Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

Goals for 15th year anniversary of the WPTC

Several users discussed above about organizing the project into more task forces. That is a worthy effort, but we need to think longer term. I think it would be nice to update the project goals, especially since we have our 15 year anniversary as a project coming up. It could be a good way to engage editors. Feel free to add other long term goals. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

We had better get to work soon on this... just 5 months and 17 days to go (someone else do the minutes and seconds)! 🐔Chic dat ^ChickenDatabase 11:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Every retired tropical cyclone worldwide to good article status

31.7% complete

Below are retired storms around the world (sans SPAC, which someone else can add in because it's rather time consuming to add). I believe this should be a long-term project goal

Retired Atlantic hurricane names

44.8% complete

List of retired Atlantic hurricane names

87 articles

Goals

Nominate articles for FA for eventual featured topic (need 28 - currently 17/89)

Start with GA/A class retired storms, such as Audrey, Bob, Carla, Edna, Erika, Igor, Inez, Keith, Klaus

Improve remaining articles to good article status or better (need 50 - 39/89)
Anticipate the addition of future retired storms
Maintain/improve current GA that might be subject to a future GA assessment

Retired Atlantic Hurricanes Discussion

I plan on doing Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Camille, and Hurricane Otto this year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll do Hurricane Florence. -- Java Hurricane 16:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm working on Hurricane Fran. :) CodingCyclone (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Retired Pacific hurricanes (good topic)

Goals

Maintain current articles
Anticipate the addition of future storms
Improve Manuel and Iwa to featured status for a featured topic

Retired Pacific typhoon names

55.6% complete

List of retired Pacific typhoon names

54 articles

Goals

Maintain/improve current articles
Anticipate the addition of future retired storms

Retired Australian region cyclone names

46.6% complete

List of retired Australian region cyclone names

58 articles

Ada

Fay

Ita

Joy

Lam

Lua

Sam

Sid

Goals: Create articles for the multiple retired storms without articles; Improve remaining articles to GA

Retired South Pacific cyclone names

19.4% complete

List of retired South Pacific cyclone names

98 articles

Agatha

Alison

Ami

Anne

Atu

Bebe

Beni

Beti

Betsy

Bob

Bola

Carlotta

Charles

Cilla

Cliff

Daman

Diana

Drena

Eric

Esau

Evan

Fay

Fran

Frank

Gavin

Ian

Ima

Ivy

Kina

Keli

Kim

Lili

Lisa

Lottie

Lusi

Marion

Mark

Martin

Mick

Meli

Meena

Namu

Nancy

Olaf

Ofa

Oli

Oscar

Pat

Pam

Peni

Percy

Prema

Raja

Rewa

Robert

Ron

Rosie

Sally

Sina

Susan

Tahmar

Tia

Tina

Tomas

Tusi

Ula

Ului

Uma

Val

Vania

Vivienne

Veena

Wasa

Wally

Waka

Wendy

Wilma

Winston

Yasi

Zoe

Goals: Create articles for the multiple retired storms without articles; Improve remaining articles to GA

Improve season articles worldwide to good article status

Extended content

Atlantic

Since 2000

100% complete

Perfect!

Since 1950

100% complete

Awesome!

Since 1900

94.2% complete

7 articles that are not good articles (1908, 1915, 1916, 1931, 1932, 1937, 1944)

Since 1800

77.8% complete

Might need to create additional season articles for the early 1800s (currently listed as decades)

EPAC

Since 2000

40% complete

12 articles remaining (2000, 2001, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2019)

Since 1950

37.1% complete

There's a lot of here.

Since 1900

31.8% complete

Copies of 1939 Pacific hurricane season (essentially all articles before 1942 Pacific hurricane season, except 1939 of course) needs to be GA, and so are decade articles.

WPAC

Since 2000

10% complete

18 articles remaining

Since 1950

12.9% complete

Is there any love for WPac?

Since 1900

16.1% complete

Need to create 33 more season articles

NIO

Since 2000

30% complete

14 articles remaining

Since 1950

26.7% complete

Need to create 10 more season articles

SHEM

Since 1999/2000

18.3% complete

49 articles remaining

Since 1949/50

15.2% complete

Need to create 10 more season articles in SWIO
Need to create 30 more season articles in AUS
Need to create 29 more season articles in SPAC

Discussion

I plan to split 1925-1941 Pacific hurricane seasons (these are what "Might need to create additional season articles for the early 1900s" is about), 1960s AUS and as well as the whole of 1960s SPAC (including 1958-59 and 59-60 seasons - i already discussed this with Hurricanehink) into new articles. Meanwhile, i will tell that Chicdat is going to make the remaining 1900s AHS articles into GA. SMB9 9thx my edits 07:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I think 1950s individual season articles for NIO, SWIO, AUS and SPAC to be unrealistic as there is not enough information (I agree with Jason Rees about 1950s). Reason why I started drafts about 1950 and 1951 NIO season articles is because there are tracks on Wikimedia Commons for individual cyclones. For 1960s individual SHEM articles, regardless of information scarcity, I prefer these articles to be created as the names are enough of a pull to make these seasons deserve an article. Because of this, I want to ping @Jason Rees: Do you think that 1960s AUS and 1960s SPAC decade articles should be split into individual season articles? Thanks, SMB9 9thx my edits 08:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm not as nice here as I want to do this, however I should look for a discussion before I'm going for it. SMB9 9thx my edits 10:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

My personal belief is that it would be better to build the 1960's AUS and SPAC articles up as a decade first, before splitting them up if and only if the information allows it. There are several reasons for this belief including the 1969-70 season being the first in the BT Database with reliable data such as system dates, windspeeds and pressure as well as the first year that names were assigned by Nadi (AKA: NZMS). This approach would also allow us to avoid original research and build a better idea of what is out there information wise before we split.Jason Rees (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jason Rees, OK. The splits should be worked on the draftspace then. SMB9 9thx my edits 01:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I began some of the work by now - in 2009 Pacific hurricane season. I have copied nearly entirety of the Tropical Storm Blanca (2009) article (through merger) into 2009 Pacific hurricane season, ~~and I decided to check up long-merged article of Hurricane Carlos (2009) and copied it into the season article~~. I'm hoping to start working on 2008 PHS, too. I'm just waiting to see conclusion of Fausto and Hernan mergers. SMB9 9thx my edits 13:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

To be able to copy most of storm article into the season article for GA work is the another reason why I have requested mergers. SMB9 9thx my edits 13:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Protection

I think this page should be considered auto-protected because it's a relatively big WikiProject. Any admins care to fix this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003 LN6 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. This page has not been the subject of vandalism attacks, nor is it highly visible to readers as much as actual articles, making it unnecessary. If anything, placing unneeded protection on this page would just deter possible good-faith IP editors, and is contrary to the idea that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Protection, in this case, is simply unnecessary. Chlod (say hi!) 20:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chlod about this.Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We do not protect pages preemptively 2003 LN6. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 23:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We do not need Semi-Protection yet, or anything higher. We would only need page protection in the event of persistent, targeted vandalism, which hasn't happened on any of these pages in years. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pre-emptive protection is generally disallowed by the protection policy, so it won't happen. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Member of the Month (MoTM) selection process

In the third-to-last edit of the year 2020, I made a decision, and that decision was to make Cyclone Toby member of the month in a coin flip (continuing the streak of my class getting MoTM which is ChessEric, me, and Super). It was a quite hard decision to make between Cyclone Toby and Typhoon2013 (which I have locked it in for most of the December and what I thought as a front-runner at first), but Cyclone Toby won out in the end and they will officially become the member of the month of Hurricane Herald's special edition to start this year and celebrating Wikipedia's 15th anniversary.

Since the last newsletter, Cyclone Toby and Typhoon2013 have worked very hard to get most of the requested articles listed on this page done (Cyclone Toby is mostly Atlantic and EPAC, while Typhoon2013 is WPAC). The work at getting things done in the most underrated area of WPTC is to me, is really incredible. Thus, since their contributions are mostly similar, it came down to these two members. You know what happened next, I choose Cyclone Toby. Here is the reason why.

First, Cyclone Toby's work involves lots and lots of text, while Typhoon2013's work is much more to the lists and tables. From what I have seen from WPTC, WPTC tends to value article writers more (as seen from GA stuff I have seen) - which is Cyclone Toby, while the technical work is generally less - from which Typhoon2013 applies. Second, Typhoon2013 appears to be cooling off recently (most projects Typhoon2013 launched in November is not even finished yet!) - while Cyclone Toby, to be frank, is active as ever. To me, in order to get my endorsement as WPTC MoTM you should work quite actively every day over the period of newsletter before release as well as their significance on the project (You can note that before making Super MoTM, I have taken a close look on his contributions in the month of November and October as well as the significance of his contributions in both months). Third, Cyclone Toby expressed numerous commitments to build up their work (i.e. actively giving comments on Article Requests page and helping out others in drafts!) while Typhoon2013 often spoke with you and me about PTS articles, unfortunately Typhoon2013 is not as openly vocal about it. Which, in the end I gave the tiebreaker to Cyclone Toby. Typhoon2013 had a good run, but unfortunately they wasn't able to quell some of my concerns (To me, if Typhoon2013 were to quell these concerns, they should have completed their project rather than stopping in the middle of December).

That's it. Also in the same edition as the last edit of the year 2020, I introduced the new section for Hurricane Herald, which is the Storm of the Year. Given how much this year had impacted us, I introduced this section to give some respects for people who was not able to survive this year. I give this distinction to Hurricane Eta (I could give this to Cyclone Amphan because it was much more damaging (Costliest NIO) as well as the first super cyclone on the Bay of Bengal since 1999 Odisha cyclone, but these records are trivial to me. Hurricane Eta is much more devastating to the regions that Eta impacted rather than Amphan in addition to being deadlier, and it caused protests in Guatemala!). Mario Jump 83! 14:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Perfect decision! I value the work of all wikipedians. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 14:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@MarioJump83: I have several objections/concerns about how we do MotM. It has nothing to do with me not receiving it :P, though I feel that other users share some of these concerns. First, I am concerned that one single user is deciding whole gets MotM by a coin toss. I don’t know if this is literal or not, but this is a extremely inaccurate and overall horrible way to decide who gets an award. I don’t have anything against you deciding it, I am just hoping that someone who has a longer tenure in WPTC (Hink, Jason Rees, Yellow Evan, etc.) decides it because they have more experience with what benefits the project the most. Second, I want to say that article creation is not most important. Let’s say a user creates 10 articles, all start or C-class. That’s great from a quantity of content perspective, but not so great from a quality of content perspective. There are some users who are GA’ing articles or FAC’ing several articles a month. That is equally important as content creation. Finally, I want to bring up that some older users who are still doing excellent work are being felt left out. Honestly, I can name numerous users. Though I am not saying that Toby and Typhoon2013 do not deserve MotM. Both users have done excellent work for the past few months, and are worthy candidates. Nevertheless, I feel that we need a more just and fair system for MotM. Thus, I hope you keep these concerns in mind for future editions. Thanks. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 00:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember that. Mario Jump 83! 00:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to copy over this discussion to the WPTC talk page, since I feel that it merits more attention from the rest of the project as a whole. I'll be including be adding responses there as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I copied the above discussion from Hurricanehink's talk page, because I feel that it merits more attention and input from the rest of the WPTC community here. Concerning the MoTM selection, I do feel that it seemingly has been (intentionally or not) skewed towards WPTC editors who were recently active (and usually did some impressive work within that time span) or newer editors who had done some decent amount of quality contributions, while leaving out a number of older, more experienced editors who may or not may not have undertaken a comparable level of editing recently. I feel that the timing of the edits should not be a deciding factor as to which editor gets the MoTM nomination or not - the selection should be done more evenly so as to not exclude any of the older editors who may not have been active (recently) as some of the newer editors. And I believe that the MoTM selection should not be done by the same editor for multiple issues of The Hurricane Herald again and again. The selection process should either involve more input from other WPTC members (especially the more experienced editors) or become a kind of rotating role, in which the person who is responsible for selecting the MoTM rotates every 1 or 2 issues. I'm not going to object to the current choice for MoTM for the upcoming issue of The Hurricane Herald, but I do feel that the selection process should be modified and include more input from the WPTC community so that we will not see so many of the more experienced editors on our project left out on some many issues. As Destroyeraa noted above, a number of our more senior editors, and even some relatively newer editors, have felt left out by the way the MoTM has been selected for the past several issues. The selection process should be more balanced. I don't have any particular ideas as to how to implement these changes, but I would like us to give the MoTM selection process some thought. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@MarioJump83: Thanks for your consideration. LightandDark2000 pretty much summed my suggestions, thanks. Yeah, I think that the WPTC community should decide the MotM (or edition). For example, one user may nominate another user as a candidate, and the community discusses. I hope none of my fellow WPTC members get upset if they are not nominated or they don’t get much support. Just a suggestion. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 01:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, there is a nomination system for member of the month all the way back into the first edition of the Hurricane Herald, but this appears to be a lost art. I think we should reinstitute this going forward to prevent this happening again. BTW, I have commented out my selection of Cyclone Toby as MoTM as this discussion broke out. ~~Since you didn't object to my decision, should I self-revert that edit and give the MoTM to him (as the last time MoTM was given this way)?~~ Mario Jump 83! 07:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I gotta say, for a lot of my time here on Wikipedia, it felt like there were maybe 10 regular editors, and then a bunch of people who came and went during the active seasons. Now, it seems like we have more active users than ever, and I would love for that to continue, by any means necessary. A lot of the Motm's that I personally picked were just users who had done some good work but hadn't gotten recognized yet. I'm just happy for all of the activity lately :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking back at 2013 to 2019, the number of active editors and writers were significantly less than the number today. Thus, I am thankful for my fellow editors and writers, and I want everyone to keep up the good work they’re doing. Cheers, ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 03:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah...That's also the majority of my tenure here. Typhoon2013, Hurricane Noah, Chocolate Train, and I, and a handful of others joined WPTC back in 2013–2017. Together, with a small group of senior editors who had stayed on since the early days of WPTC, we pretty much did most of the work on TC articles. It sure feels good seeing a lot more people come in and help out. Not to mention more people to work with here. It was kind of depressing at times pre-2018. Anyway, I hope that the majority of newer editors that we've picked up will stay here with us going forward. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll stay for as long as I'm interested, and I'm still interested even though the inactive season is starting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll stay here for as long as I can (which is a while). Anyway, I think that we should create a guideline for the MoTM (MoTE) process. We would use it to select the MoTMs every edition, and change it after community discussions. Since I'm one of the 2020 members (more than half of us are now), I'd like some input from our unappreciated 2005-2019 editors on this. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Chicdat here. I would also like to hear input from some unappreciated, 2005-2019 editors. Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 13:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions here. I definitely feel that we should include more editors, as some (including myself, tbh) feel like they don't get enough recognition for their work. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox) 22:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Since there is a quick consensus forming that MoTM should be decided by the community and no one is going to reply about self-reverting my edit about commenting out, I have added the comments section of the Hurricane Herald, and opened up the nominations for MoTM there. If I remember correctly, this edition is going to be the first edition of Hurricane Herald to have a comment section. Mario Jump 83! 08:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

When a storm page is created from a season page, what is the preferred attribution method?

Tropical Storm Karen (2019) was created using some content from 2019 Atlantic hurricane season.

Does this WikiProject have a "standard way" of doing copyright attribution?

I usually use Template:copied but imagine what would happen if a dozen pages were "forked off" in a busy season like 2020 - there would be a very large {{copied}} template. Does this WikiProject handle things a different way? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 23:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that we have a specific way of attributing content that gets "forked off", especially since this project was created before that template was introduced. On a personal level, I am not so certain that it's needed since one would presume that the storm article and the copied content would be expanded out using the same sources. I would have also thought it obvious that some of the content goes both ways.Jason Rees (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Flood article for Amanda-Cristobal situation?

Should we do a flood article for the Amanda-Cristobal situation in Central America/Mexico? A lot of the impact and aftermath are tied together for the storms so I feel it to be pointless repeating significant amounts of content in two articles. Noah^Talk 02:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal. A flood article would keep all of the information in one place. Not to mention that the impacts have huge overlaps, and I feel that it would be counterproductive to have the information divided between two articles. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This would make sense as the impacts and aftermath of the two systems in Central America (particularly El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) cannot really be separated. However, I would contend that Cristobal's article remain separate as Cristobal also had significant impacts in Mexico and the US. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think there would always be a split in the info between articles, since Cristobal would have an article for its US impacts. So in effect, it would be moving Amanda to a flood article while keeping the Cristobal article. I think Amanda is a significant enough storm in its own right. I think the best situation is to mention the content in both places, like Alma-Arthur in 2008, or Ingrid-Manuel in 2013. If there is too much content about Central America to mention in Cristobal's article, then I'd suggest doing a summary paragraph and linking it to the appropriate section in Amanda's article. For example, Cristobal mentions the landslide in El Salvador on 6/4 - that likely wouldn't have happened without Amanda's impacts. I think Cristobal's section would focus on the Mexican impacts (since that's where it hit), while Amanda would focus on El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and elsewhere in Central America. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Hink here - leave Cristobal to primarily the Mexican and US impacts, and Amanda to primarily the Central American impacts. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink and Skarmory: That isn't possible since most rainfall records, including the peak one are split nearly 50/50. Cristobal caused more damage in some central American countries than Amanda did. What I want here is an OVERVIEW ARTICLE for this entire event. Aftermath likely could go into the overview article unless it was specifically for one storm. Impact mentioned for both storms (that isn't separated out) could even go into overview article. WP doesn't like having significant portions of articles copy each other. I feel that we would benefit from an article providing the entire scope of the event, which was quite significant (22.7 for Amanda and 20.1 for Cristobal's peak rainfall; whole event was 42.8). I'm not trying to axe Amanda's article, just get an overview for a large event. Look at Amanda's TCR to see this... Amanda was significant in Mexico too... "Select rainfall totals in Central America and southeastern Mexico over a multi-day period from Tropical Storm Amanda, Atlantic Tropical Storm Cristobal, and a Central American gyre." Additionally, this was a complex event involving three systems. [1] Noah^Talk 20:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m open to a flood article. The NHC IMO made a big oopsie by not classifying Amanda-Cristobal as one storm, but I’m not going to get too in-depth about that here. It cannot be distinguished which impacts are from Amanda and which are from Cristobal, since they were basically a single storm stuck in a CAG. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 22:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

In that case, yeah, a separate flood article is good. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I support. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 16:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

How big was the flood? If it was among the greatest floods in history then yes. If it wasn't which I'm suspecting then no.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm digging the extent of the flood in El Salvador, although the flood within the rest of the nations appears fairly routine. I understand the flooding in El Salvador came mainly from Storm Amanda.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy new year...

Just wishing everyone that they had a good holiday so far and wishing everyone well for New Year's! This year may be rough for many us but I hope 2021 will be better and I am looking forward to working with many of you guys again. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2020 (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. 2020 Pacific typhoon season Done Typhoon Goni (2020) Done Typhoon Vamco Done Typhoon Molave Done Typhoon Saudel Done 2020 Central Vietnam floods Done 2020–21 South Pacific cyclone season No changes Cyclone Yasa Done Tropical Storm Krovanh (2020) Done Tropical Storm Nangka (2020) Done Draft:Tropical Storm Linfa (2020) Done

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)

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? Mario Jump 83! 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?. Mario Jump 83! 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. — Iune talk 23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, please disregard, I forgot that the timeline is already completed and present on the main season article. — Iune talk 23:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Golden Cyclonic Barnstar Nomination #1

There is a discussion about someone who receives this award two years ago, but it got stale so I will start the discussion again. I would like to nominate Hurricanehink for this award, since he has nearly 80 FAs, hundreds of GAs, and 50,000+ TC edits to Wikipedia, just to reiterate from the past discussion. I also introduced the template for this award, so this award is considered "new". He will be the first recipient of this award, and more can soon follow. Feel free to say anything below! Mario Jump 83! 01:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support I wish Hurricanehink could get awarded with this barnstar months prior. Mario Jump 83! 01:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Strong Support – Hurricanehink has clearly earned this award. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Support, Hink deserves it as a great contributor to the project. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment I'm going to award and archive this now because I don't want to waste any time further now. I'm going ahead to place this. Thanks for support! Mario Jump 83! 02:15, 9 February 2021 (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)

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. Mario Jump 83! 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. Mario Jump 83! 02:17, 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)

I don’t think a partial project will work. However, I believe it is too hasty to invite a non-autoconfirmed 3-day old editor who has made 5 edits to TC pages. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 18:48, 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)

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)

@Dam222 and HurricaneEdgar: Please have a look at the above discussion before inviting any more new/inexperienced users to WPTC. Although there is no hard requirement, it would probably be best to ensure that all of the potential recruits have a good temperament and enough experience to keep themselves from getting into trouble. Thank you. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have implemented some of the guidelines here regarding inactive members, since it appears to be a WPTC bylaw. Mario Jump 83! 03:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to other guidelines here to be enforced, but I now know that it has to be discussed first, which will be done in separate discussion. Mario Jump 83! 04:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Did i?

User blocked for three days for disruptive editing. Further discussion won't be any more helpful. Please air your thoughts on their talk page instead. Chlod (say hi!) 19:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Did i get accepted?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BCNY2011 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@BCNY2011: Please be more specific. Accepted into what? 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 18:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I meant this WikiProject, Tropical cyclones, if i did not, this is why i should be accepted:

1. I LOVE Meteorology, I was Amazed! I no longer did and switched to being a doctor, but still amazed...

2. I survived Super-storm Sandy, some Tropical Depressions, and Isaias! (and Fay but it did not hit me tho).

3. I have some same personalities as some people here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BCNY2011 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to get accepted into this wiki-project @BCNY2011:, as you can add your name to the list. However, your name was removed due to CIR issues, per @Destroyeraa:. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 19:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What does "CIR issues" mean?

Also if he or she (i am to lazy to see lol) say why it was removed, pls tell me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BCNY2011 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@BCNY2011: With all due respect, several other users and I believe that you are not ready to participate in a community project. You do not have a basic understanding of simple policies/guidelines such as the general notability guideline or the civility guideline. competence, or the ability to be mature and to clearly communicate with others, is required here on Wikipedia, and I'm sorry to say that you lack it currently. Some users may want to mentor you. Sorry, ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 19:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@BCNY2011:, Please see WP:CIR. Also, please sign your comments, and please continue the discussion here, instead of creating a new one. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 19:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see what Destroyeraa said above. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 19:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This clearly shows that this user is not ready yet to participate in a community project. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 19:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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. Mario Jump 83! 11:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems pretty cool, maybe it will actually inspire me enough to complete my sandbox and create an article for once. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |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)
- I am quite interested in participating. ~~though I wouldn't do it for this year. I am thinking about getting for an autopatrolled first before participating...~~ I will most likely going to fail, but I want to grind for autopatrolled... Mario Jump 83! 11:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have redacted a comment that is highly inappropriate. Mario Jump 83! 12:09, 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)

(Redacted)

Just remember @Primefac and CyclonicallyDeranged: that we are in the middle of a global pandemic and have just had a huge Atlantic hurricane season, which has resulted in a lot of younger users joining Wikipedia who may not realise that we are not a [media platform] per say.Jason Rees (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Jason, I know this, which is why I left this note. I am concerned as a functionary about this sort of information being out there. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 22 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 neutral 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)

@CyclonicallyDeranged:, see Cyclone Rona-Frank as an example of a regenerated storm that is part of the main article. Ditto Tropical Storm Hermine (2010) for a similar type of storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I was bemused years & years ago that Wikipedia decided to mash Cyclone Frank with Cyclone Rona...—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

They were the same storm because they shared the same meteorological history. Same story with Hermine, and that should be the same story for Amanda-Cristobal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

^ opinionated—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I wont comment that its an opinion backed up by both the BoM and the FMS.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

thank you that those sources confirm Rona is separate from Frank as the cyclone tracks and summaries are separate on the report. Definite opinion here.—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
stop posting false statements Jason.—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Read the summaries carefully as they quite clearly state that Frank is Rona - separate tracks and summaries are not good enough to override what is written.Jason Rees (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
^ That is a lie. They are separate. Enough said.—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't a lie to state that Rona and Frank are the same system when the BoM/FMS clearly state that they are the same system. As a result, I would invite you to read the summaries carefully before commenting further.Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not reading again until you quote directly from the summary that Frank was Rona. As a matter of fact Frank should be split from Rona on Wikipedia.—-CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
separate tracks = separate cyclones. Simple as that. What is written isn’t good enough reason to mash them together. Anyone can understand a simple track map showing separate tracks indicates separate cyclones. If they were the same, join the tracks together. Try it.—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
And I would oppose the split since Rona and Frank are the same system since the FMS quite clearly say: "Tropical Cyclone Frank originated in the Australian Region, being a re-development of Tropical Cyclone Rona." while the BoM says: "Rona crossed the coast just to the north of Cow Bay near the mouth of the Daintree River around 1300 UTC on 11 February. The system continued to track west-northwest over land and maintain cyclone intensity until 1800 UTC on 11 February at which time it was downgraded to a tropical low. A definite low-level centre was difficult to track beyond this time, with several small scale centres developing. However, the 850 hPa circulation could be traced for several days as it tracked eastward across the Coral Sea to eventually become tropical cyclone Frank." And no I am not about to join the tracks together, as I do not have the programme or data to do so.Jason Rees (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing from that quote says Frank was Rona as Rona had already whittled down to a remnant which isn’t a cyclone. So I remain opposed to the fact Frank was Rona and I oppose keeping the Wikipedia article as Rona/Frank. The separate tracks and separate summaries clearly speak for themselves without a doubt. To say the least many Wikipedia editors here are fond of putting opinionated remarks without basis.—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if it had whittled down to a remnant area of low-pressure as opposed to a tropical low, the warning centres quite clearly state that Frank was a redevelopment of Rona and thus are the same system. As a result, I remain opposed to separating them out, however, I invite my fellow editors to read the summaries linked above and provide their opinion.Jason Rees (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet the warning centres clearly keep their summaries separate for both cyclones. Whittling down to a remnant isn’t a cyclone as I said before. And other editors using the same ill-founded arguments isn’t going to change my stance on the matter so I remain opposed on keeping them as it is and WP:Canvassing.—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not making an ill-faited argument to say that Frank was Rona, when both the BoM and FMS clearly state that Rona became Frank in their seasonal summaries. You may not like the fact that neither agency provided a single joined-up track, but that's meaningless and doesn't supersede what is written which is that Rona became Frank. However, you are entitled to your opinion, as are other members of this project, who I openly invited to comment above without breaching WP:Canvassing.Jason Rees (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time nowhere in the sources state Rona became Frank as the text clearly states a REMNANT of Rona (ie. not a cyclone) became Frank. They are separate cyclones and it’s a fact. Separate JTWC designations and tracks confirm that and have more meaning than anything else including a little text in the middle of nowhere that never ever stated in any form that Frank was Rona. Simple as that.—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

BTW about the Canvassing matter, I wasn’t invited to this discussion, but I am discussing anyway since this discussion is open to anyone... I’m logging off for now, hope this discussion doesn’t result in anyone brainwashed...—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to express my opinion on this. I believe that Rona and Frank were different, and I believe that Amanda and Cristobal were different, but I wouldn't create a war over it, expressing my opinion over and over about it, these things. And deja vu? This reminds me of our debate over the 2020–21 Australia seasonal forecasts. I wouldn't like us to repeat the same mistake. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: remnant - if Rona and Frank were in the same basin, they likely would've gotten the same name. There are plenty of storms that reform from its remnants, such as Hurricane Ivan, Tropical Storm Dean (2001), Hurricane Beryl. These all happened to be in the same basin. Rona and Frank (and in the case at hand, Amanda and Cristobal) were in different basins, which is why the remnants were renamed. They still shared the same met history. You can't tell one story without the other. That, I believe, should be the main argument here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@CyclonicallyDeranged: Please stay calm, we all are users who are trying our best. @Jason Rees, Hurricanehink, and Chicdat: I think the topic of this discussion was Amanda-Cristobal, not Rona-Frank (if y'all want to discuss that, please do it here. Amanda-Cristobal was a special case of NHC policy getting in the way of properly naming storms. Amanda formed within a Central American Gyre. The storm then subsequently travelled northwards and made landfall in Guatemala. Subsequently, the storm lost convection over land and degenerated into a remnant low because it lost its Low-Level Circulation Center. Similarly, storms such as Hurricane Beryl and Tropical Storm Dorian (2013) lost their LLCs by degenerating into a tropical wave. Those storms mentioned have one article explaining the whole met history. Amanda's remnant low entered the Bay of Campeche and became Tropical Depression Three. The NHC said The remnant low pressure area continued to rotate northward and then northwestward across northern Guatemala and southeastern Mexico within the Central American gyre, emerging over the Bay of Campeche south of the city of Campeche, Mexico, around midday on 1 June. (Berg 2). ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 19:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Support as this is a complex event and we can't really determine which storm did what or if the CAG caused impact. It would be much easier to have one continuous article since there was regeneration and this was a complex event of three systems entangled.. Noah^Talk 01:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Neutral they aren't the same storm, just like 10 (2005) wasn't the same as Katrina, but I don't like content forks. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Cyclone Cup

@Jason Rees, Iune, Yellow Evan, Titoxd, CrazyC83, Runningonbrains, Cyclonebiskit, Meow, 12george1, Hurricanehink, TropicalAnalystwx13, TheAustinMan, United States Man, Supportstorm, AndrewPeterT, Nova Crystallis, Typhoon2013, LightandDark2000, Nino Marakot, Master of Time, Rosalina2427, HurricaneGonzalo, Jasper Deng, Hamham31, ChocolateTrain, Hurricane Noah, HurricaneDude2016, Xyklone, INeedSupport, CooperScience, MarioProtIV, and Master0Garfield:@Grammarguruguy, FleurDeOdile, Undescribed, CapeVerdeWave, INFOWeather1, CycloneYoris, Hdjensofjfnen, HueMan1, EBGamingWiki, Sandy14156, SaiTheCyclone, DavidTheMeteorologist, JavaHurricane, Sdslayer100, Calidum, AC5230, CycloneFootball71, Chicdat, Hurricaneboy23, Chlod, NOOBSKINSPAMMER, HurricaneMichael2018, JoeMT615, MarioJump83, Buttons0603, DachshundLover82, ChessEric, Allen2, Mazum24, Modokai, CodingCyclone, Gumballs678, Janm 7, Cyclone Toby, Hurricanehuron33, Hurricane21, and TornadoLGS:@Iseriously, Jupiter50, ARegularWisconsinite, CyclonicStormYutu, ARay10, Gex4pls, Nioni1234, Dannisom, HurricaneCovid, Skarmory, Moline1, HurricaneIcy, HurricaneEdgar, Miguel 04012010, Cyclonetracker, Dam222, Hi 022828, Elijahandskip, TovarishhUlyanov, Animem 1, Shift674, Super Cyclonic Storm Corona, ThePelicanThing, FinnTheHurricaneFanatic, 8medalkid, Vida0007, TFESS, Doge1941, Tropical Storm Angela, HurricaneKappa, and KingLucarius:@Hurricanestudier123, 2 0 D a r t h S a n d M a n 0 5, IBlazeCat, FuturPDUCTIONS, SputtyTheSputnik, AveryTheComrade, Poxy4, SovietCyclone, Gummycow, Wikihelp7586, StopBoi, Final-Fantasy-HH, TheActiniumSpoon, Ididntknowausername, BrownieKing, Bunny04032010, Purplemountainman, 2003 LN6, DaniloEvan123, AwesomeHurricaneBoss, HarrySupertyphoon, and Flasty Jam: If you are interested in signing up for the Cyclone Cup, please do so by February 14. The game has officially started but it is never too late (until Feb 14) to join! A description of the game is here and signups are here. Have fun editing! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 20:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR tropical cyclone

I have nominated Tropical cyclone for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Linfa article

I think we must re-look at this situation. Subject to change, but a draft for the retired 2020 names for the 53rd session looks like that Linfa is leaning towards to being retired. There is a separate earlier discussion here, and the majority decided to not create a Linfa article and just link it to the 2020 Central Vietnam floods. @Jason Rees: made his own opinion stating that a Linfa article should be made if the name gets retired, and I agree with his statement. So are we making a Linfa article or leave it as it is? Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Support I'm thinking that we could put a little detail into Linfa's story, and that another article would be just the place for it. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Support as the name will be retired, I feel like retired storms should almost always get their own article and Linfa imo could be notable enough even without being retired. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Support As the floods article is terrible and Linfa certainly deserves an article. Gex4pls (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Support I strongly agree, and there is a draft about it that people tried to work on but wasn't able to get it done due to the consensus at that time. Now, this is the time to get that job done. Mario Jump 83! 23:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like all goes for a 'Support' here! I'll start expanding through the MH from the draft and should be ready soon. If anyone wants to help and do impacts, then go ahead! :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gex4pls: Yeah the VN floods article could be a better. Perhaps we could rename the article to "Effects of the 2020 Pacific typhoon season in Vietnam"? Like we did with the PH in here? Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Article for Linfa now up, here! Sorry I clearly do not know how to move drafts to mains, but feel free to add in more! MH now done and updated to Linfa's BT. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Typhoon Goni (2020) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Typhoon Goni (2020) to be moved to Typhoon Goni. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

WPTC user experience survey

Hi everyone! I've posted a link to a survey on our WPTC experience below, made by one of our fellow editors. Please fill it out when you have the time. The information from the survey will be used to write another Op-Ed in the next Hurricane Herald issue. You will remain anonymous. Thank you. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject tropical cyclones survey