Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Order of units of measurement (split from above)

Gee... it was nice when everything worked properly before we had template gurus to "fix" everything for us. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yea :/ There's also something wrong where it's listing km/h first for Atlantic articles, when it's supposed to be mph first, per very longstanding project agreement. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That's quite different from the WP:UNIT guideline, which says that scientific measurements should always place SI first. Now, it could be argued that we could put a unit from the scientific specialty first (knots) first as : kn (km/h; mph), but putting mph first would be against the MOS, even for Atlantic storms that only hit the US. -- Netoholic @ 00:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I could always invoke WP:IAR. Things have been running pretty well in the project for the past nine years. And it's not just for Atlantic storms that hit the US. The NHC includes mph first. And given that we have 98 different featured articles or lists in the Atlantic basin, no one has said anything over all of these years. So I wholly feel it should return to Atlantic having mph first with km/h. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: Seeing as how no one really likes these changes, I think we could gather a consensus to revert everything altogether. United States Man (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we should follow whatever usage the RSMC in question uses. Dustin (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@United States Man: That would be a better thing to bring up in the earlier section. Dustin (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but I was talking to Hink, so I commented here. Thanks for your concern. United States Man (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Before all of this infobox mess, we had mph in Atlantic only (or maybe EPAC as well, I forget), and the rest of the basins had km/h. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hurricanehink - so has the topic been discussed before on this project? Can you link me to that discussion? I feel like this must have been a topic of conversation at some point, since the MOS guideline is fairly well-known. If its not been discussed at length, then maybe a quick survey to establish consensus would be in order. Its trivial for me to switch the order, but I don't feel its a good move considering the MOS speaks to the situation directly, so showing a clear consensus to "ignore the rule" first would cover everything. -- Netoholic @ 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
In 2006 and 2007, in the project's style outline page, mentioned in 2010. Also per precedent - as of 2005, one of our articles on the main page of Wikipedia used mph first and km/h in parenthesis for an Atlantic article (as was one a year later). The idea of using mph and km/h first came up in 2005 as a replacement for using knots and nautical miles. There was no problem on MOS as of 2006 having mph first and km/h second. Is that enough, or should I keep digging? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to help us establish consensus, I think we should give our reasoning below, and use "#" to help with the count. Dustin (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with USM in that we should keep it the same before all this topic can up, though I don't have a major problem with adding knots as well. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Examples
A #kn (#km/h; #mph)
B #kn (#mph; #km/h)
C #km/h (#mph)
D #mph (#km/h)

For wind speed references in the infobox, what order of measurements should be used? Please indicate "all regions" or specific ones. -- Netoholic @ 01:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Option D for Atlantic and EPac. Option C for other basins. United States Man (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Option D for Atlantic and EPAC, option C for other basins. I don't think there is a need to mention knots when no one in the public uses them. We stopped using them at the same time as nautical miles, and I hope we don't go back to them either. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe the order should remain as used by the RSMCs mostly. For the East and Central Pacific and the Atlantic, I would keep it as kn (mph; km/h) (Option B) or just mph (km/h) (Option D). With the others, I would maintain knots outside parenthesis, but have the order in parenthesis be dependent on that RSMC. Dustin (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Option C or A - As I mentioned above, the WP:UNIT MOS guideline says to use SI units first, except for non-scientific US/UK articles. Since hurricanes are scientific topics, and since we don't assign storms to specific countries (only basins), we can't say all Atlantic/EPacific storms relate to the US. I have no opinion on the knots display. -- Netoholic @ 01:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Option D for ATL, Option C for other basins per hink Secret account 01:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Option D for NHC basins, as we've done without issue for years—articles using this format have passed many hundreds of FACs and GANs. All storms in the Atlantic and Pacific are monitored by the NHC (in the US), which uses mph for its public-oriented forecast products. Absolutely no reason to change our current practice. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Option D for basins under National Hurricane Center purview, Option C for other basins. Has been the practice up until now; furthermore the hurricane center, which covers the entirety of the Atlantic and East Pacific's tropical cyclones, uses miles per hour first in their tropical cyclone advisories and in their readable hurricane best track database. Also furthermore the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale appears to be mph centric. Cheers, TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 01:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Option A for all non-NHC basins, Option B for NHC per the fact that knots are a measurement that most (if not all) RSMCs use in some form officially, thus allowing a consistent worldwide comparison. atomic7732 01:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Option D for NOAA basins, Option C for everything else. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There are two issues here: WP:MOS#UNITS says that In most articles, including all scientific articles, the main units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (emphasis mine). The vast majority of articles that we use for reference purposes use either miles per hour (in RSMC Miami / RSMC Honolulu basins) or kilometers per hour (in other RSMC basins). In fact, to pick a recent example, knots are not mentioned anywhere in NHC public advisories. Using units when knots are not necessarily in the source material is potentially a verifiability issue, as well as violates the principle of least astonishment for our readers, as knots are an obscure unit that most are not familiar with. As such, Options D (for NHC/CPHC) and C (for everything else) are the only reasonable choices. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Regarding knots, if the official sources aren't giving speeds in knots, but the infobox only takes input as knots, do editors do the conversion manually to knots, only to have the infobox output back into mph & km/h again? Doesn't this take a lot more time than necessary? Do you sometimes see errors in the calculation? -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    No, there are also sources that solely list it in knots, just as there are sources that list in mph or km/h. However, most sources for the public or lay person usually lists it in mph or km/h, depending on basin. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Right, but wikipedia editors, when inputting that information into the infobox, have to convert manually from the given km/h or mph into knots, right? -- Netoholic @ 20:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Again, no. As Hurricanehink said, there are sources that list tropical cyclone intensities solely in knots. By inputting knots into the syntax, the template converts that value into mph and km/h. I have yet to hear about an editor indirectly inputting intensity by converting mph/kph into knots for implementation into the infobox. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 21:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I know the template converts knots to mph & km/h. I just wanted to clarification about how editors arrived at the knots figure to input and if it ever led to calculation error that caused the infobox to not match the mph or km/h given by the sources. If that had been the case, I could have modified the template to accept any of the three speeds as input so it could taken straight from the source. -- Netoholic @ 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I cannot think of many situations where knots are not given in some place or another. With NHC/CPHC basins, mph and km/h are always given when there is a public advisory, and the usually accompanying forecast advisory will give knots. Dustin (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think modifying the template is necessary. It is easy to simply put in one figure and get three with no headaches (like the other changes have caused). United States Man (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Option C for all, or some hybrid that includes kn within the parenthesis as well. MoS is quite clear, and this has been an issue when some articles have come up for GA/FA status in the past. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Should WP:MOSNUM#Units of measurement be applied to United States-monitored basins?

There are many articles which use miles before kilometers and mph before km/h. Is it necessary that featured article candidates should be changes because of this policy? I believe that WP:IAR should apply, for at this point, it is not worth the time (in my opinion), and many articles have gone so long since being edited that they may have been forgotten anyway, which would make such a feat yet more difficult. Would it be better to change the Manual of Style to make an exception, perhaps? I think that this policy ought to be disregarded in terms of FA candidates, and consistency should be preferred. In my personal opinion, the usage should follow the RSMC rather than this (unimportant, in my opinion) guideline when determining the order. There are other Wikipedia policies such as WP:PRIMARY which I believe interfere with the quality of tropical cyclone (and other weather-related) articles, so what do you all think? Would it be better to change every article, request an exception in the Manual of Style, ignore all rules, or...? Dustin (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Non-neutral statement of the concern. -- Netoholic @ 01:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, this has already been partly discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Iris/archive1. Dustin (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ vote stacking? -- Netoholic @ 01:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Being the ones this change would affect, this IS NOT vote stacking. YOU should not be trying to make decisions for a project which you are not part of. This is not canvassing. How is this "selectively notifying editors"? You honestly consider my notifying the project "selective"? Also, the only ones who should be making this decision are the actual relevant editors. Dustin (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dustin V. S.: I'm sorry to say it, but we have reached the point of where the Project no longer takes Netoholic seriously. This bad-faith preference pushing against long-standing consensus has got to stop. United States Man (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You are talking as if this WikiProject owns these articles and are the only people that can make decisions related to them, such as selectively interpretting Manuals of Style. -- Netoholic @ 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, it is important that the editors who actually create, maintain, and update these articles know of this so as to be able to give their says. Dustin (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on changes

As you all know, there have been numerous changes to Template:Infobox hurricane lately. Now, my question here is, since many people have expressed displeasure, what changes should be removed and what changes, if any, should be kept? Thoughts? United States Man (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jason Rees:, @Cyclonebiskit:, @Titoxd:, @TheAustinMan:, @Juliancolton:, @Hurricanehink:, @Yellow Evan: @12george1: Notifying involved editors. United States Man (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove the typhoon categories and remove the "equivalent" from SSHS, for starters. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
These topics are talked about already in #SSHWS. Please don't split discussion further... respond in that section. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (SSHWS/NWS) or the like in every infobox header is needlessly confusing (especially since both acronyms link to the same page, so there's no additional information provided by specifying NWS), and quite unappealing from an aesthetic standpoint. I think we want to avoid the OMGWTFBBQ aspect as much as possible. I'm in favor of removing the agency identifier. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For starters, I enjoy the attempts to streamline the intricate template syntax (removing unnecessary bits and etc.) and I believe I enjoyed one of the preliminary implementations of the infobox current template (that had the infobox run vertically). That said, I do not believe that the extra classifications for the Japan Meteorological Agency should be in the infobox header because those are only internal to the Japan Meteorological Agency and do not appear in the public products that they issue. Furthermore, although that agency does monitor tropical cyclones for the entirety of the western Pacific, I believe internal in this sense means "only in Japan" (and only within the agency, for that matter) because agencies like the Chinese Meteorological Administration have their own internal sub-classes for typhoons, even though they aren't officially monitoring the basin. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 20:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @TheAustinMan: The extended classifications match the information at Tropical cyclone scales#Western Pacific, so if someone updates the information on that page to match what the JMA actually uses, I'll be happy to make the template confirm to it. -- Netoholic @ 01:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • @Netoholic: The information on that article (as well as the pdf file you have linked before) states that the JMA unofficially and only internally uses those classifications; as such they aren't used in any widely/publicly available documentation and are not official. Some cases include bulletins released by the JMA, which do not detail these classes, and their annual season reports, which also do not indicate such classes. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 02:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Could the color for the JMA typhoon be restored to its previous color? Currently, it's disconnected from the seasonal timelines, buttons, etc. which use the previous pinkish color as opposed to the Category 1 SSHS color. — Iune(talk) 23:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be annoying again, but the JTWC color bar is missing for Tropical Storm Halong, and the old method of using type and JMAtype doesn't seem to be working. Is there anyway to get this back? — Iune(talk) 23:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @Iune: JTWC bar will only appear if the '1-min winds' gets high enough to put the storm into one of the categories of the SSHWS. -- Netoholic @ 23:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It should appear whenever the JTWC is warning (i.e. the 1-min winds parameter has a value) though; the JTWC currently has Halong as a tropical storm, which should show up (along with tropical depression when the situation warrants it, for that matter). — Iune(talk) 00:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Seems to be a common confusion/misuse of the headers, but those line just give the scale used in that region (and SSHWS only for comparison purposes) based on wind speeds, not the actual ratings from any specific centers. -- Netoholic @ 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
          • The SSHWS bar should appear whenever the 1-min parameter is filled though. The data for that comes from the latest JTWC warning because that is the agency which uses 1-min winds in the West Pacific, which is why I said that the bar should come when the JTWC is warning on it (otherwise, the 1-min winds parameter would not be filled, and the SSHWS bar shouldn't appear). — Iune(talk) 00:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Essentially, it should behave like Infobox hurricane small in this regard. — Iune(talk) 01:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Indications on this talk page is that the headers are for scales and comparison, not tied to any specific center. If people want headers that exactly match specific centers, it would require an overhaul of how the template works. Right now, the scales that are displayed are calculated based the wind speeds and displayed based on the basin. -- Netoholic @ 01:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
              • I don't think I'm explaining it right. Essentially, what I wanted was for the SSHWS bar at the top of the infobox to appear whenever the 1-min winds parameter is filled. (Which currently doesn't appear to be the case.) I don't think that needs a drastic overhaul of the template. — Iune(talk) 02:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Right now, in Infobox hurricane small, if you do not add any value to the 1-min winds parameter, it displays solely the JMA scale (based off the 10-min winds parameter). If you add a value for the 1-min winds, it displays the SSHWS bar below it (based off the 1-min winds parameter). This is what I meant by modifying Infobox hurricane to reflect Infobox hurricane small's behavior. — Iune(talk) 02:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
                • I understand what you're saying, and sometime probably soon hurricane_small will be fixed to work the same way, but since SSHWS is for comparison only, it won't display until the storm has winds which place it into one of the SSHWS categories. "Tropical storm" isn't one of the SSHWS categories. -- Netoholic @ 03:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • I see what you're saying as well, but IMO tropical storm/depressions should be included here as well as a point of comparison. While they aren't on the SSHWS per se, they are "related classifications" that are used by the NHC, JTWC, etc. as the classifications for storms below Category 1 intensity on the SSHWS and should be included as a comparison to the regional scale used by the RSMCs. — Iune(talk) 03:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
                    • The #SSHWS section above covers this more, but the problem is we can't say TD/TS are part of SSHWS, and we don't have the granularity to say which specific RSMC within a basin the TD/TS determination is coming from. So all we can do now is refer to the scales. Also, I'll add, there is little value for the extra headers that basically just repeat the same words over and over again (Tropical Storm Name <break> Tropical storm (JMA scale) <break> Tropical Storm (JTWC/SSHWS)). -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
                      • While they technically aren't part of the scale, they are very closely associated with the SSHWS. While you are right in that some times there is a redundancy as in your example, there are also many cases where the JMA designates it as a Severe Tropical Storm while the JTWC calls it a Tropical Storm, or when the JMA calls it a Tropical Storm and the JTWC a tropical depression, or the JMA calls it a Typhoon and the JTWC a tropical storm... it's useful to easily be able to see what the SSHWS equivalent intensity is regardless of the situation. — Iune(talk) 14:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
                        • Also, Infobox hurricane small exhibits this behavior, so IMO it would make the two templates appear more related if the SSHWS bar always appeared if 1-min winds were given. — Iune(talk) 19:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
                          • The headers are based on wind speeds, not on what category the JTWC actually gave the storm. The actual ratings are documented in the article text, not the infobox. Since the SSHWS doesn't include "tropical depression"/"tropical storm" in the scale, we can't mislead people by implying that. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A designation is not a name

Some people keep adding the international designation after the international name and describing them as a combined name, like Lekima (1328), but a designation is actually not a name. I don’t understand why a lot of people always want to add something incorrect and illogical but do not want to investigate more. -- Meow 06:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It's part of a compromise that's not being implemented properly. We removed the international designation from the lead with the catch that it would be kept as a brief mention in the meteorological history. The kinks of how to word it need to be worked out, however. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the merged tropical cyclone templates and Template:Infobox hurricane

There are multiple problems. inHg cannot be used, there are issues with the size, and I cannot display miles first. There are other issues too. Is there anyone who thinks he/she can fix it? Dustin (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Why were they merged in the first place? YE Pacific Hurricane 01:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. Dustin (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic: Any reason?—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 02:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Per this TFD discussion there was consensus to merge, it's been in the holding cell for a while when I picked it up to start working on it. If you could list out specific technical concerns on Template talk:Infobox hurricane, I can look into them. --Netoholic @ 02:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
That looks like a poorly thought out proposal and poor discussion. United States Man (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
This guy needs to be dealt with. He is already trying to screw it back up, against our wishes. United States Man (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
No, there was not. That TFD was about merging the three together. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and when I looked into it, I saw that with a couple tweaks, the main infobox template could be used to accomplish what those 3 did very easily, and help make the transition from active storm to dissipated one very smooth. While a storm is active, my update sets up side-by-side display of the image and tracking, and the row labels change to "current winds", etc. As soon as you add a "Dissipated" date, the infobox reverts to the exact same format as the standard infobox look. I am willing to help address any technical concerns, but the merge was discussed in the TFD, and there's no reason to abandon the effort. Help me reach out to those that need to be made aware of the change in procedure. --Netoholic @ 02:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Even though we had our differences earlier in the week, I wish to publicly thank @Netoholic: for combining the NIO, typhoon and hurricane templates even if its in to the infobox hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Yellow Evan is currently fixing the problem with the Typhoon template so there will be no problem. It really screws up the EPac and Atlantic, and I don't think anyone minds doing a little extra work when one dissipates. United States Man (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

When you say "really screws up the EPac and Atlantic" You have to explain. I was very thorough in my testing to make sure nothing got broken. I've invested 3 days now working on this merge. -- Netoholic @ 03:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to merge the 3 current templates. The coding change messed up season articles, and I think it's better to stick with what works. The transition to active to dissipated is smooth already. At least for now, I reverted to the old way (though I did not touch the season articles, so the coding there is messed up). YE Pacific Hurricane 03:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean it "messed up season articles". How so? I can assure you that when I implemented this, I made sure that the season articles that used to the "current" templates looked just fine using my updated "infobox_hurricane" template. You can compare at Template:Infobox_hurricane/testcases#current. -- Netoholic @ 03:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed some users were having difficulty making the adjustment to the new template and it wasn't working for the typhoon basin. Sorry, but I don't think this is worth all this time and effort. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean "it wasn't working for the typhoon basin"? I followed usage on Rammasun (it was the only active storm while I made these updates), and there was no report it was broken. The confusion about how to operate this template is temporary, and just needs education. I've already expended 2 days of time and effort making this transition (I'm a volunteer at WP:TFD/HC, not part of this WikiProject itself). so the only waste now has been the reversions of my updates to the main template. -- Netoholic @ 03:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Based on the initial comment on this page as well as the discussion on Typhoon2013's talk page it appears that there are some problems remaining. Until we know it runs 100% smoothly, I'd hold off merger the active storm templates (to the main infobox) for the time being. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking for specific, actionable feedback on what problems exist that prevent adoption of the merge. Saying we should hold off til it works smoothly is fine, but I need to know what isn't smooth. -- Netoholic @ 05:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Like I said above, some of the issues were that inHg couldn't be included (at least I couldn't figure out how to) and I couldn't set mi to come before km with US-monitored basins. Dustin (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dustin V. S.: "inHg" isn't used on articles related to past storms, so that's why it isn't displayed. Should "inHg" be displayed for all articles (active storms and old storms) or just' active storms? --Netoholic @ 06:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
inHg is displayed on several systems but i think it maybe limited to outside Atlantic.Jason Rees (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I found the problem, inHg won't show up unless you define a |Basin=. This is in the original infobox code, and seems to be a weird restriction. I don't see any reason why mBar and inHg shouldn't display for every storm, regardless of basin. If I'm wrong about this, let me know. -- Netoholic @ 16:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually it needs the basin, since in the Atlantic bassin the infobox shows inHg after the hPa since in most countries within the Atlantic bassin the using of inHg is unlawful wether the Eastern and Central Pacific bassin it's mostly concerning the US where inHg are widely used and therefore shown in front of the mbar. It's the same with km/h and mph at another point of the infobox. Actually outside the US inHg isn't used officially in any other bassin and should not be used at all. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Another issue was that if you don't include an image of the storm, it just shows a big empty square with the coding visible in the actual reading mode (not editing mode). Dustin (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
(removed example and copied it to Template:Infobox_hurricane/testcases#No_image) - Thanks, I will work on this issue immediately. UPDATE: I've applied a fix for the missing problem when an image is missing (also if its mistyped), you can see the results at the testcase link. --Netoholic @ 08:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Theres a problem with about 1/2 inch worth of white spacing added to the top of the article between the infobox and the top of article. Also with the combined template i do not like the fact that there is a colored box for the current storm status as of time and its broken in to two lines when its not needed.Jason Rees (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The name of the storm appears outside the box as a caption above rather than within it. Using caption is important for certain uses, but it can make it look like the box itself is pushed down, in reality it takes up the same space. Is this what you're referring to? -- Netoholic @ 16:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
No it isnt - I took an example screenshot.Jason Rees (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: I think this was only a problem for that particular article. Removing that gap between the end of the template and the start of the article text fixed the problem. -- Netoholic @ 19:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it was on several articles but it looks fixed now, Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The merger proposal was widely advertised, with a note on every article using one of the affected templates. As noted early on in this section, this discussion would be much better taking place on the talk page of the merged template, so that any substantial issues can be addressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason I brought the issue here is that I believe there to be more watchers of this page than of the template. Not all users of the template are watching it. Dustin (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind getting feedback here during the transition if it helps to reach people, we can archive this section to the Template's talk page later after any current issues are addressed. I would encourage any WikiProject participants to add the infobox and any other key templates to their watchlists. --Netoholic @ 16:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
While i know the merger proposal was widely advertised, i think most peoples problem comes with Netoholic taking it one step further and boldy merging the templates into infobox hurricane rather than infobox hurricane current.Jason Rees (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I do think that {{Infobox hurricane current}} and {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}} should have been merged into {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}} rather than {{Infobox hurricane}} (not current). Dustin (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Largely agreed. There was no need to merge to Infobox hurricane but we can't go back in time. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It is way too late to change the consensus at TfD, but, being as there was no concensus to merge at Template:Infobox hurricane, I will continue to fight this. The consensus seemed to be to merge to Template:Infobox tropical cyclone current, which doesn't exist. Arguments by the two project members that participated suggested Template:Infobox hurricane current, which is all the merging that should be done. Merging Infobox hurricane current into Infobox hurricane is just hurting the project, no matter how many improvements are made. Now, improvements to Infobox hurricane (that don't involve making it current) would be gladly welcomed, at least by me. United States Man (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I still prefer {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}} because it doesn't have any bias away from typhoons. Dustin (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be fine, but it just has to be created. United States Man (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We should try to do so. Dustin (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Please wait before attempting to create a new template and see what happens with this discussion. @United States Man: is there any real reason, why we need to have a separate template for Current and Past stuff though. As things stood at the time of that TFD we had 5 boxes the could probably go down to 1 quite easily.Jason Rees (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
If we had to go to a single infobox, I would prefer it to be {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} to be consistent with {{Infobox tropical cyclone small}} as well as to remain inclusive of typhoons, cyclonic storms, etc. Dustin (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The naming of templates can be worked out later via requested moves, though i will note Dustin that Hurricane is a very popular term and is unofficially used to describe hurricanes in SPAC and Aus at times.Jason Rees (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I still don't see a reason to get rid of the current template, although I am fine with just one current template and don't care what the name is. United States Man (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Why do we need a current storm information template though that sits idle for most of the SHEM season. Why not merge it into the infobox hurricane along with the season ones and just have one template overall?Jason Rees (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It may sit idle down there, but it is always put to good use up here. It works fine the way it is, and as I said above, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." United States Man (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The "current" templates had diverged very much from each other and from Infobox_hurricane (even using a different wind parameter names, uppercase vs. lowercase), so merging them was always going to be a complex bit of work. As I checked out the usage, I saw editors maintaining the current template along side a hidden Infobox_hurricane template (like this). This double-work seemed burdensome, and so when I looked at the similarities, saw how very little use the "current" templates get, and did some tests, it made a lot of sense to me to work towards merging them all together. In particular, since Infobox_hurricane already had code to handle all 7 basins, it made sense to use it. Merging them all also makes for a very simple transition from "current" storm to inactive/historical. This isn't a matter of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A merge had to happen, and reducing the overall number of very similar (yet different enough to be annoying) templates was the best plan to my outside eyes. -- Netoholic @ 19:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you are so insistent to go against most of the Project. There is nothing hard about maintaining the way it is now. It may make sense to you since you aren't in the Project, but it doesn't make sense to most of the Project, who actually have to use the template. Improvements to Infobox hurricane are helpful, but merging with the current box is not. United States Man (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
In all fairness, USM you're being a little harsh. But I agree, the way it is right now is not a problem. It;s not burdensome, the hidden infobox does not require much maintenance. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem in simplifying the boxes used to just one. Even the issue of putting mph ahead of km/h or knots is a small matter, and realistically shouldn't be done anyway per the Manual of Style. Most nations around the North Atlantic basin don't use mph; only the United States does, which happens to be where NHC is based (introducing POV into Atlantic basin articles). Using inHg and hPa in the infobox is fine as long as hPa/mb were dominant. Again, it would be US POV if hPa or mb were not dominant. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you're right in making sure we apply MoS. Storm advisories from the NHC seem to give mbar (hPa) ahead of inHg, so I think that is an easy choice to make mbar always come primary for all storms, regardless of basin. The one area I have a question about is whether to display knots along with km/h and mph. The "current" infoboxes, as used, displayed all three speeds. The Inbobox_hurricane took knots as parameter input, but only displayed km/h and mph (or mph and km/h for Atl/EPac even for storms not related to the US). So two questions: 1) should knots always be displayed for all storms ("95 kn (175 km/h; 110 mph)"), and 2) should the infobox use the "km/h before mph" order of measurements on all storms regardless of basin?-- Netoholic @ 00:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't consider it US-POV. We should follow the RSMC's usage. Also, I am really starting to feel that we need to redo another TFD discussion with everyone participating this time. In that way, we would be able to give all of this a lot more consideration i.e. how we go about merging, what title to use, which templates to merge, etc. Dustin (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
1) I do not see the point in including Mbar in the infoboxes since it is the same as hPa, and would prefer to see inHg instead. 2) There is no point in having another TFD, since no one has put up any arguments for why it shouldn't be merged apart from Wikipedia:I just don't like it. 3) While putting knots in sounds like an interesting idea i dont think its worth it since it isnt a unit really understood.Jason Rees (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not true. I put legitimate problems forth against the merge. I am not sure it is possible to fix this, but the current system infobox with the modified {{Infobox hurricane}} is wider than any other infobox on Wikipedia, and it uses a thumbnail in the box which I have not seen with any other infoboxes, and aesthetics do matter in Wikipedia; Wikipedia should be for the reader, not the editor. Unless it can be made to work without being as wide as 40% of the screen and be like the other infobox in terms of order, functions, etc., I will oppose reinstating the changes. There are also the things above. I am not sure anyone is fully willing to go to that much work. Dustin (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I used the thumbnail for the track, because of the "expand" indicator... to signal to readers that they can "zoom in" on the track and read the details that aren't visible in the thumbnail - I could easily change that, but its the first time someone's mentioned that particular item. Also, Dustin and I had a long conversation about the width complaint, and that seems to be the result of his particular skin and custom override of the default site font. I don't know how to answer this, as I am designing for the benefit primarily of the non-logged-in reader using default skin and settings. For that case, the basic size of the infobox is very close to the "current" templates (though they don't really even match from each other). Tell me what width you want it, and I'll make it fit... just remember that narrower means taller, and that could affect the season articles. -- Netoholic @ 01:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was my skin at first, but I notice that it still appears larger than any other Wikipedia infobox even when I log out, although it is a bit better. Dustin (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
On active storms, its intentionally wider than other infoboxes (just as the "current" templates were). -- Netoholic @ 02:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The previous version isn't as wide as 35-40% of the screen, but it still all fits fine. Dustin (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not very pleased about any merging in Template:Infobox hurricanes and/or renaming parameters in it. Maybe it wasn't noticed or mentioned before but several other WP language versions do use the Template:Infobox hurricanes as it is – that is with English parameters – for facilating the work with articles on tropical cyclones, e.g. German WP. We won't have the manpower to start from crap – again, this stunt was already done several years ago – and modifying copied templates on the fly while including them in DE:WP articles every time is annoying. Okay, for the English WP it does not interesting wether smaller/other projects have a bigger workload or not but in many instances the tropical cyclone project consists of one interested Wikipedian if any.
It's a shame that in an international project it's so difficult to exchange content, and many of these difficulties are caused by people for whom merging templates is the most important thing in the world. Have a good day. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@Matthiasb: The old parameter names haven't been removed from the template (that may happen someday way in the future, after a bot run against the articles to convert them), but I have added alternative lowercase versions in most cases. This is strictly a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Consistency between infoboxes issue - lowercase is the guideline, and so is being consistent with other infoboxes (some parameter names like name, image, alt, caption are nearly universal). If your wiki is using the same parameters as this template was, you should, after the merge is accepted/completed, be able to drop it right into your wiki, only needing to translate some headers and links. --Netoholic @ 09:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Ever did that? What you describe as "only needing to translate some headers and links" is all but trivial. Dealing with different grammar is only one part, the lesser. Basically you have to understand each and every line of the template for knowing what it does. For example, in this case it is necessary to suppress mph and inHg (since those are not used in German speaking countries) but you need to keep the knots since it are common in meteorology, aviation and navigation besides the whole template uses the knots for internal conversion between different measures as well as for the intensity scales. There is a reason why it says "Never change a winning team". There is also a reason why some of the parameters are strictly lowercase and some are starting with uppercase letters – the actual template was already done over several times and it was necessary to distinguish at least for some time the old and the new version. (For an example see this edit in DE:WP.) The problem of the English WP is that is has way too much Manuals of Style, gladly German WP never adopted any. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Merging {{infobox hurricane}} and {{infobox hurricane current}} is something that was not discussed at the TFD (which happens to have a very weak "merge" consensus, in any case), and something that should not happen. The two templates have different use cases (i.e. current position and intensity are not relevant in the "final" version of the article), and the design constraints on one (e.g. current being wider to prevent line wraps around watch/warning/location breakpoints) do not necessarily hold for the other. In other words, {{Infobox hurricane}} could be the same width as most info boxes in Wikipedia without any problems. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think you've tested to see how the new template works. As long as the storm is active (ie, no "dissipated" date set), then the template displays the extra "current" fields and the side-by-side image & map, and goes in to "wide mode". Line wraps are handled fluidly, and since its a single template, all the parameter names and uses match completely between active and inactive storms. This option wasn't discussed, but it was how I determined the best course of action for a merge was, due to the minimal use of "current" and the similarity of fields. I am find hearing feedback and making changes, but the merge works well and is the best option. -- Netoholic @ 02:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • We've had articles run into transclusion limit issues before; merging two templates with completely separate uses and layout cannot help matters in that regard. There is also the issue of there being no consensus to merge the two template families together, so I still stand opposed to this merge. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I can't see how this could have any impact on transclusion limits... and consensus can be established through bold editing. This may not be a solution anyone thought of until I picked this up from the {{WP:TFD/HC|TFD holding cell]], but it works. -- Netoholic @ 02:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Considering that your edits on the templates have been reverted previously, you are well past the "bold" part of the BRD process. Stop making these changes until you get a consensus to do so. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Why is it that people get more preoccupied in debates about what constitutes consensus or bold editing, and not just talk about the merits of the edit themselves. If you're opposed to the merge, and you have good reasons for an objection, then state them. Do you, Titoxd, see any technical or working reason why these two templates should not be merged? Speak now or forever hold your TLAs. -- Netoholic @ 08:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
              • I already told you what the reason behind my opposition is: merging two templates with completely separate uses and layout increases the workload on the MediaWiki parser, which becomes problematic on articles that are heavily referenced. The data that is presented on both templates is completely different: instantaneous pressure and wind speeds are completely separate in meaning from maximum winds and minimum pressure. The timestamp, storm movement and current location fields are useless in the final post-storm infobox. Damages, fatalities and areas affected are not meteorological parameters, and thus have never been placed in the current storm infobox. Ultimately, the merge is a solution looking for a problem, and you are seeing people complain about consensus because consensus is the decision-making process here in Wikipedia. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
                • Personally while they may never have been in the current storm info-box before now, i think it would be a good idea to include the Damages, fatalities and areas affected for systems like the long runners we get in the ATL WPAC, and occasionally other basins such as SPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • Sounds like opening Pandora's box to me. Fatality figures are extremely fluid, and you will have lots of conflicting reports about them (particularly during landfall). Something like storm intensity is easier to verify (i.e. from a TC position update) than damages (which are often "unknown" until weeks after the storm) so not sure there is much to be gained by adding them to {{Infobox hurricane current}}. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Titoxd: I think this response still indicates that you are only guessing about how the merged template works, and haven't tested it or looked at the testcases page.

"merging two templates with completely separate uses and layout increases the workload on the MediaWiki parser"
Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. The parser is only called when the page is saved, not when its just viewed (that's what caching is for). Also, there are generally not that many active storms going at the same time enough to warrant any performance concerns.
''instantaneous pressure and wind speeds are completely separate in meaning from maximum winds and minimum pressure"
The template gives the labels "Winds" and "Pressure" during active storms, and then "Highest winds"/"Lowest pressure" for inactive storms. All editors need to do when a storm ends is add a {{{dissipated}}} and set the winds and pressure to whatever the peak levels were.
The timestamp, storm movement and current location fields are useless in the final post-storm infobox
Yep, and when the storm is over, those fields disappear from the infobox.
Damages, fatalities and areas affected are not meteorological parameters
I'd rather leave that up to the editors to decide whether its relevant to any particular storm, but if there is general agreement here, I can disable those fields for active storms.

None of these are actual limitations which prevents merger. --Netoholic @ 17:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Still, we go back to the point that there is no need (nor support) for combining the two template families. The improvements to the current-storm layout (as shown in the test cases page) can be easily ported over to infobox hurricane current, and you would avoid the need for the double-column layout switch logic. We do worry about performance in season articles (where you can have four instances of the current infobox active), and in pages with a high reference count (i.e. storm articles that are being prepared for FAC). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Why not just move {{Infobox hurricane}} to {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} and merge {{Infobox hurricane current}} and {{Infobox typhoon current}} into {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}}? Dustin (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as I understood, the consensus was to do the second one (merging the current infoboxes together), and there is currently a RM to see whether to do the first. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Circular reasoning (maybe we can call it cyclonic reasoning?). "Current" isn't a template family, its an orphan. Its a relic, a stop-gap, a proof of concept. It is simply not worth the investment of resources and time to maintain it separately, which is probably why nobody completed the original proposed merge a year ago. The merged Infobox_hurricane does everything "current" did without need to learn completely different sets of parameters. It brings uniformity to the articles, and eases the work of editors. The only future edits I foresee happening to "infobox hurricane current" is to make it a redirect, or to add a TFD template with the goal of a full deletion. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I know you put a lot of work into that merge, but I will never fully accept it so long as it is one-and-a-half times as wide as the original infobox hurricane current. Like I said, why is it wider than every other infobox I have seen on Wikipedia? Dustin (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Dustin, I've said it before, but you are the only one reporting any such problem with the width. You use a non-default skin and custom CSS. If you want to work on templates, and want to know what the average reader sees, you must revert to defaults. Your settings made the "current" templates artificially smaller to you than to other people, which is why you feel like its a drastic change, but in reality you're now seeing the merged template closer to the "actual size". -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you keep fighting this, but there is a full consensus against you. At this point, it seems like you are beating a dead horse. United States Man (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is the thing: The only one who has made the claim that {{infobox hurricane current}} is not used (to the point of calling it a "proof of concept") is you. WPTC uses that template on a temporary basis for storms during their lifetime, and as such the template will have very few transclusions at any given time; that does not mean it is never used, nor that it isn't an important template for the WikiProject. Contrary to your assertions, the template is maintained, used by the editors that frequent the subject area the most, and nobody here would support a TFD to delete the template. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
If it was maintained, then why has it been marked for merge since last September with no work been done to complete it? I'd not even been drawn to assist if someone from this project had done the work to complete that original merge, and since September, only the most minor of edits have been done to it. Your conjecture about it being "maintained" is flawed because the objective evidence of its edit history disproves your assertion. Even now, I've been working on this for a week, and not one of you that objects to my solution to the merge has stepped up to actually do the work that was required of the original TFD. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the only thing that was required was to merge {{infobox typhoon current}} to {{infobox hurricane current}}, which I was not going to do until this discussion ran its course; however, since you insist, I did now. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you consider just redirecting to be a proper merge? Any concerns about the underlying differences between 'hurricane current' and 'typhoon current'? -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I consider that merge to be improper. They should have been moved to {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}}, not to the hurricane infobox {{Infobox hurricane current}}. A typhoon is different from a hurricane in terms of its basin, it is inconsistent with {{Infobox tropical cyclone small}}, and it does not match with the universal term "tropical cyclone". Dustin (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I verified that Infobox hurricane current does not degrade the presentation of 2014 Pacific typhoon season, so there should be no underlying differences between the two templates. (If there are, that's a bug, not a feature, as the infoboxes were originally coded to support all basins.) As for putting it in {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}}, I have no opinion about that, but I will defer to the outcome of the {{Infobox hurricane}} RM for consistency (since it already has wider participation than the oft-mentioned TFD). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am on the verge of taking Netoholic to AN/I. He just changed the current infobox to the regular one at 2014 Atlantic hurricane season and didn't even bother to leave an edit summary. I've never seen someone who just goes straight against consensus like this. United States Man (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

TFD for infobox hurricane current, for those who are interested.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 22:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have taken this issue to AN/I after another change this morning by Netoholic. You can see that discussion here. United States Man (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Like I said in the Talk:2014 Pacific typhoon season, I had this issue for nearly a month now. But this one is more serious because something is missing in the template: the category sign of JTWC. Please see Severe Tropical Storm Nakri in the 2014 season so you know what I mean. I don't know who added the sign of Typhoon Halong's one I want him/her to edit Nakr's one. Note: I was thinking that if something is wrong with the Template:Infobox hurricane, use the old one since it doesn't say propose deletion anymore. And when the new one os fixed, we'll add the new one. What do you think? I am already tired of this.Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Usage of {{Infobox hurricane current}}

Okay, we are being really inconsistent here. I don't think we should randomly choose whether to use it or not, and it was agreed that the template would not be deleted, so... should we continue to use it? I notice that Hurricane Genevieve (2014) is simply using {{Infobox hurricane}}. Dustin (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Im not bothered either way - but i have noticed that we have the PTS using it while the PHS has not.Jason Rees (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
If consistency is the goal, use Infobox_hurricane on all. The "current" one is the aberration, visually, and it has a different parameter set which makes the current-to-dissipated editing transition more cumbersome than is necessary. --Netoholic @ 15:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional discussion regarding {{Infobox hurricane}}

I notice that while Hurricane Ioke was a Category 5 hurricane in the Central Pacific, it just says "Category 5 (Saffir–Simpson scale)" rather than "Category 5 hurricane (Saffir–Simpson scale)" as it should. It is incorrect for it to include typhoon but not hurricane in the stripes at the top, although it says "Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke". My reasoning is that this implies (to someone who has not or does not read the article in-depth) that it was only at Category 5 intensity as a typhoon. This is an issue which I believe ought to be amended if possible. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is the article named Hurricane Ioke if its basin designation WPac? Shouldn't the article be at 'Typhoon Ioke' then? Or should the basin be changed to EPac? -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic: It was a multibasin storm, as it was both CPac and WPac. The name was assigned by the Central Pacific Hurricane Center, then it entered the JMA's jurisdiction. It was already a Category 5 storm when it crossed the International Date Line, entering the western Pacific, so it should say "Typhoon (JMA scale)" and "Category 5 hurricane (Saffir–Simpson scale)" below that. Dustin (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems like one of those rare exceptions that kind of "breaks" the way the template was designed around basin= designations. That said, there's no need to call it hurricane/typhoon multiple times in the infobox headers because to the average reader its clear just from the title of the infobox that it is considered both. Trust me, if I'd designed the template from scratch the whole "basin=" concept would be gone. You could use the workaround that is in the template to cover storms that are outside the usual basins, but you'd lose one of the colors at the top. I don't think its necessary though, the box as is is pretty clear. -- Netoholic @ 03:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I did some adjusting to the 1-min. winds part. It looks like you'll have to choose between either "Category 5 typhoon" or "Category 5 major hurricane" for basin crossers. I don't think you can do both without messing up the other WPac storms. I think "Category 5 major hurricane" would be best since the pages are titled "Hurricane X" and not "Typhoon X". United States Man (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic and United States Man: At least for now, I think it is best if we keep it as is. It's too bad that there was never a "CPac" option for the |basin= parameter or that the parameter is a requirement in some places at all. Dustin (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted to keep it as is. The changes USM made were misleading (as discussed higher on this page) because "typhoon", "tropical storm/depression" are not categories of the SSHWS. -- Netoholic @ 04:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Huh, I only just noticed those changes since my last comment. Dustin (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dustin V. S.: I think I got the 1-min winds part to where it works better in all basins. It just took a few adjustments to fix it right up. United States Man (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
But I see that Netoholic has reverted for no good reason... United States Man (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@United States Man: I did notice that on your sandbox version's testcases, Typhoon Tip was being displayed as a "Category 5 major hurricane". I guess that is acceptable to a degree since it is the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale, but I still think we ought to think this through a bit more. Dustin (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was the only problem. I have a better idea... United States Man (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I remember when I said that about your reverts... anyway, I did explain above. You added categories that are not part of the SSHWS scale, which is misleading. We've discussed this on this talk page before at /Archive_31#SSHWS. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, then the Atlantic/EPac and the "current" template would need changing. And you'd need to get a consensus from the project. Also, there is not a "JTWC scale". That is misleading. United States Man (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@United States Man: Where does it say "JTWC scale"? Dustin (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah... here's an example: Tropical Depression Wilma (2013) Dustin (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Atl/EPac work correctly (the SSHWS is for hurricanes) and the "current" template is obsolete. What term do you want to use instead of "JTWC scale" when refering to TDs and TSs in the WPac? -- Netoholic @ 04:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic: (edit conflict) I don't understand why you insist on reverting all of it. As I understand, the disagreement comes on a small part, not all of the changes. United States Man (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, slow. down. The template has been relatively stable for several days, and this issue is with --one-- article, and a very oddball one at that. You're making changes to things that have already been discussed here, and you're not seeing the impact because you're editing live. Play in the sandbox for a bit, test 'everything' thoroughly. But make sure you're not working against something that's already been discussed. -- Netoholic @ 05:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Making small changes such as that are not going to hurt anything when you have an idea of what you are doing. I didn't expect you to come along and revert like that, so I just made a simple change that I thought wouldn't be a problem. United States Man (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I had already replied here. If the fix was so easy, I'd have sandbox'd it myself. I thought Dustin was satisfied that no change was needed yet, though. -- Netoholic @ 05:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When you look at the Atlantic, the tropical storms and tropical depressions have (SSHWS), but you act like they aren't part of the scale. For the WPac, there has never been an issue with using SSHWS, as it has always been done to make comparison easier for readers who are more familiar with the SSHWS. It shouldn't be implying that typhoon, tropical cyclone, etc. are part of the SSHWS. United States Man (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@United States Man: I think what Netoholic is saying is that while the "tropical depression" and "tropical storm" classifications are pretty much always used in conjunction with the SSHWS, they technically are not part of it. To be honest, I don't know what those two classifications are part of! Dustin (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
No, Atl/EPac TS/TD storms have (SSHWS/NWS) to indicate that the center (NWS in this case) assigns the TD/TS designation. For JTWC it says (JTWC scale) for TS/TD. -- Netoholic @ 05:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, I understand that, but do we have another alternative? Putting the NWS is sort of misleading itself, and is just more confusing than keeping SSHWS. Also, I read the SSHWS thread in the talk archive, and it strayed off topic and was full of smart remarks regarding Netoholic, so it is irrelevant here. United States Man (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic: But there is no "JTWC scale", so that is misleading and needs to be fixed in some manner. United States Man (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Check the #Infobox Hurricane section here also for more on the whole categorization discussion. Yeah sometimes the sections have unfortunately gone off-topic and people have split discussion on many occasions. Its frustrating. Also, is "(JTWC rating)" better? I could change the Atl/EPac to say "(NWS rating)" as well for TS/TD. -- Netoholic @ 05:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you could change it to say (JMA) and (JTWC) in the WPac, so that both of them are the same and there isn't one with "scale" and one with "rating" or one just by itself. United States Man (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Perhaps "categorization/category"? In any case, @Netoholic and United States Man: I will not be able to respond again until tomorrow. Good night. Dustin (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I tried that before, but people pointed out that sometimes the data for storms isn't coming from JWA itself... so its misleading to say just "(JWA)". We can say what the storm is according to their scale, but not misrepresent them as the source. -- Netoholic @ 05:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see if anyone else stops by to offer their opinions. Me and you are clearly getting nowhere, so have a great night. United States Man (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, since it already has the (Saffir-Simpson scale) on the WPac, I think it can work the way it is now. United States Man (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I've traveled a lot of these roads already, hopefully you get a sense of the complications I've had to work around. I really do think the article Dustin first came here to ask about looks fine as-is, and that generally the template is in a good place. -- Netoholic @ 05:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

File name of tropical cyclone pictures

Here in Wikipedia, people tend to use a file name like Genevieve Aug 7 2014 2359Z.jpg for tropical cyclones. It looks proper for people in the United States, but it brings more technical issues. First, the order will be a problem if some tropical cyclone lives between two months. Aug will be in front of Jul in categories, but August is actually later than July. Besides, non-English users also cannot immediately understand the file name, as well as the format is only used in the U.S., in fact.

The way I prevent those issues is to use a file name very closer to ISO 8601, a standard for date and time. The file name would look like Genevieve 2014-08-07 2359Z.jpg. I know American people may not like that, but it is better for most of people around the world. -- Meow 11:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't dislike the format you propose (I prefer it over DD-MM-YYYY an MM-DD-YYYY in numerical form), but why can't you just bypass such issues by using a category sortkey on the files' description pages on Commons? Dustin (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Adjusting season infobox?

There was an ongoing discussion about the see also section, and I wanted to refocus it a bit. Right now, the SHEM seasons all link to one another, but the NHEM ones don't. Why not? It'd be easy to just add it, so that 2005 AHS would also link to PHS, PTS, and NIO all in the same infobox. That's what infoboxes are for, after all. See also sections are more appropriate for seasons that are actually similar, like other see also sections. Basically, for the coding, all that'd have to be added is a few lines to include NIO, WPAC, EPAC, and ATL.

For a similar discussion, I also don't think we should link the NHEM seasons to the seasons at the same time in the SHEM. There is little relation between 2005 AHS and 2004-05 SWIO seasons. If you wanted a link for both of them, then it should be an article for Tropical cyclones in 2005 (which has been proposed off and on over the years). However, by result of how the infobox would be coded, you could still add the ones from across the hemisphere if you wanted. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. United States Man (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Since I don't think this would be that controversial, does anyone who know coding want to make this change? I'm a bit of a coding n00b. :/ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I would oppose the removal of the SHEM links from NHEM articles and visa versa for various reasons, including the fact that the Worlds weather is interconnected. Hurricanehink makes the point that 2005 AHS and 2004-05 SWIO seasons, have very little in common which is true bar for the fact that the tropical waves probably originated very near too or over the SWIO. It is also worth noting that in every basin bar the Atlantic, tropical cyclones have been observed in both the NHEM and SHEM basins at the same time.Jason Rees (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I just mean that it shouldn't be mandatory. If you have the links in there as you do with the SHEM seasons, then it'd be optional, which I think works best and is easiest. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I briefly made an attempt at links in an adjustable navbox form, but I forgot about it relatively quickly. What would be the preferred format? Would you actually be adding this to the main season infobox? Dustin (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to show, my attempt may be seen at User:Dustin V. S./Template sandbox and User:Dustin V. S./sandbox#Template sandbox. I never figured out how I would get this to work for SHem seasons because there are multiple years, so I gave up on it for awhile. Dustin (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree with JR that I oppose such removal. Climate patterns apply to the entire globe. For instance, say a WPAC storm sparks a WWB that sparks an El Nino, hence affecting all basins worldwide. As for whether the NHEM seasons get added to the infobox, meh. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, I'm not saying to remove them, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be mandatory. And, if all of the seasons are just added to the template, then any of them could be added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible change to Template:Infobox hurricane

I made this change to the template to help the SSHWS comparisons with the other scales in other basins (such as saying "Category 5 typhoon" instead of just "Category 5"). I believe the change does nothing but good, but Netoholic does not think so for a variety of reasons. What do others think about the change? United States Man (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My preference would be for the type parameter too stay, especially since the regional name does not match the SSHWS type at times (eg: NIO/SWIO). However, with all of that being said i must admit to kinda liking the plain old category 5, since it avoids complications like STY. We also have to make a few changes to the infobox hurricane current to make sure we can still use it when the JMA are still warning on TC's.Jason Rees (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if we could avoid splitting discussions. Doing so means that new readers miss out on points that have already been discussed before. By making a new section each time, you're mistakenly implying to them that this is a new topic. Its not. Just 3 sections above in #Additional_discussion_regarding_.7B.7BInfobox_hurricane.7D.7D, you recently discussed the exact same topic. In that, I referred to still other sections on this topic. In short, the categories displayed must be appropriate and match the actual scale linked -- we can't combine terms, and wouldn't want to because it becomes excessively repetitive. -- Netoholic @ 17:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Any adjustments needed for the "Winter" skin?

It seems like the WMF is working in this new skin called "Winter", and it looks like it's going to replace Vector. Here's an example for a: small storm article (TS Zelda (1991)), a large storm article (Sandy), and a season article (2013 AHS). As you can see, all the {{Infobox hurricane small}}s are moved up in the season article. What adjustments do we need to keep the displays the same way as Vector?—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 17:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well. This skin looks like a piece of crap. My screen has been seeing display problems. Mitch32(Protection is not a principle, but an expedient.) 17:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That's something that needs to be fixed altogether, not just the WPTC templates. Looks like every infobox that is under a section would do the same thing, so that's a major project-wide sort of bug. -- Netoholic @ 18:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, if there's a bug issue, there's something that needs fixing. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Inactive sections of the Wikiproject

What can be done about many of the adjacent sections of the wikiproject that have since became inactive like for the example, the Merging section has since been listed as defunct. 98.174.223.41 (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not leave it alone? YE Pacific Hurricane 17:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

“The” issue

I know using “JMA” and “JTWC” instead of “the JMA” and “the JTWC” does not look standard in English, but without “the” is what they use. You could say that Japanese people are not good at English, but you could not say some American military division is not good at English. The National Hurricane Center, however, is not a good example as the center adds “the” before NHC but sometimes does not add. We should ask a professional linguist for help. -- Meow 02:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This has never been a problem before. It's about proper English here. People who work for the JMA, JTWC, NHC, ect were not English majors. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I really don't think that this is an issue. It's proper English already the way it is. Now, I don't know how other "English-language groups" say it, but this is mainly an "American-English" based article, so it should follow the rules of English grammar (which it already does). Given this, it should not be changed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_32&oldid=1147995879"