Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Premature?

Isn't it a bit early to be starting this page? There's nothing but storm names here. I'd have waited at least two or three extra weeks. Dustin (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There are already predictions out though: [1]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: And? We rely upon independent reliable sources that discuss the topic. Unlike a sports season, I don't think weather has any real commentary prior to the event itself, which is why I cited WP:CRYSTAL. I don't see what the rush is. The first storm will come and then you can create the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem waiting, sorry for the waves here. I need some rest... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Unless anyone else wants to argue this, I'm already at two reverts. Would you reestablish status quo ante and restore the redirect? Chris Troutman (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Because discussion is necessary for changes to occur, I would have likely followed through with your request had the page not already been redirected. This has already been done, however. You seem to have already responded in turn. I just thought I'd let you both know that I 'have' seen your comments here. Dustin (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

What's the point of reverting the page? You can just leave it be until the season starts. No big deal. It will likely get created again in the following weeks, and some predictions for 2017 have already been released. MoneyHurricane (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the point in taking down this page. Some forecasting agencies have already released predictions of activity for the impending season, and the page maybe necessary in the case of an exceedingly rare storm like Alex occurs again. Leave it be, as reverting the changes already made will likely be undone in following weeks. Vedanara2 (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@MoneyHurricane and Vedanara2: I see you're both new here. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are always in effect. We don't keep articles around as worksheets "just in case." When there are multiple independent reliable sources about the subject it would be fine to put content here. Before then, it's inappropriate because the subject is imaginary. I understand it's fun to create content but without proper sourcing you turn Wikipedia into a website for fan theories, and we can't allow that. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the subject is "imaginary", and theoretically speaking, there is content in the article (the naming list), and on paper, this really isn't any less justifiable from the 2028 Summer Olympics. However, given that the storm naming list is already covered elsewhere, I don't see a reason for this to exist. Either on or slightly before January 1, or when there are season predictions out, whatever comes sooner, is when IMO, the article should be created. Ditto with the EPAC, ATL, WPAC, and NIO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Here's the difference: right now the article about the 2028 Olympics (which shouldn't really exist, either) has 56 citations from a variety of news sources. If there was significant coverage of this topic then I'd accept the topic is generally notable. However, it's not. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yea, the only thing here that is notable to be included is the naming list, which is better suited elsewhere for the time being. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do note that predictions have been released for 2017.MoneyHurricane (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Source please? Jdcomix (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uh, can i just say one thing? The official forecasts for the season dont start coming out until mid December, so no offense, but whats the point in creating the page before then. It just doesnt make sense to do so imo until reliable information gets released in a few weeks. Hurricane Layten (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking the project does not make the season articles as soon as one season has ended, with the exception of the Pacific typhoon season because there are no sources talking about them. I would also comment that the predictions for the 2017 season that @Knowledgekid87: and @MoneyHurricane: highlight are not from reliable sources and probably have no scientific basis. I would also be opposed to starting the article on December 15 or whenever the first discussion from CSU comes out. In fact I do not particularly see the need to start the article before April at the earliest, since not a lot can be said about the season till then. Obviously as @Vedanara2: pointed out if AL012017 or EP012017 occurs before April, then the article can be made up there and then but not before it is actually designated.Jason Rees (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I just don't see why we need to delete a page that will be once again be created in the near future. What's the point? Of course, apparently it is due to Wikipedia's policies, but still. - MoneyHurricane (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@MoneyHurricane: The point is, WP:V and WP:GNG apply now. I've already said that. We can't just leave the article up for a few weeks or months until it becomes useful. Honestly, you're very new here to be questioning our procedures. Please read up before you try to use Wikipedia as a hobby. This is an encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: "Honestly, you're very new here to be questioning our procedures." You do realize by saying that you are violating WP:BITE, correct? Jdcomix (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is the point of creating an article in November that isnt going to have any major content until at least April which isnt exactly the near future. Also we haven't deleted the page as the contents are still in the history of the article just redirected it off too the page that contains the most relevant information about the season available at the moment. As @Chris troutman: said we do not want to be turning "Wikipedia into a website for fan theories" which is what I personally think would happen, if we allowed the article to stand with the predictions that have been issued.Jason Rees (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jdcomix: I violate BITE all the time although it's questionable if this is one of those times. I am offended by editors who can't be bothered to read our norms and learn our culture before boorishly offering their two cents or editing out of turn. Why do you tolerate this obvious offront to our encyclopedia? Anyway, I've been to ANI before and we can go again if you don't like my conduct. I'm considering what's best for the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are on the same page, no one is saying we should not include season forecasts from CSU, ect when the article is created, right? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to put my view out there, I would oppose a motion to remove such information. Dustin (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: No, we are not removing the seasonal forecasts section of the future article. - MoneyHurricane (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No one is proposing the removal of the seasonal forecasts section, I personally feel that we should expand them with a list of acceptable forecasters eg: UKMO but not some random made up forecast that has no scientfic basis.Jason Rees (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Just making sure, and I agree with you actually. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok so I've definitely discussed this a lot last time where we created the 2016 PHS and AHS articles. So from what I've remember, we start the (2017) Atlantic hurricane season article when the first forecast comes up, and I am talking about an official one, which the first forecast to be published as far as I know is TSR which would be around sometime this month. It's that simple. It is true where we create this too early and a lack of info and outlooks and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, despite the season starts on June 1. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

We always discuss it and it is always way too early for the article to be created, however, i still feel that it is way too early to be creating the season article on the first forecast since there is not much information around. Just do a basic google for 2017 Atlantic hurricane season and the main thing you will find is fan cruft which is not needed in this article.Jason Rees (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel like it's time to create the 2017 Atlantic page. After all, it will be 2017 in a few weeks and TSR released their 2017 prediction. This has been the time of year in which the page was created in the past, so I think it's time to do it. Jason Rees, what's so bad about creating the page now? HurricaneDude2016 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Just because something has been created in the past at about this time, it doesnt mean it should happen this time especially since the arguments above said not now per some of Wikipedia polices like WP:Crystal. Also we have to note that just because one or two predications have been released by the agencies, it doesn't mean we have to put up the article for the relevant season.Jason Rees (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

IIRC CSU releases their forecast tomorrow. That's more then enough sources to legitimately put up the article. I don't get why your so against this, we didn't have this issue last year. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

CSU just released their prediction and its more or less the same as TSR, so I really think we need to put up the article now, as it usually put up when CSU releases their forecast. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

We have two reliable predictions already out - TSR and CSU. Every year for the past several years, the page has been released in mid-December. Why does it suddenly have to change this year? Also with storms like Alex and Pali last year, you never know what may happen in the offseason. Just because the season starts on June 1 doesn't mean you can't get storms before then. Waiting until April or May is way too long IMO.HurricaneDude2016 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just because we have a prediction and a discussion on what the season might do does not mean that we have to make it. Nor does the threat of any off season tropical cyclones, as the page can be created at any time between now and then. As a result waiting until April or May is not to long and is justified imo. I also find it bizarre that you two are suddenly objecting to my views when they have been well known for a few weeks now.Jason Rees (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your missing the point, whenever TSR and CSU had their forecasts released by this time the article was always created. I'm really tired of you consistently being negative against creating the page, we never had this issue last year or the years before. Plus, basins like the 2017 Pacific typhoon season have their article so why shouldn't the Atlantic? Also off-season cyclones such as Alex in January of this year do warrant the creation of this article, so I have no idea where you are getting the idea that the article still shouldn't be created even if a cyclone formed in January. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hang on stop trying to twist or misinterpret my comments or accuse me of being negative against the creation of it - at the end of the day {{Ping|Chris . If advisories were to be initiated on a system at any time between January and April 2017, then I would have no problems with this page being restored. However, until then there is very little information on what the season will do and thus I do not see the point in having the page, until there are more predictions released in March, April or May. Also the Pacific typhoon season and North Indian Ocean have articles for 2017 already, because their offically seasons start on January 1 not June 1. I do not personally care if you have not had these issues before now, your having them now since since consensus can and does change over time and as @Chris Troutman: pointed out wikipedia has rules like WP:Crystal that should and will be followed by all.Jason Rees (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with MarioProtIV. Now that we have reliable seasonal forecasts available, this article can and should be created - especially since that debacle is what prevented the creation of this page in the first place. Jason Rees, I'm sorry, but you are in the minority on this one. This article does not revolve around you and what you want or believe. The lot of users here, including myself, believe it is time that this page be created, and that is all there is to it. The reasons that support the creation of this article outweigh the opposition, both in terms of quality and quantity. -Vedanara2 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Acctully Vedanara2 the lack of seasonal forecasts is not what prevented the article from being created - it was the fact that it did not and still does not meet Wikipedia polices which is what it needs to do before creation. I am well aware that the article does not revolve around me and that the majority of users wish for it to be created, however, this discussion is not a vote and people should be challenging and talking about the policies and trying to reach a consensus rather than attacking me. I am not seeing any signifcant coverage in google or google news about this season and thus I am opposing the creation of the article for now.Jason Rees (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, most of the arguments above said that we should create the page in mid-December, including Dustin, the one who started this page. HurricaneDude2016 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately most of those arguments ignore wikipedia policies like WP:Crystal, which WP:Consensus says we have to respect.Jason Rees (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: @Supportstorm: I think you really need to chime in on this, and @Jason Rees: it's all against one, so either way it's still gonna get put up in the next few days, NOT April/May. How do you know we won't get Arlene/TD One in January? Or February? Or March? This is why it needs to be up, not including the forecasts because YOU don't want the page up is annoying as heck. So what if it didn't get enough google hits? IGNORE THE HHW AND FICTIONAL SEASONS, if they bother you, IGNORE IT. This isn't the place to be the only oddball where everyone agrees on a positive thing and you want the bad thing to happen. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: The fact that it isnt getting enough google hits at the moment is quite significant since it shows that the season has not got significant coverage at the moment which is something that Wikipedia requires. Also while I do not know that Arlene wont form, I totally reject the argument that it needs to be up when it can be created within about a minute in March, APril or May when it is required. Also we are not and should not be a warning service, if the first system of the year forms before March then the article can be made if that is what the RFD decides. Also please stop the personal attacks, I am not an oddball who is trying to make a bad thing happen, as its not bad the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season article hasnt been created by January 1.Jason Rees (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Since JR mentioned CRYSTAL, let me mention this paragraph from WP:CRYSTAL. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." A few obscure numbers from TSR, without any context is not encyclopedic IMO, but this was the case in this version of the article, and I'm not quite convinced yet there is more info out there, aside from the naming lists, which are included elsewhere. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not like this article won't be created at some point in the future. If it currently violates a wikipedia rule then I don't see why we can't put off the creation of the article till a later time. Maybe start a sandbox to edit until it's relevant to reinstate this page. At the moment it looks like everyone here is fussing about a trivial manner. Supportstorm (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jason Rees:@Supportstorm: If so, after reading your responses, when are we creating the page? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As stated several times my view is that unless a system develops in the off-season, we shouldnt be creating this article in mainspace until March, April or May. I am personally happy with Supportstorms suggestion of it being made in a project sandbox.Jason Rees (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding what HurricaneDude2016 said when he mentioned me, my above statement was that I would wait 'at least' that much time. The "two or three weeks" bit was based on precedence. If compelling reasons are given to break precedence, then it can be done. On the possibility of off-season storms, a potential new standard would be to wait until April or May with the noted exception of off-season storms; the article could be created earlier in such instances. I'm not extremely of one side at this point, but I don't want others to treat this issue as settled or as though everyone favors maintaining precedence. Dustin (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to make one statement. If the page can't be created due to policies, what stopped them from being made at this time before? Also, if policies don't allow this page, the 2017 Pacific typhoon season Page should be taken down as well. - Master0Garfield —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The 2017 Pacific typhoon season will not be taken down, since the season actually starts on January 1 and not in 6 months time.Jason Rees (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The Atlantic hurricane season does not start until June, while the Pacific typhoon season starts at the beginning of 2017. Not comparable. Dustin (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will now follow the new thing here. I would say to start create it by April as that is the time when the second (TSR) forecast comes out. So from now on, we do not create the next AHS article when the old one has finished/when the first forecast has published. We create it just few (2-3) months before the official start, or create when there are more forecasts in order to have decent amount of info in the article. It is true that despite there is info with only 1 forecast, the amount of info there is not enough. So I agree with the new thing now. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see a need for the PTS page either, since there's nothing to put in there. As for in the past, policies and wikiproject interruption of those policies can and will change. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Yeah, but the WPac is an ongoing season and never ends, despite there are no "official" forecasts during the first four months.

Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: @Yellow Evan: @Supportstorm: @Dustin V. S.: @Cyclonebiskit: Are you guys aware of what happened recently?? I thought we agreed of creating it in April? Apparently there was another discussion held about this topic and a user decided to close it down and create it. I really do not know if there is like a third topic about this but I'm not confused. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that discussion should be superseded by this one, as this one has had more participants and has gone on for substantially longer. Dustin (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Thank you for informing. I just reverted the edits and for real now, let's wait for a couple of months! :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC officially closed as create, so I'm fairly sure we have to obey it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There are options such as an RfC or even a AfD, but for now my point stands below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• Support article - If there are predictions out there that are reliable then we should include them in this article. This whole notion that there needs to be x date before an article is created is ridiculous. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Why should there be an article with nothing but a few predictions, particularly considering it'll likely be over five and a half months before any storms form? The more I think about this, the less the status quo makes sense. The vast majority of the unique information on this season article is either in a tiny box with twelve numbers and in a large list of names, the latter already covered by Tropical cyclone naming#North Atlantic. Dustin (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support article - Two predictions that are reliable are enough to start making this page. @Typhoon2013, it was not certain that we were going to create it in April (you can't be certain about what happens in the future), and redirecting a decent-sized page like this page is ridiculous. I believe that the article should be created because a couple users who want this article restored are giving very good reasons to restore this article, instead of creating it by a "certain" date. Things don't always go the way you want it to, sorry. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 13:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I just restored the article again, it looked like there was a consensus to keep this article so it should be respected per WP:STICK. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Knowledgekid87: You are WP:INVOLVED, so aren't really in the best spot to be determining consensus. Dustin (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the admin who closed the RfD wasn't. As I said there are further options if you really want to press the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, that administrator should have taken note of the large-scale discussion here which involves far more people rather than the miniscule discussion with few participants. Dustin (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It is up to debate if the admin saw these comments or not but in the end the discussion was closed. Not everything ends the way you want it to on Wikipedia, you can either follow WP:STICK or exhaust all your options. I really don't see this as a huge pressing issue but that is just my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop linking that page in replies to me as some sort of way of invalidating my response. Why should the "discussion" with so little discussion take precedence over the one we've been having this entire time? It's no better than a shady way of sidestepping this issue in favor of RfD majoritarianism rather than consensus. Dustin (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Forget the RfC idea then, this is the wrong venue to discuss this issue, I would try WP:AN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this a veiled threat? Dustin (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

What other option do you suggest? I don't want to see this go into an all out edit war between the two parties. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I must have misunderstood. I'm afraid to say I have actually had other editors threaten in such a way before, so I wanted to be sure. I do think you overestimate how much the final outcome matters to me; I have not made any changes to that article since this discussion was created, after all. I even started out pretty much on the fence. I just want the outcome to take into account the ideas that have come up at this page; it doesn't seem right to sidestep it, is my point. Dustin (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Its okay, and I understand how you feel but right now both sides can claim they have a consensus. This needs to be sorted out, anyways I will be on again later I have to go offline now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be down with an RfC among the broader community, but I fear that the outcome, as much as I wish for it to be otherwise, will end up being a vote, whichever way it goes. I don't know why that RfD needed to be opened when there was already a discussion here. Because I already knew that 2017 Atlantic hurricane season was a redirect, I never had clicked on it, even though if I had, I would have seen the RfD notice, and as such, my only comment there was right when the RfD was started. Dustin (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason the RFD should take precedence is because that was actually closed by an administrator. However, I see no reason why we can't continue discussion on here in the meantime and try to form a new consensus. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'd be okay with that, if possible. It's not like the continued existence of this article is causing damage; it's just that it arguably is not seem necessary yet at the current time. Dustin (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

which is why I think we should continue talking on here. Anyhow, my main point I stated time after time was that there wasn't enough content for this article to be made, and random numbers from an agency without any explanation don't mean anything. A first glance at the newly made article suggests I've been proven wrong. However, I question the essence of the first parapgh of the seasonal forecast section, as most of it is stuff that is already explained in wikilinks or stuff not related to 2017 at all, like the El Nino, or weekly and monthly forecasts updates- which borders on WP:CRYSTAL. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I started the RfD at the invitation of Jason Rees because the article was a redirect at the time, making RfD the appropriate venue for officially discussing the keeping, re-purposing, or re-targeting of the redirect. It's not like y'all couldn't have chimed in there; there was a conspicuous notice placed on the page for the duration of the RfD inviting comment. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion as well the redirect remained open for its 7 day course. I find it hard to believe that it was widely ignored. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: @Yellow Evan: @Dustin V. S.: @HurricaneGonzalo: You know what? It seems like this is going nowhere and we are just going to continue arguing, which I do not like. I have to go back to my old self and follow other users, sorry, where I'm going to support keeping the article. Problem was why didn't anyone did this a long time ago? Especially how I made the 2015 AHS during Nov 2014, and made the 2014 AHS during Nov 2013, and during those times, no one reverted me with a reason, so why not just do the same?? (see oldest edits in those articles as I did it too) So sorry, I would like to support this article being created now because I did it for three times already. This maybe my last time participating in this situation because I just wanted to have a good holidays with a good mood. So have a safe and happy Christmas, and I hope we end this argument! :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Just because something was done in the past does not mean it should be repeated. This entire section began as an argument over creating the article in November, and then the question arose of why even December is considered acceptable for a subject that is six months out. Did we create the 2016 Pacific typhoon season article in July 2015? No. Yet, we find it okay to create an article whose only unique information is largely confined to a tiny box. Honestly, it'll have probably have next to no information until June barring a few predictions which'll maybe be given a couple paragraphs. Alas, all my current views aside, many had either made up their minds to wait a few months or create immediately the moment the question of when the best time to create the page arose, so this discussion has had lessened effects. Dustin (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe you ever came here wanting or expecting to have an argument or anything, so I wish you all the best. Dustin (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Telling others how to stop wasting their time is a good way to waste yours. If you don't like the discussion we are having, do not participate. But, since we seem to be going nowhere here, mind if I consolidate the seasonal predictions now? On an unrelated note, I wish everyone here a happy holidays and for those who celebrate, Merry Christmas. Regards, YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

New NHC product

As most of you here probably know by now, the NHC seems to be developing a new product to issue on land-threatening disturbances (likely with 2-day outlook chances of development greater then 80%) sometime as early as this year, and the link for that can be found here. I know it's only January right now and we have another 4 or 5 months to go until we see 01L/Arlene, but I feel like this should be discussed in advance so that come when they implement it we are ready.

In my opinion here's what I think we should do: We could begin having the operational and/or final (post-analysis) best track including the points where NHC issues advisories on these potential tropical cyclones. At first I was thinking that we could use the triangle points but that's confusing with the ET/RL/TL points, so I think we could actually use rhombuses for that. Also, I think that we can actually add an "Other systems" section at the bottom to include the afformentioned storms, sort of what the WPac season has. What do you think? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with an "Other" section of sorts. I'd need more time to consider the different shape bit. Inconsistencies could start to develop. Dustin (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

While active, all systems (including these land-threatening disturbances) should have their own section. If it fails to develop, then I'd move it to an "Other systems" section, which could also include systems that a non-NHC reputable source said was a (sub)tropical cyclone. I also don't think they should get an infobox. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems applicable, however would this have any impact on the storm that was claimed to have been a SS in mid-Sept? Some people have been adding it in lately. If anything, that system could go under the "other systems" section. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, that Bay of Biscay cyclone could go there. Ditto for any short-lived depressions that seem silly to give it a whole section and infobox. The focus is on the named storms, but we should also be thorough and inclusive. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we need a special shape for these systems though? They seem to fit nicely under the tropical low/disturbance category currently represented by triangles. Also, based on the document, it is still unclear whether this product would become operational for this season. — Iune(talk) 21:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

On a separate note, starting from this year the NHC will issue storm surge watches and warnings for the US's Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (source). We should probably prepare to accommodate that as well, especially at Template:HurricaneWarningsTable. ~ KN2731 {talk} 08:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Subtropical Depression One (2017) merge

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.

---

Yes this is notable, but does it really need its own article? The cyclone isn't disrupting anything, and isn't likely to so per WP:SIZE I feel it should be merged back into the main article here. Please don't go into WP:OSE as the focus should be on this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – It does need its own article. It's the first April tropical or subtropical cyclone since Ana of 2003. In addition, the formation date only marks the fourth time it has occurred in recorded history in the Atlantic. Besides, Ana was notable for its formation date, was also similar to One and its article is basically a good article. The same goes for Alex from last year. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a subtropical cyclone that hasn't broken any records. Like I said it is notable, but not enough so that it would be a stand alone article to convey the info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I could work on that though. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not just userfy the article? I feel this could be a case of WP:TOOSOON, if you think that it can be improved. My best guess would be a link to global warming maybe? It is a start, and wish you the best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess I could do that and maybe wait till Friday to move it back, leaving it here is a bit risky. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the compromise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support @MarioProtIV: WP:OSE arguments don't hold much water, as mentioned above. Mere subtropical depressions really need a good reason for notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• I ended up merging the content to the season article. Discussion can be closed. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:03, 19 April 2017 (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.

TS Arlene article

So now that the former puny depression known as SD One has developed into the mighty Tropical Storm Arlene, I think I should discuss it's possibility for having it's own article:

• For one, it is only the second named storm on record in the Atlantic, with the other being Ana in 2003
• The strongest by pressure for the month of April
• It formed at the northernmost latitude for a pre-season storm on record Wrong one. Meant "Formed at an unusually high latitude".
• The formation date

I think this definitely meets the criteria for making one, mainly because essentially it was Ana 2003 but further east. I've already been working on a draft for Arlene, and I plan to not move it to mainspace until tomorrow, after it has dissipated. Thoughts? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still opposed. Today's developments definitely make it more notable than when the first discussion was started, but we're still dealing with a low-end tropical storm with absolutely no land impacts. Cyclones that don't affect land usually don't get articles, with the exception of long-lived, erratic ones that allow for a beefy meteorological synopsis. Arlene should be fine with just a subsection. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An April storm is very rare, and I think there should still be an article for it. I could always just crunch the subsection to include less stuff but still cover the overall storm. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: Do you have a source for the two middle points (pressure and latitude)? What would an article have that a subsection would not cover just as adequately? I'm still not convinced.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Latitude: [2], and the pressure can be inferred as Ana was 994, and Arlene is 993. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm with the above two. Regarding Ana, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the storm did affect land. Plus, it was made when its context in the season was known. If Arlene's content becomes evident later that it should be split off, then it can be decided much later, not while it's active. We really shouldn't have these discussions for nearly every storm! Just put the info in the season article, and split off the sub-article when necessary. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think an article is necessary either. All the content can easily be covered in two paragraphs in the season article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with CB and Hink for obvious reasons. Ana has enough content to justify its own article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree on no article, WP:OSE should not be used when it comes to tropical cyclones as each one is unique. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I ditched my draft and merged it. Case closed, discussion can be closed. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Arlene page...vol. 2

Okay so it's been about a month since Arlene occurred, and since then some new info regarding it has popped up. Since Arlene dissipated, I've been steadily making a draft for it (making it in the style of Ana 2003) which at this point is pretty much ready to deploy. I know the last discussion said not yet, however that was when the storm was still active. Now, I think there has probably been some rethinking on whether or not this storm should be split off (which honestly it should be considering the Season section for it is getting too big). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I undid your edit because I wanted to gain a consensus on the matter. Has anything changed in about a month or so to have the storm warrant an article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With it being the only storm thus far, the section for it is just fine. It's a minor storm that had no direct impact on land, thus it doesn't warrant an article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"Minor storm" - yet it was only the second named storm on record to exist in April and defied forecasts (a bit similar to Shary 2010). Plus, indirect impacts AFAIK are allowed for storms, which I actually added in the draft since the system it was absorbed into had some effects on the Azores. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A paragraph of fluffed up records can only carry the scope of an article so far. It was a short-lived, weak tropical cyclone over the open ocean, that qualifies as minor in my book regardless of time of year. The way its presented now in the season article is concise and covers the topic effectively. There's no real need to change it up from that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am always a bit wary here on storms causing little to no impact getting their own articles. I would agree on notability if this storm were the first of something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

PTCs in timeline

Should we really have to include these in the season timeline? I don't see it as necessary, as I don't feel like it should be cluttered with a bunch of disturbances that fail to develop. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we need it. The whole point of the PTC is that it develops into a TC... I don't think they will issue these like crazy, there will not be a bunch of them. INFOWeather1 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Most Atlantic systems develop, so I don't buy that reason. However, since they are not tropical cyclones, there's no need to include them in the easy timeline graph. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• They should be added. They are warned on by the RSMC, readers are looking for them, and it is especially convenient for ongoing systems. I don't buy the "clutter" argument because we include disturbances and JMA minor TD's in the southern hemisphere and western Pacific, respectively.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: The RSMC there chooses how to sort it out their way. The Atlantic is just using this out for the first time. I strongly suggest we abide with @Cyclonebiskit:'s proposal (who imo should comment on this to quickly reach a consensus) from the April discussion. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: "The RSMC there chooses how to sort it out their way" - this is an argument for my view, not the opposing view.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I think they shouldn't be added because it will also make the EPac page look like an outsider. Both are monitored by the same RSMC, and including a new system in the timeline for Atlantic is just off, since the EPac is not doing this at all. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: This is a very weak argument. For starters, this has also been adopted in the eastern Pacific. For another, the basins have inherent differences, one of the most important being the proportion of land impact.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, they should not be in the cyclone totals because they are not tropical cyclones (yet). Even though the numbering system will look weird. INFOWeather1 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Except for excluding them from the totals for tropical depressions, storms, and major hurricanes, I do not understand the "they are not tropical cyclones; they are mere land threats" argument for relegating them to only the "Other systems" section. The only valid conclusion from that statement is that potential tropical cyclones could skew the season totals for depressions, storms, major hurricanes, and ACE. Readers are looking for potential tropical cyclones, they are covered in reliable sources (including the RSMC) as much as actual tropical cyclones, and any deaths and damage they cause steadfastly deserve to be in the totals.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they should be included outside the systems section (when active) or the other systems section (if it doesn't become a TC). Other JMA minor TD's are by definition tropical cyclones, and PTC's are not. Historically speaking, we've only included official tropical cyclones in this graph, and unless we want to change that, I don't see any justification for including them for the reason I just mentioned above. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Nor are the "tropical disturbances" or "tropical lows" in the southern hemisphere, and yet even the latter have full infoboxes. To put it another way, I see that as a WP:OSE argument that isn't convincing here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Then we should change the SHem systems, as for example last year we had to exclude about 10 "depressions" in the timeline for the SPac and Australia regions just because of the sheer amount of lows that failed to develop. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't buy the "clutter" argument, for reasons I've stated above. The timeline as a whole takes very little space and named cyclones' colors and labels easily stand out from potential ones.

In fact, the distinction should be very striking if we use grey or other dull but distinct color for potential tropical cyclones.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure on SPAC tropical disturbances, but AUS "tropical lows" are tropical cyclones. But unofficial systems like the one listed in 2006 Pacific hurricane season aren't included in the timeline graph, and probably most analogous to PTC. Should we start include unofficial systems in timeline graphs then? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't be good as it's not officially a tropical cyclone. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Strongly depends on why its unoffically a tropical cyclone. If its say the JMA initiating advisories on a system @ 179.6W then it should be treated as official, after all weather has no borders except the ones we make.Jason Rees (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Problem is, it is already designated (02L). If a PTC does not become a full-on TC, then I would support creating an OS section and mentioning it there. Imo there really is no point on making a full section on a PTC itself. Guys we need to be more aware of this as this is a "new" thing for the NHC and the basin itself. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: "no point"? Really? There is no point in covering systems that receive the same coverage in reliable sources as normal tropical cyclones in this basin?--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles in development

To avoid the question we have every year on whether storms get an article or not, here is the list of storms and a sandbox article, if possible. Note: having a sandbox doesn't mean it will be created, but it can be a useful way of gathering content outside of the main article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Tropical Storm Arlene - User:MarioProtIV/TS Arlene (2017)
• Tropical Storm Bret - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Bret
• Potential Tropical Cyclone Three - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/3L

Very nice! Yeah Bret and 3L/future Cindy will probably require pages in the future. Arlene not so sure and I am going to wait till the TCR for that storm comes out to see if anything else is added. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

WPC Advisories

Traditionally, we have displayed Infobox hurricane current for all storms when they are being warned upon in public advisories — including those advisories issued by the WPC (formerly the HPC). Cindy is still a tropical cyclone, and I fail to see how Cindy's "weak strength" is relevant on whether we should show the infobox. — Iunetalk 21:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: has been consistently re-adding the infobox even though it has turned post-tropical/extratropical. When have we ever kept it like that? As far as I know we always remove the infobox once the storm has become post-tropical/extratropical/a remnant low and the NHC has issued the last advisory on (expectations: Sandy and storms NHC is still issuing advisories that have become ET). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not include information if the NHC/WPC is officially issuing advisories? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That is for all storms. WPC just handles cyclones that move inland. If Cindy was in the Gulf posing a rainfall threat to coastal states, NHC would still be warning on it. As long as one of the two organizations are writing advisories, it's our duty to showcase that info. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Gert Article

Now that Hurricane Gert has dissipated? Do you think it is necessary that it should have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolutionisim (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article is necessary right now since its section here isn't exactly overflowing with information. ~ KN2731 {talk} 06:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Harvey

Do you think its possible for us to start an article on Harvey? I realize its early, but a State of Emergency has been declared for parts of Texas, so... 173.197.5.21 (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Expand the section with relevant info first. Once it starts getting to be too much for the section, an article can be made. State of Emergency doesn't really mean much (refer to Emily). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering the fact Harvey is now forecast to make landfall as a major...an article is absolutely necessary now. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Make a sandbox, get the info organized, and publish once it's in good shape. This will be getting lots of views, let's make sure it's a decent article first. Hurricanehink mobile (talk)|

Looks like 12george1 is onto it. Master of Time (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It's in good enough shape. Published. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Harvey timeline

Hey guys, instead of getting into a pointless revert war, discuss what to do about Harvey in the timeline here instead. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people believe the current version is incorrect. Harvey was not a continuous cyclone. It degenerated to an open wave for three days. Three days when the NHC did not issue any advisories. Displaying it as anything else than what is depicted right now is inaccurate. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I wholly agree. I noticed the change right after it was made, but I figured I would wait for someone to bring it up (or maybe I would have later). I don't see why the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season article should act as though Isidore was continuous either. Master of Time (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK the purpose of the timeline is to display when a storm was tropical; if a storm wasn't a tropical cyclone in a portion of its lifetime, that portion should be excluded. Also @Master of Time: Isidore isn't continuous on the the 2002 AHS's timeline, its original TD stage is underneath Hanna and well separate from the later C3 stage.~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 03:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@KN2731: I meant Lili. Don't know why I said Isidore. Master of Time (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Master of Time: Oh. Anyway I've just changed it to reflect its tropical wave stage on 25 and 26 September in accordance with its TCR. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 04:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Harvey damage

Ok so I think we need to establish a consensus as to how much damage Harvey caused. Multiple users are inserting different reports of estimated damage and I just had to undo an edit that had an unofficial $58 billion damage toll. So, are we keeping it at the low range (10 billion) or should we have it at the high range (58 billion). I would like to know so we don't have any more arguements until the TCR comes out, which won't be until 2018. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Just leave it as unknown for now until a official price is announced. EBGamingWiki (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)