leave their names on the roster for a full year. I know that some of the inactivity may have resulted from premature, shotgun recruitments of novice editors who may never have planned on sticking around (see the above points & guidelines for more on that), but please don't go around cutting corners. Thank you. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- @LightandDark2000: Hear, year. Regarding your second (or third) concern, some of the users I moved to inactive were the users added in August or September that made a few edits and were invited to WPTC. They added their name, but then quit editing in October. That’s why this concern is valid. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 22:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I know. But this is becoming a mess, unfortunately. My biggest concern is that unless the recruiters take the time to properly vet the new recruits (before issuing the invitations), we'll see a new surge in disruptive editing (whether or not it's intentional) and toxic interactions. I can see why you moved off some of those names, but for the more established users, we should wait a full year, unless their editing history suggests that they may have very well left Wikipedia entirely. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- @LightandDark2000: Hear, year. Regarding your second (or third) concern, some of the users I moved to inactive were the users added in August or September that made a few edits and were invited to WPTC. They added their name, but then quit editing in October. That’s why this concern is valid. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 22:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @MarioJump83, HurricaneEdgar, Shift674, and Weatherman27: since they are active recruiters. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 23:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Cyclone Toby is also an active recruiter from what I'm seeing. MarioJump83! 01:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- @MarioJump83: Thanks. Please don’t take this as an accusation or anything, recruiting new users is important for the survival of a WikiProject. What’s your take on this? ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 02:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I generally recruit to mentor them, retaining them as well as turning them around (HurricaneEdgar is the greatest example of this). To me, this guideline might push out some prospective editors that can be turned around at any given moment (generally newer ones), but can help rooting out much more problematic (and much more involved in Wikipedia politics) users out of WPTC. MarioJump83! 02:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- @MarioJump83: Thanks. Please don’t take this as an accusation or anything, recruiting new users is important for the survival of a WikiProject. What’s your take on this? ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 02:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Yea, it's a bad idea restricting who can/can't edit, and is completely antithetical to the goals of Wikipedia. People of any age can and should be able to edit. If they're having difficulty, and they are running afoul of Wikipedia's rules, then they might get warned, and eventually blocked if their behavior is disruptive. However, as Mario said above, it's best to mentor inexperienced/new users. Most people get it pretty quickly. Better to welcome everyone and hope that some of them stick around, rather than shunning some people away. Happy 2021, let's make this year even better than 2020 was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have an idea. Why not include a "partial WPTC" which users go in for a couple of weeks. If they seem to be learning well, and are behaving well, they can add their name in. This would help rule out vandals and FleurDeOdile-like users (who don't communicate, and edit war) while not discouraging good-faith ones from editing. To help the goal of the project, there would be little or no scrutiny/restrictions on these users compared to... us. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I believe that our recruiters went a little too far with adding a seven-edit JackGordean to the members list! 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Would you have wanted to be in a partial project when you first joined? Wikipedia is about everyone being allowed and able to edit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia pages, but isn't the concern about inviting inexperienced users, not stopping users from editing? Personally, I'd think anyone should be able to edit Wikipedia pages too, but, as Destroyeraa said, it's way too hasty to invite users who only made a few changes to project-related pages. This is more of a way to prevent editors who don't even work on the project that much (say, a new user who has 14 edits, 4 under WPTC's scope) from being invited to join, not a restriction on who is allowed to edit project-scope pages or who is allowed to join the project. Chlod (say hi!) 19:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, the guidelines I posted were based on vetting new potential members of WPTC, before issuing a formal invite (and even this isn't mandated, though I think it's a good idea). Not restricting editing on tropical cyclone articles in any way. You don't have to be a member of WPTC in order to edit tropical cyclone articles. (Though my personal preference is that anyone who regularly contributes to TC articles and can conduct themselves well should all be a part of our project.) And no, I don't agree with any kind of partial or stop-gap approach. BTW, concerning what Hurricanehink said on some users getting themselves blocked, I don't want to see anymore of that. Each time a good-faith editor gets themselves blocked, for whatever reason, it really hurts. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink: What we’re saying here isn’t that brand-new users who add their name here willingly and on their own will get kick-out or shunned. That is never okay and will never be accepted here on WP. What I and several other users believe is that we shouldn’t go out of our way to invite brand-new users or users that have shown an incentive to edit war or add unsourced info to WPTC. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 22:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's fair. Just be sure to be welcoming to any users who show some signs of potential. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink: Yeah, true. Most users have potential, except too-young kids (first/second grade or below) or clear vandals. @Chicdat: Autoconfirmed sounds like a good idea. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 22:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Setting a bar would be bad. It would discourage just-under-it users who are very enthusiastic about joining. And anyway, we would always be making exceptions to it. Except if the bar was very low (i.e. 4 days and 10 edits, same as autoconfirmed). But still, before I joined, I already felt like I was in the project. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's fair. Just be sure to be welcoming to any users who show some signs of potential. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink: What we’re saying here isn’t that brand-new users who add their name here willingly and on their own will get kick-out or shunned. That is never okay and will never be accepted here on WP. What I and several other users believe is that we shouldn’t go out of our way to invite brand-new users or users that have shown an incentive to edit war or add unsourced info to WPTC. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 22:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, the guidelines I posted were based on vetting new potential members of WPTC, before issuing a formal invite (and even this isn't mandated, though I think it's a good idea). Not restricting editing on tropical cyclone articles in any way. You don't have to be a member of WPTC in order to edit tropical cyclone articles. (Though my personal preference is that anyone who regularly contributes to TC articles and can conduct themselves well should all be a part of our project.) And no, I don't agree with any kind of partial or stop-gap approach. BTW, concerning what Hurricanehink said on some users getting themselves blocked, I don't want to see anymore of that. Each time a good-faith editor gets themselves blocked, for whatever reason, it really hurts. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with what is being said here regarding recruitment. I am somewhat of an active recruiter, though every single person whom I have invited has been within these guidelines. I would also like to note that I put a welcome section on their talk page when I see that someone new has joined, and that doesn't necessarily mean that I invited all of those people. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox) 22:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
2002 Pacific hurricane season timeline?
In recent days, Modokai restored a merged article Timeline of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season without telling our project about splitting. When I first caught Modokai splitting that article yesterday I reverted their edits and cautioned them about what they are doing. They told me that they aren't doing anything wrong, and I replied to them that I was just telling them to not split these articles without seeking consensus first (as well as removing the caution to assume good faith). Now they're back at it, without even searching for consensus at all. As such I had to bring this up in here (and reverting their edits once again) to prevent further edit warring and as well as seeking for the consensus by myself. Should Timeline of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season be restored? MarioJump83! 08:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- @MarioJump83: What was the rational of merging it? I'd like to see that first before making up my mind. Thanks, ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 17:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Destroyeraa, see Talk:Timeline of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season#Merge?. MarioJump83! 23:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the timeline was never completed, which is why it was merged. If Modokai wishes to split the article and complete the timeline, I don't see the issue. There's already a well-established precedent for the creation of season timelines (provided that they are comprehensive), so I don't know if there needs to be a dedicated discussion for creating a timeline for this particular season.— Iunetalk 23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Destroyeraa, see Talk:Timeline of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season#Merge?. MarioJump83! 23:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hurricane Emily (2005) Good Article Review
Hurricane Emily (2005), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 01:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Transferring JTWC Archiver archive links from 2020 over to the Internet Archive
Last year, I started archiving bulletins from the JTWC website to my personal server because I needed a reference for meteorological history while being limited by personal time constraints and JTWC's constantly-updating set of products. Because of this, I've been able to reliably keep track of every bulletin that was ever posted on the JTWC RSS feed. It's now 2021, so I've put all of the 2020 bulletins on the Internet Archive for more permanent storage. You can find the reasoning behind this, along with the links to those archives here.
For articles to be more future-proof, in a few moments, I'll be transferring links to http(s)://wiki.chlod.net/jtwc
in references over to their Internet Archive counterparts. I've been asked by JasonRees to note here the affected time periods, so I've put the following table:
Affected time periods | September 28, 2020 18:04 UTC to December 31, 2020 23:30 UTC. |
---|---|
Affected products | Archived typhoon cyclone warnings (both text and graphic), TCFAs (text and graphic), per-basin significant tropical weather advisories, and prognostic reasonings for tropical cyclone warnings. |
Affected pages | 11 pages, per AWB search for insource:"wiki.chlod.net/jtwc" in Article and Draft space.
|
Product archives will still be stored on the website for as long as possible, and won't be deleted unless I find a valid reason to. These changes are mostly for future-proofing. Please be advised. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 06:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Announcing the 2021 Cyclone Cup!
Hello fellow members of WPTC! I am announcing the Cyclone Cup, an experimental game similar to the WikiCup that all members of WPTC can participate in. In the game, participants compete against one another to rack up points by creating/promoting/reviewing articles related to the project. The goals of the game are to teach new users how to promote articles to GA, expand the scope of the project, and reduce the amount of wikiwork. The competition begins on January 20 and ends on September 1. There are four rounds and two judges.
Since the huge influx in new users and the hyperactive 2020 atl hurricane season, many articles in the scope of WPTC were created. Since now the Atl, Epac, Wpac, and NIO seasons are inactive, it is a great time to promote some of those articles to GA or FA. Expansion of those articles are needed, and can allow them to be on the DYK section of the main page.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Cyclone Cup explains the rules and scoring of the game. If you have any questions, feel free to ask below. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 19:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
UPDATE: The Cyclone Cup officially started over a day ago UTC, sorry for the late notice. Our participants so far are @Jason Rees, CodingCyclone, MarioJump83, CycloneFootball71, LightandDark2000, HurricaneCovid, and Skarmory:. Remember that you can still sign up until February 14, 2021. To the participants: Your scoring sheets are in the format Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Cyclone Cup/2021/USERNAME
. You can find them here. Happy editing! ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 13:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Questions/Comments
This seems cool, I feel like I have a better chance here than in the general WikiCup overall! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Wait, you mean this isn't a contest to create actual tropical cyclones??? *Note to self: Tell the minions in the secret lair that the #2021isworsethan2020 project is canceled* davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Davidwr: XD! No, it's a contest to write/promote TC articles. Though, there is a place where people compete to create hypothetical tropical cyclones...~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 20:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- I won't join this year.
I have too much trouble getting articles to GA.(Redacted) 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC) - (Redacted)
- @Chicdat: Are you kidding me?!? What does the later part of that second comment of yours have anything to do with this proposal?? This was completely inappropriate, especially in this discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well then. I hope you join later on.
I am planning to participate once I'm autopatrolled, which means next year or so, though if I grind this, I could make it before that.Take your GAN failures from Cyclone Owen as a learning experience, and you're going to make a jump if you do everything right. MarioJump83! 11:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I won't join this year.
This seems pretty cool, maybe it will actually inspire me enough to complete my sandbox and create an article for once. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 18:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Im interested in participating & @Chicdat: Quit moaning about Owen, follow our advice and fix it! Jason Rees (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't. I quit Owen.🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop being so personal
I have recently had to do a lot of suppressing of content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Nearly all of them have been in relation to this WikiProject. Please keep things like real names, where you live and/or go to school, and other personal information off Wikipedia. If you are an individual who has some of this information on their user page, and they would like me to remove it, please send in a request to do so or send me an email directly. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Amanda–Cristobal discrepencies
So, Cristobal's TCR clearly says it regenerated from Amanda. I believe both storms should be part of the same article - Tropical Storm Amanda–Cristobal (or whatever appropriate ndash;). That would make it a lot easier to cover the Central America impacts. The US impacts aren't so significant that they should be a separate article. I think having them together would make for a much stronger article than 2 or 3 separate articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- I moved the comments made by Hurricanehink from another section to this one. Any ideas? @Cyclonebiskit: is knowledgeable on this subject, having conversed frequently with NHC forecasters. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 20:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- I support merging both articles into "Tropical Storm Amanda–Cristobal". The NHC's TCR on Cristobal makes it crystal-clear (no pun intended) that Amanda's remnant low directly redeveloped into Cristobal. Amanda's remnant low didn't even dissipate during its trek over land. As a result, the only difference between those two storms is in name only; they are clearly one and the same. I think that we should merge both articles together. We could do it after the merger moratorium expires next month (or work to gain another exception), but either way, I feel that an article merger is appropriate down the line. The NHC has basically acknowledged that Amanda & Cristobal are the same storm. Now it's our turn to follow suit. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm meutral for now, but this would solve the issue of the impacts being split up. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose : separate TCRs, TCR of Cristobal counts the deaths separately from Amanda. Regeneration seems like a separate cyclone.—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)