Talk:2017 Pacific hurricane season

Style problem

Alright, this is a bit controversial, but for this turns into a min-edit war, let me explain my one real beef. First sentence reads "The 2017 Pacific hurricane season is an ongoing event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation, in which tropical cyclones form in the eastern Pacific Ocean." This makes the next few sentences seem less relevant "The season will officially start on May 15 in the eastern Pacific, and on June 1 in the central Pacific; they will both end on November 30.[1]" as this implies that the CPAC isn't relevant to the article, which is further backed up by what the infobox reads "(Record earliest formation in East Pacific)" (which is arguably an unnecessary addition in itself- as the words "formation" is redundant, and given that this article just covers to 180W, I think listing a record for only the NHC AOR of the EPAC is a bit excessive, but that's for another day) and the last sentence reads "This was demonstrated when the first storm, Tropical Storm Adrian, was named on May 10 and became the earliest-known tropical storm in the East Pacific since the advent of satellite." But before I re-rubb my styling down everyone's throat again, I'm opening the floor for thoughts on this. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

. Resolved for now, as I think I figured out what is sufficient, but as a reminder, please be careful with wording stuff like this for the rest of the season. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Beatriz

I am confused as to why the image of Beatriz at 17:10 UTC (before it was a tropical storm) is more suitable for placing in the infobox than the image taken more than three hours later at 20:15 UTC. At this later time, it had attained peak intensity in terms of winds, and almost peak intensity in terms of pressure. Just by comparing the two images, it is crystal clear that the system was far stronger at the later time. It is, as far as I am concerned, ridiculous that it could cross one's mind to include a 'peak intensity' image of a system that wasn't even a tropical storm yet! I originally added the 20:15 UTC image to the hidden infobox when there was no image there. The image was then replaced with the 17:10 UTC one under the claim that it was a "much better image". In no way whatsoever were the criteria upon which this assessment of image superiority was made stated in the edit summary, or anywhere else for that matter. Assessing an image as 'much better' is purely one's own opinion, and that opinion presents itself with little credibility when no evidence is provided at all. I then changed the image back the 20:15 UTC one and included reasons for this reversion. Despite this, the image was then changed back, once again without any reasoning, to the 17:10 UTC one. I am desperate for an explanation of the reasons as to why the 17:10 UTC image is being used in lieu of the 20:15 UTC image which, upon the basis of the arguments I have presented, would surely deemed to be more suitable and appropriate for inclusion in this article. Thank you. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I am quite disappointed with the response to my above attempt at discussing the topic of editorial conflict. I provided good, logical and fair reasons for why I believe the 20:15 UTC image is more suitable for the purposes of factual depiction of the true intensity of the tropical storm. My actions were in line with being here to build an encyclopedia, namely helping improve encyclopedic content, providing constructive input into communal discussions, and aiming to improve the quality of content. I waited one-and-a-half days for a response to my above post, and, given the fact none came, proceeded to change the picture. In my edit summary I stated my reasoning for changing the image was detailed in the talk page, which I even added a hyperlink to. I also asked for the edit not to be reverted without discussing the matter adequately in the linked talk page section. To my dismay, you reverted the edit with the same non-reason as before, as was mentioned in my above post. My initial edit summary about my choice of image was in line with this, and then my talk page post was in line with this, demonstrating my willingness and attempts to assume good faith with regards to your edit reversions, and reach consensus or resolution civilly and properly. Despite this, the blatant disregard of my edit summary requesting for non-reversion is in my opinion mildly immature and dishonourable and is in conflict with the third paragraph of this previously linked section. Additionally, in the second paragraph of that section, my claims in the previous post as to the lack of weight of arguments constituted only of 'I like it' (or in this case, 'this image is better') are backed up.

So, in summary, I would appreciate it if this post and the one preceding it were to be responded to in full in a timely manner. I do understand that, as my Wikipedia account is not even two months old, my opinion will naturally have far less weight or importance than those of most of the long-time cyclone article contributors such as yourself (as I have found in a number of my edits). However, I do believe my views deserve at least some attention, and at least a fair go. I am fine with the 17:10 UTC image being used as long as there is sufficient reason for it, and a concerted effort made to respond to my questions and concerns. Thank you once again. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: So this "thing", imo, is not a really 'big' problem here in this project after being here for some years, therefore there is literally nothing to else to say, otherwise you are a new user here. Going back, the 1710Z image, as I said, has a much "clearer or well-defined" image than the 2015Z image. Yes, you are right that your image has it closer to peak, though literally the 1710Z image is from the NASA gallery (where they produce very nice images, also they defined this as "tropical storm" already, even though the trackfile says it did not yet). I think this is the problem for storms which only last between 1-3 days, where images are "limited" and mostly unclear from the worldview site. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: OK. No worries. Thanks for replying. :) ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Todo

Since I refuse to touch this basin for the time being, and as a 9 year WPTC veteran, I want to give new users a chance to add content. 1 2 3 4 5 are good places to start. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Yellow Evan:. Just a question, but would a Beatriz article be necessary, despite we still don't have that much information? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit lean on this, but I'd say maybe, considering we have articles on these so-called "Mexico coasthuggers" (like Trudy 2014, etc.) --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in my view is ever "needed", but feel free to be bold and create an article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Stuff for Calvin: 1 2 3 4. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

RI vs EI

I was gonna blindly revert this, but at the last second, opted not to, since I wanted to discuss it a little. Explosive intensification is now longer a official term per the NWS (which IIRC was something like 42 mbar/12 hours, and even if we were to use it on an unofficial basis (which one could argue borders on WP:OR), I don't think Fernanda can be considered one. In a 24 hours span, this went from T4.5 to T6.5, which signifies T2.0/day, which while easily meets the meteorologic definition of RI, I wouldn't consider it EI like some other systems in this basin alone such as Amanda and Cristina from 2014 or even something like Sandra from 2015. Thoughts? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit I was sort of contemplating this. IMGO, I'd classify EI as something like what Wilma/Patricia or Matthew/Felix did (aka 80+ mph wind increase in 24 hours, or in the extreme case, 120 mph in 24 hours). I'll change it back to what it should've been (If this were stronger I'd consider otherwise). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Images

@MarioProtIV:, @ChocolateTrain:, @Typhoon2013:, and everybody else involved - please stop the completely unnecessary edit warring on storm images for Eugene and Fernanda. Nobody gives a shit if one image is colored slightly differently than another, or if one shows a tiny sliver of land when the other doesn't. It would be much more useful and productive to edit content for the current seasons and past. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Especially to @MarioProtIV: please start a discussion explaining your reasons why etc, instead of just randomly starting an edit war. Thank you @TropicalAnalystwx13: for noticing about his. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@TropicalAnalystwx13: I appreciate your efforts in trying to end the conflict between the involved editors; however, there are better ways of doing it than swearing and dismissing and trivializing the opinions of other editors. Your assertion that "nobody gives a **** if one image..." is clearly false, because if that were true, then this dispute wouldn't be happening in the first place. Perhaps you couldn't care less, but that is evidently not the case for other editors. Please refrain from making such sweeping generalizations which are so obviously wrong. On the other hand, if it is in fact the case that 'nobody' cares what the images are like, then whenever I upload an image I should expect it to be left there and endorsed without any fuss (this, as I'm sure you could imagine, is unlikely to happen). Something I have a problem with is that discussions regarding the images of Dora and Eugene were finalized and a consensus reached a long time ago, but certain editors have decided to spontaneously revive them, causing a huge and unwanted tempest and flurry of reverts. Additionally, I find it concerning that MarioProtIV reverted me, denying that the image he uploaded was not black-and-white but rather in color, when it is a decidedly black-and-white infrared image. This was either a mistake (although, if this is the case, then why wouldn't he admit his error?) or him simply doing anything possible to retain his image.

TropicalAnalystwx13, regarding the point you raised on the fact that we should spend more time making meaningful edits, I concur. In fact, I have recently made a multitude of improvements to the Cyclone Debbie article. Typhoon2013 has also recently spoken of the potential to create an article for Severe Tropical Storm Talas, demonstrating his commitment to improving the encyclopedia. I would also like to echo the calls of Typhoon2013 for MarioProtIV to be more forthcoming in his discussions of reasons for reversions. It would also be appreciated if talk page pings were responded to, and an effort made to articulate the merits of his images in more detail. Finally, I would request of you, TropicalAnalystwx13, to be more understanding and accepting of the concerns and opinions of other editors. Editors like Jasper Deng have taken it in their stride to seek a good and fair resolution to problems such as this. Kind regards, ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Let me rephrase what he said in a more civil way. While we appreciate your efforts to update images, it does strongly resemble bikeshedding because up to a certain point, images aren't worth fighting about. @MarioProtIV: Please do not revert anyone else (except obvious vandalism) without specifying an edit summary stating why.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hilary

There's been a lot of attention over the name "Hilary" on the list because of its similarities to Hillary Clinton and Don's to Donald Trump. Is it too early to add it because the storm's non-existence? --GeicoHen (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes since they could always skip the name and I personally feel that its too trivial to be included in the article.Jason Rees (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

They're not going to skip a name, and there's virtually no chance that Greg ends up the final named storm of the season this early. If "Hilary" is too trivial to talk about, then so is "Don" on the Atlantic page. --GeicoHen (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't know why a level 3 header was created, but otherwise, I don't have a problem with including it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@GeicoHen: Some of the warning centers reserve the right to skip or substitute a name if it is not deemed appropriate when it is due to be used. This includes NHC and the hurricane committee who back in 2001, substituted Isreal for Ivo. It is also trivial to mention it imo as all tropical cyclones are not named because of a politician these days. Oh and for the record I also feel that the name Don shouldn't be mentioned in the AHS.Jason Rees (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Max

Looks like max will be forming into a hurricane west of mexico city on the 14th.Mantion (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It is still too far out to even tell, most models become extremely inaccurate 3-5 days out. Wikipediauser123456 (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2017

216.237.237.226 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

{CANES)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Article for Max

I'm planning on drafting an article for Hurricane Max. If anyone can help out, it would be greatly appreciated. I've started it here. Cooper 19:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Image of 96C

I propose that the image of 96C should be re-added back into the article. It's relevant to the "Other System" section. I know there's a lot of white-space, but that would mean we would have to remove PTC 10 from the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. If we have to reduce the white-space, I think we should reduce the size of the image. Would do you all think? -INeedSupport- ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 04:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@INeedSupport: Wrong talk page! You're clearly referring to the 96C Invest from the 2018 Pacific hurricane season, there was no such storm in the 2017 season. Please move this discussion to where it belongs. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@CycloneYoris: Oops. Thanks for telling me that! I'll just paste this article to the correct talk page -INeedSupport- ^{(2019 Here We Come!)} 00:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Outdated

@CycloneYoris: A number of TCRs were not added to the summary of the storms. The summary for Hurricane Otis, for example, was still based on the operationally issued advisories and not the TCR. These summaries need to be updated.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Bringing this to GA/GT

I've been planning on getting 2017 (and 2016) PHS articles to GA-class, in an effort to get both topics to GT. Currently the page is really in need of big improvements: better and more prose, updated information and fixing the summary. I'd really appreciate some helping hands on the page, or at least some feedback on improvements. I have some ideas, and I'd love to see some others. For now I intend to work gradually due to some time constraints. JavaHurricane 17:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)