Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:37, 6 April 2021

Shortcuts

Template:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Article alerts

2018 Global FT

Bumping thread for 730 days. However long it takes... Noah^Talk 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's in the topic?

Tropical cyclones in 2018 (future featured topic)

Tropical cyclones in 2018

92 articles

2018 Pacific hurricane season

Hurricane Bud

Tropical Storm Carlotta

Hurricane Hector

Tropical Storm Ileana

Tropical Storm Vicente

Hurricane Willa

Tropical Depression Nineteen-E

Hurricane Walaka

Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season

2017–18 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

Cyclone Ava

Cyclone Berguitta

Cyclone Dumazile

Tropical Storm Eliakim

Cyclone Fakir

Timeline of the 2017–18 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

2018–19 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

Timeline of the 2018–19 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

2017–18 Australian region cyclone season

Cyclone Kelvin

Cyclone Marcus

Cyclone Nora

18U Flood article

Timeline of the 2017–18 Australian region cyclone season

2018–19 Australian region cyclone season

Cyclone Owen

Timeline of the 2018–19 Australian region cyclone season

Liua may be another possible article. Noah^Talk 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: this spreadsheet is here if you need it. Noah^Talk 20:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Hurricanehink: I thought that I would bring this rather large topic to the eyes of the project... I have worked extensively on the EPAC portion and almost have enough for an FT there. I plan to Leslie with Cooper and Gordon this summer. Any thoughts on this topic? Noah^Talk 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a global FT would only feature the seasons, as each individual season could be its own good/featured topic. As usual, WPAC is going to be the biggest holdup. Also, the retired storms will be on the difficult side. I appreciate the efforts for a global GT/FT for a year. Eventually I think that navbox could go on the talk page for Talk:Tropical cyclones in 2018. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: This is displaying all storms involved in the subtopics... there are 60 total articles, but this has multiple subtopics. That is why there is indentation for storms and then for Florence's Met. Although that could be an issue for the SHEM seasons since some storms would not qualify as part of this year, but would for other years. Noah^Talk 13:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. For instance, the 2018-19 SWIO season would need to be a GA, but (thankfully) not Idai and Kenneth. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: How should we handle this? Noah^Talk 21:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean handle. All storms with articles in 2018 will have to be a GA or better. It'll be a lot of work, but it'll be impressive when it's done when it gets there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I mean how would the SHEM be handled since the entire season subtopic wouldnt get included? Should we just have the topic as it currently stands to keep it consistent? Noah^Talk 17:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: All of the topics for the SHEM seasons wouldn't have to be included. For instance, Idai being a 2019 storm wouldn't have to be a GA for the overall 2018 topic. Similarly, the 2018-19 season wouldn't have to become a GT for the whole topic, but it would have to be a GA at least. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Have you seen the progress that KN has been making in WPAC? Noah^Talk 16:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have! Good job KN, and good job to TY2013 for working on Usman. I might get Sagar and Mekunu to FA eventually (would just need one more FA to make that season an FT) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Personally think that there should be an article for Tropical Depression Josie. Like even so, it seems to be more significant than Cimaron. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChocolateTrain: Would you be willing to help get the southern hemisphere up to a good quality for this topic? Noah^Talk 01:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accompanying task force hasn't been linked on this page, so here it is. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pacific hurricane season (future featured topic)

Any thoughts on having a 2018 Pacific hurricane season featured topic within the next few months? My goal is to rewrite Walaka on Monday/Tuesday (and put it up for ACR) to make it better. I want to later rewrite Olivia and Bud to improve them both (also ACR). CooperScience is working on the timeline article currently as well. Noah^Talk 19:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'm busy with Cyclone Owen now, but I'm nearly done. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: The first article is the hardest to do usually. There is no time restraint on the work. Keep in mind I have been working on this topic on and off for two years now. Noah^Talk 19:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink and Chicdat: I can tell you that the topic isn't going to be happening until 2021. I actually would like to hold off on nominating it (even after the timeline is done) until I have gotten the chance to rewrite the storm articles I need to (Bud and Olivia at this point) and get them to FA. I think it would be cool to have an entirely featured featured topic going into the nomination. I really appreciate the effort everyone has put into the topic. I hope to do this prolific season due justice. Bud will be next storm I rewrite (after Leslie in ATL). I will do Olivia in December most likely. Noah^Talk 23:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire worldwide topic should be done by 2023 (the 5 year anniversary), which will allow for a lot of TFA's. ~Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: A GT should be doable, but idk about a FT by that time. After Hector, we would need 31 more (32 if we need a couple more WPAC articles). I will continue doing EPAC FAs and move to ATL next year, but it will take more than what I am able to do to get us all the way there in only two years. Noah^Talk 19:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, 11 per year is a lot. It's doable, for sure, but is probably too steep a hill. I'm already committed to Mekunu, Sagar, 2018 NIO, and Alberto. I'm interested in Yutu for the PTS. But that's only 5, and my editing time isn't what it used to be (peak 2007-08 during college, should've studied/partied more, oh well ._.) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Actually, I am going to get involved with finishing off this EPAC timeline article (I will finish August and do October). Nova has expressed interest in helping to finish it and KN may be willing to lend a hand. I do know that KN said he plans to do a bunch of PTS articles in December as he will be done with his months of exams. Noah^Talk 21:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WPAC is gonna be a majority of the remaining work, especially with needing four new articles, and improving five start-class articles. Here's hoping the tropics get quiet soon so we don't have to keep up with the busy active season! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the remaining nominations for the EPAC in the likely order of completion:

Hurricane Bud (2018)
Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season - CB has been hammering this one
2018 Pacific hurricane season
Hurricane Olivia (2018) - I'm working on fixing up this storm rn
2018 Pacific hurricane season - I will update this article (Bud, Olivia, and ACE) after finishing Olivia

How does this sound? Noah^Talk 11:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Atlantic hurricane season (future featured topic)

2018 Atlantic hurricane season

10 articles

Tropical Storm Alberto

Hurricane Florence

Meteorological history of Hurricane Florence

Hurricane Leslie

Hurricane Beryl

Tropical Storm Gordon

Hurricane Michael

Hurricane Chris

Tropical Storm Kirk

Timeline of the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season

Adding this in as I plan to work on it during 2021. Just a heads up to everyone... Destroyeraa is working on Beryl and I am doing Leslie right now. I started on Gordon this past summer and plan to finish it in 2021. Noah^Talk 22:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beryl and Chris both up to GA. L&D2K and I will work on Florence, Noah will handle the rest? ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 03:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will get Leslie and Gordon done. Noah^Talk 21:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 North Indian Ocean cyclone season (future featured topic)

2018 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

6 articles

@Hurricanehink: I added this topic here as I know you plan to work on it some during the next year as time permits. I believe you said only Titli needed to be created? Noah^Talk 22:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titli created by Nioni1234 and me. I’ll try to work on it when I have time. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 18:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pacific typhoon season (future good topic)

Added in the WPAC topic that KN has been working hard on. Prapiroon and Barijat may also be article worthy and should be checked out. Noah^Talk 22:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to check Prapiroon and Barijat. I'm going to create these articles first, but if I can't find any more Prapiroon and Barijat information, they'll be merged back into the season article. Mario Jump 83! 06:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

Please don't archive this until the end of Cyclone Cup. This is probably very necessary for some participants out there. Mario Jump 83! 06:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last equivalent of a sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006 to re-evaluate FAs for the new requirement for inline citations. By the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed through the Featured article review (FAR) page, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of FAs has been undertaken since then, resulting in a number of FAs that have not been reviewed for many years.

WP:URFA/2020 is a November 2020 list of 4,527 FAs that have not been reviewed at FAC or FAR for more than five years. You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, sometimes a minor tune-up, and listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so that a FAR can be avoided. And even if an article has deteriorated enough that it does need to be submitted to FAR, the FAR process is an intentionally deliberative process, allowing ample time for improvement.

Can hurricane editors familiar with the WIAFA standards run through the older FAs listed below and indicate which are still in compliance? One or two editors suffices, and a non-hurricane editor can then verify. Perfection is not the goal, rather the URFA process seeks to identify which FAs are good enough and which need to be submitted to FAR. Yes, you can review your own nominations—we're glad you're still watching them! Check for text that has become dated or was not cited when standards were more lax, MOS:SANDWICHing that my have creft in as drive-by editors drop in images, and anything else you would normally check in an FA review.

Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory". Once independent editors, experienced with the FA process, concur, those articles will be moved to the "Review not needed" section. Those not meeting standards are eligible to be submitted to FAR.
Any editor can help review the articles on the list. Improvements needed should not be noted at URFA/2020 but can be instead noted in a section on the article talk page like == URFA 2020 suggestions == or == Featured article review needed==, and a diff to those notes can be provided at the URFA page. If article talk has been notified of deficiencies, it can eventually be submitted to WP:FAR.

It would be helpful if hurricane editors would first check the 2006 nominations listed below, and indicate at URFA/2020 which are still at standard (then moving on to 2007, and so on). Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at FAR, and the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneTracker495, Jasper Deng, I like hurricanes, Weatherman27, LightandDark2000, Cyclonebiskit, SMB99thx, Juliancolton, TheAustinMan, Nova Crystallis, SMB99thx, Chicdat, ChessEric, Hurricane Noah, KN2731, Yellow Evan, Knowledgekid87, and CyclonicallyDeranged: - are any of you available to help look through the old FA's and help make sure they're still up to FA standards? I know a few of these are mine. Some of the main issues are going to be deadlinks, short sections, and any other issues you find. Please list them on the talk page. Thanks in advance! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hurricanehink ... I'd like to get these ticked off the list. They don't have the scourge of other kinds of articles, which have been chunked up with useless images over the years, and generally just need a run-through to make sure things are still up to snuff. As soon as one hurricane editor reviews each on the list below, could one of you sign off at WP:URFA/2020 by indicating "Satisfactory", and I or others will then come along and look in ? These should be among the easiest to remove from the older FAs list. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be willing to take a look at a few of these, when I am ready.🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox) 17:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I don't have any articles in mind at the moment, but I do recall reading a handful that are no longer up to GA/FA standards. Take Hurricane Catarina, for example. I don't feel like that article currently meets GA requirements (needs more met info). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of borderline good articles, but I believe we should focus on maintaining these featured articles. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And pace yourselves :) Once the 2006 FAs are processed at WP:URFA/2020, we will move on to 2007 ... and so on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy with tornado articles right now, but I'll help when I can.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I'll do a few. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAs last reviewed in 2006

@Hurricanehink: maybe over the weekend. But not today. Also I might be doing CVUA. I also have tests/quizzes next week. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be this weekend- this is just another one of our long term projects. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any progress here? I would like to begin reviewing the oldest to get some moved off of WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover storms

Recently, a new precedent was opened when it was decided that Amanda and Cristobal should be lumped together in a single article, so I'd like to discuss what should be the procedure regarding crossover cyclones from now on. There are many pairs of storms in NHC's AoR that had a similar history of Amanda and Cristobal (like Francelia and Glenda in 1969, Bret and Greg in 1993, Iris and Manuel in 2001, Earl and Frank in 2004, Ernesto and Hector in 2012, Trudy and Hanna in 2014, Earl and Javier in 2016, Franklin and Jova in 2017, Katia and Otis also in 2017, and Nana and Julio in 2020, just to name a few instances), and even some can be found in other basins (like Katrina and Victor-Cindy in 1998, Matmo and Bulbul in 2019, etc), but nowadays they're kept separated from each other. So, for the sake of consistency and WP:COHERENCE, I'd like to discuss with you guys (@Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, Destroyeraa, LightandDark2000, Skarmory, CyclonicallyDeranged, Jason Rees, Chicdat, and Noah:, who participated on that discussion, and others that might be interested on it like @Modokai, Meow, Yellow Evan, Krit-tonkla, Master of Time, Juliancolton, AC5230, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Jasper Deng:) what should be the citeria for merging/incorporating storms as the same system and what should we do with similar past and future instances. ABC paulista (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One key question is how much the two (or three) storms have to have in common for them to be declared "crossovers". Is it enough if the TCR or equivalent says "storm A is derived from the remnants of storm B"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was the main argument used to merge Amanda and Cristobal. ABC paulista (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) IMO, the key is whether storms in both basins deserve having an article. For Bret and Greg in 1993, only Bret was really article worthy. Greg reformed from Bret, but there was a couple day gap, and Greg was mostly known as being a hurricane in the 1993 PHS, not as a continuation of Bret. For Amanda and Cristobal, they both caused impacts in the same area, resulting in the same general disaster/topic. Amanda/Cristobal is much more like other basin crossers (Cesar-Douglas for example) than a storm like Bret-Greg, where only one of the two was a significant disaster in its own right. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda and Cristobal also have a day gap between them. If the notability and shared impact are the main arguments, shouldn't the tropical storms Alma and Arthur of 2008 be lumped together? Even hurricanes Ingrid and Manuel of 2013 could be merged under this criteria, while finding hard to justify the basin crossing status for systems like Georgette, for example. ABC paulista (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alma-Arthur? Perhaps. They caused the same overall impact event across Central America. Manuel and Ingrid, no - they were simultaneous storms, not two storms that shared the same MH. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly means "sharing the same Meteorological History"? When should we consider that storms shared the same system? Where do we draw the line on this matter? ABC paulista (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think that our current policy (the status quo) is to give crossover storms that regenerated from the same Low-level circulation center (LLCC) or the same low-pressure area (LPA) one article, while crossover storms that were mid-level circulation regenerations are given separate articles. Quite frankly, I think that all crossover storms that were clearly cases of regenerations should be merged into one article, in each case. Hurricane Lee (2017) and Hurricane Beryl (2018) are clear-cut cases of storms that were mid-level circulation center regenerations, and yet, the NHC chose to classify each of them as one storm, which they clearly were. I don't think that we should let some ridiculous cross-basin naming policy of the NHC's stop us from calling these storms as they are. Especially when the NHC was very clear in their TCRs that one incarnation of the storm was directly responsible for the birth of the other. I think that we should merge all of the crossover storms. As long as the original low-pressure area or a part of the original circulation (LLCC or MLCC) was directly responsible for triggering the regeneration, it should be treated as the same storm (unless we run into cases of decoupling). However, if there is no consensus to do so, then I think that we should just stick with the status quo. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I've never, ever heard of such policy regarding crossover storms before. AFAIK, we followed whatever the meteorological agencies (RSMCs, TCWCs and related) stated, and we complied with their own criterias (to avoid WP:OR). But I'm not just asking on how should we deal with crossover storms, but also (and mainly) to decide on what cases are to be considered crossover storms, and what aren't, and what criterias should we use. ABC paulista (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think that there is a one-sized fit all solution for this so-called problem, as in Amanda & Cristobal's case the NHC specifically said that Amanda remnants regenerated in the Atlantic. As a result, I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis, especially when the data isnt clear enough.Jason Rees (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I believe that the prior method of following everything that the RSMCs and TCWCs stated worked well enough to sort out these cases. But that method wasn't followed on Amanda/Cristobal case, then we need a new method that complies with WP:COHERENCE. ABC paulista (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except it doesn't work when you are removing a [WPAC to CPAC crossover], because the CPHC didn't call it a tropical cyclone or we are not calling a tropical cyclone the same system when the NHC are clear that it is a regeneration. I would also point out that we do not need to necessarily comply with WP:COHERENCE as it is just an essay written by a couple of editors.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it still works pretty well since we are following info that's endorsed by the WMO. And "regeneration" doesn't always means continuity, since the wording used by agencies seem to be "context sensitive", with the same wording having distinct meaning on different cases, like I pointed out before. ABC paulista (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except by not including a tropical cyclone considered to be a WPAC to CPAC crossover by the JMA or a system that is a regeneration by the NHC, we are not using data that is endorsed by the WMO's RSMC's. Also if a regeneration does not always have the same context then thats even more of a reason in my opinon to go case by case. Jason Rees (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that each RSMC and TCWC has its own designated AoR, and since JMA is not the RSMC for CPAC (CPHC is) its information outside WPAC is not endorsed by WMO's programme. So to be fully compliant with WMO, both RSMC/TCWC should acknowledge that a crossover happened, which CPHC didn't in that case. And IMO just some ambiguous, context sensitive wording isn't enough for this kind of analysis, for being prone to WP:POV, and more solid evidence (more direct wording, continuous tracking, etc) is warranted on such cases. ABC paulista (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there is a new discussion here to split up the article for Amanda/Cristobal. Please comment there as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there is a one-fits-all approach here other than the (overly strict) one of requiring the name to be preserved (inter-RSMC storms) or there to be one continuous track (in IBTRACS if inter-RSMC). WP:COHERENCE does not at all require a one-fits-all approach when there are valid reasons for keeping separation in some cases.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what would be a valid reason to not apply a one-fits-all solution? ABC paulista (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the warning centres disagree about the status of a system when it crosses the international dateline for example.Jason Rees (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each RSMC and TCWC has its own designated AoR and their boundaries don't overlap with each other, so the WMO's programme only endorses RSMC's/TCWC's data that is pertinent for their own regions. These kind of situations don't seem to conflict with a possible one-fits-all solution. ABC paulista (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Coherency refers to an article providing logical, understandable and usable knowledge to the reader." I fail to see how deciding this on a case-by-case basis does not help achieve that goal. If we want consistency, we should formulate a guideline addressing the different cases and apply that consistently. We ought to be maximizing utility for readers tailored to specific storms.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm looking for in this discussion. Consistent guideline and criteria application, unless exceptional circunstances call for something distinct. "Coherency is about understandability, clarity and logic", so if we start applying different standards for similar situations, without a clear good reason, it would only serve to confuse the readers. ABC paulista (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was logically no reason whatsoever to combine Amanda and Cristobal articles. The NHC calls it as it is. If they were 2 different systems, they were two different systems. Before any of my #wiki-hurricanes [IRC] colleagues call me out on this for analyzing otherwise, I have no control over the NHC, and my analyses are likely worse than Force Thirteen. NHC is priority. Not me. Not F13. Not amyone else but the United States government. ~ AC5230 talk 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC was pretty clear about the combined impacts, and that Cristobal was a regeneration of Amanda. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.... Amanda did contribute to the formation of Cristobal, but we must remember that there was also a CAG present at the time that also contributed to its formation. The NHC was clear though on impacts, that Amanda, and Cristobal caused severe flooding in Central America, along with the aforementioned CAG. To be specific, this is what they said: Significant heavy rainfall occurred over portions of Central America and southeastern Mexico over a nine-day period (29 May–7 June) due to Tropical Storm Cristobal, eastern Pacific Tropical Storm Amanda, and the Central American gyre that both cyclones were embedded in. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 14:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WPTC newsletter survey

Here is a link to another survey on the WPTC newsletter, The Hurricane Herald, by another one of our editors. Please fill out this survey when you have the time. The information will be used to write an Op-Ed in an upcoming issue of The Hurricane Herald. As with the other survey, you will remain completely anonymous. Thank you. (PS, please do not archive this topic for at least 30 days.) LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WPTC newsletter survey

October 1944 typhoon

Hello! I am looking for the name of a typhoon to redlink and was hoping someone here could help me. I was using a source while editing Apra Harbor that states, "A full-scale typhoon passed near Guam between October 3 and 9 [1944]. Continued strong winds built up such heavy waves in Apra Harbor that they destroyed or severely damaged all the pontoon piers, carried away portions of the Cabras Island breakwater, and seriously damaged the sunken barges placed to form the breakwater extension." This appears to be one of the storms not listed at 1944 Pacific typhoon season and my searches for "1944 typhoon" are cluttered with Typhoon Cobra and Hawker Typhoon results. Can anyone point me to a source that can tell me what article name I should be redlinking to? Many thanks, Featous (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Featous, it's 1944 Apra Harbor typhoon. I am going to redlink it myself. Mario Jump 83! 07:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines

Hello everyone. I was looking through Wikipedia today and noticed that there are a lot of articles, that are missing corresponding timeline articles. Yes, I did nominate a timeline for deletion once, but now I realize why they are here... Before mass-creating these articles, I would like to know: Do we create timeline articles for all seasons or only for specific basins/years? Thanks! CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 04:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is enough information to warrant a separate timeline — but only if there is enough information to warrant a separate article — an article can be created. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of arguments surrounding timelines being original research, content forks and arent really needed for a lot of seasons. Jason Rees (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Okay then, but how do we know which ones need it and which ones don't? I have TCRs from the IMD about NIO seasons from 2011-present day, would that warrant creating ~~an article~~ articles for those NIO seasons? Thanks for your input in advance. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 23:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CodingCyclone: On a personal level I think that timelines are rather redundant to the main article and that you end up incorporating events that didn't happen at the times that we say they did because of BT etc. In the WPAC because every warning center is official you have a lot of overlap with information from the 4 main BT agencies the HKO, CMA, JMA and JTWC all needing to be included.Jason Rees (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Indian Ocean cyclones' lack of articles

I think the Wikipedia tropical cyclone community should focus more on North Indian Ocean cyclones, as I have seen tens of storms with >100 fatalities that have no articles in that basin. 2003 LN6 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2003 LN6: Hi there. The point that you bring up is true; there is less coverage of NIO cyclones (and Southern Hemisphere cyclones). This is definitely something that needs to be addressed. Currently I am working on a timeline for the 2013 NIO season. If there's an article you're interested in writing, be bold and do it! CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 22:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't need to propose every single change on this page. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2003 LN6: - if you know any storms that really should have articles, please add it to the article requests page. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Amanda–Cristobal listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tropical Storm Amanda–Cristobal to be moved to Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Help required to complete the article

Hi! I need a help from the members of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones to complete the article "List of Indian-Pacific crossover tropical cyclones". This article was made solely by myself and I have already added the basic information but was moved to draftspace due to lack of references. If anyone of WPTC members voluntarily support and help me to complete this article by adding references, it'd be highly helpful to make this article a success. HarrySupertyphoon (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, @HarrySupertyphoon:, I think that this list is definitely something we need. It does, however, have no entries. I'll look around for references and cyclones, and add a few things. Best of luck with this draft! CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 18:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HarrySuperTyphoon and CodingCyclone: I am not sure that I see the need or notability for a list of tropical cyclones that have moved from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. Remember that there are four ways a tropical cyclone can move from the so called Western Pacific Ocean into the Indian Ocean and visa versa. Two in the NHEM and two in the SHEM (135E).Jason Rees (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I think that it would be useful. I don't see how there being different ways of crossovers happening really affects the notability of the subject. It happens between the Atlantic and the Pacific and we have a list for that -- why not for the Indian Ocean and the Pacific? CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose his idea. Atlantic-Pacific is pretty rare. It's usually 5 to 15 years in between a true crossover storm. Amanda-Cristobal was not true – Otto was. On the other hand, Indian-Pacific is very common and happens several times a season. In 2019, just in the North, there were two, Pabuk and Matmo-Bulbul. If you want a long article, go help me with List of Atlantic tropical storms. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 1Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity

A systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) was launched at the end of November 2020 at WP:URFA/2020. The goals are to:

Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA)
- List for the TFA Coords older FAs that are mainpage ready
- Help TFA Coords check older FAs before they run TFA

With about two dozen editors regularly contributing to these efforts, it's time for the first quarterly progress report.

History

The last sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006; by the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed at FAR, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of older FAs had been undertaken since then, and the number of FAs reviewed declined considerably after 2010. Tracking FAs that received an official FAR notice began at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given and provided the momentum to get FAR moving again. The number of FAs being promoted is declining, so more re-runs of older FAs are needed to maintain diversity at TFA; with a ten-year hiatus in FAR activity, there is a considerable backlog of deficient FAs.

Progress

The URFA/2020 page is divided into very old (last FAC or FAR before 2010) and old (last FAC or FAR between 2010 and 2015) FAs.

With almost two dozen editors working through the list, good progress has been made on submitting the most deficient to FAR. More participation is needed to evaluate older FAs that may only need minor tune-ups. This would winnow the list so the most deficient can be more easily processed at FAR.

Since URFA/2020 was launched, 65 FAs have been Delisted, and 77 have been deemed Satisfactory or have been Kept at FAR. Underscoring the need to review the very old FAs, those reviewed from the 2010–2015 group have a ratio of 6 delisted to 22 satisfactory (79% satisfactory), while in the 2004–2009 group that ratio is 59 delisted to 55 satisfactory (only 48% satisfactory). Time is allowed at FAR when work is ongoing, so those delisted are generally for article reviews in which no editors engage, and those are typically the very old FAs.

The percentage of older FAs needing review has been reduced from 77% to 74%, with about 35 FAs per month processed off the list. This number is misleading because around 200 more have been reviewed by at least one editor as "Satisfactory", but not yet looked at by more than one editor so they can be moved off the list as "Kept" or FAR not needed. Another almost 150 notices that a FAR is needed have been given, although those articles have not yet been submitted to FAR (anyone can submit one on the list).

While the progress has been steady, at the current rate of 35 reviewed FAs per month, it would take over ten years to review all FAs that were promoted pre-2016. Many more FAs could be moved off the list if experienced FA editors reviewed a few old FAs per week, and enter feedback at URFA/2020, or submit noticed articles to FAR.

How can you help?

You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, and sometimes need only a minor tune-up; listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so a FAR can be avoided. Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory", while those that need a FAR can be added to the FAR notices given template.

Reducing the backlog of unreviewed older FAs

WikiProjects can set up a process to systematically review their older Featured articles.

Editors who have nominated Featured articles can do a tuneup of the articles they watch. If every experienced FA writer or reviewer looks at a few articles a week, and marks those that are still at standard as "Satisfactory", the list will be processed in shorter order.

Any editor can review the articles on the list. Improvements needed can be noted in an article talk section with the subject heading == URFA/2020 notes == or == Featured article review needed==, and a diff to those notes can be provided at the URFA/2020 page for tracking. If article talk has been notified of deficiencies, after waiting a few weeks to see if anyone engages, articles can be submitted to FAR.

Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at URFA/2020 and FAR; the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed.

Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 1Q2021. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moratorium for ITN

I am hereby proposing a moratorium on all weather-related ITN postings and supports no matter how severe they are. It has been demonstrated that several people are willing to oppose all ITNs and get them closed rather quickly. I think we should just boycott ITN altogether through the Atlantic and Pacific hurricane seasons to make a point. Another Hurricane Katrina happened? Too bad, it wasn't significant enough for the ITN regime to post it. The storm didn't kill 1.5e20 people and do 4.5e99 damage and is US-centric to boot. I think we should leave ITN alone and focus on more important aspects. We spend too much time arguing with the swamp when we clearly stand no chance at draining it. Let's leave it to the establishment to piss off enough people that the sensible, non-affiliated editors actually get involved. This proposal is NOT binding for those who don't support it, but I am done putting up with people who oppose just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Noah^Talk 01:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support boycott, for tropical cyclones. It's unfortunate, but we have to get it now, because the ITN as of now is going to be too much of a distraction. They won't let us getting anywhere. This is, as you said, pretty much WP:POINT-y, but on some occasions we have to go WP:IAR. Mario Jump 83! 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my comments regarding the moratorium, as I realized that this is a really disruptive proposal in an attempt to prove a point, and the proposer needs to chill out, instead of taking too many swipes to the majority. (Wikipedia needs some criticism, but there are borders need to be recognized.) I'm going ~~neutral~~ to oppose this proposal instead, but I would be glad to support the cutback (especially in regards to ITN nominations, I believe WPTC shouldn't nominate them early until more data shows, or let the others nominate them for ITN). ITN is not for everybody but ITN needs some criticism - there are weather events that deserve to be ITN like Hurricane Eta but for some reason wasn't posted to the ITN, so is the Winter Storm Uri that led to power outages and literal destruction across Texas. Mario Jump 83! 22:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I would rather call this problem to the attention of the wider WP community than do this. With all due respect, this seems kinda wishy-washy and may not accomplish much. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 03:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mixed~~ Oppose I wouldn't support an all-out moratorium, but I do support a cutback. Any ITN nomination should get consensus on its talk page before it's actually nominated. Perhaps nominating fewer articles will give a better chance to the few that do get nominated. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support moratorium ~~per MarioJump83.~~ 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: I'm dropping my support of this proposal, as boycotting the ITN is, as I realized it, getting too far. Mario Jump 83! 22:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We should make a section for Recent natural disasters. Just because they’re common doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about them. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: As in a mainpage section for them? Noah^Talk 13:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. We have recent deaths on there. There’s almost always going to be some sort of recent deadly natural disaster. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Not going to happen. I proposed it and then it gets snow opposed. Noah^Talk 14:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - hurricanes / cyclones need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Nothing will be posted if the article is not of a sufficient standard, so this WPs first priority should be to ensure good quality articles are created. ITNs are a bonus, not a right. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Most of the oppose arguments during the past several months have been about notability/dozens of deaths being "normal" and therefore not notable for posting. Noah^Talk 14:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic really and events will just get nominated by someone else who isn't part of this "project". What a dreadful negative waste of energy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want? You oppose almost every nomination with snarky remarks and then oppose efforts to provide solutions to problems. Noah^Talk 15:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing snarky, most of the nominations just don't get my support. I have no idea what the point of this is, nor did I see what you were trying to achieve with the co-ordinated mass oppose at America's Cup which frankly just made this project look absurd. Was your "solution" to have a dedicated "weather" section on the main page? Seriously, that was it? As for this, it will achieve precisely nothing whatsoever, just like the co-ordinated pointless opposes at America's Cup. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not about having a Weather section. Weather happens every day, with a standard cold fronts, high pressure systems, and plenty of ordinary tropical cyclones. What I would suggest, and perhaps Noah might agree, is listing the recent natural disasters of significance. As climate change gets worse, we are going to see more regular extreme events that result in significant loss of life. They are just as newsworthy if they happen once a decade or a few times a year. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because then we should have a sports section too. And then a politics section. Circumventing community consensus just to get adverse weather onto the main page is not going to happen, nor should it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sports and politics rarely lead to mass casualty events. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with items of interest on the main page of an encyclopedia? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These regular natural disasters always have some sort of consequence, affecting many people (sometimes longterm). It would cut down on the number of suggestions for deadly/significant storms that aren’t quite ITN main worthy, but they’re still very significant events, more so than the average sporting event. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More so, in your opinion. And that, I'm afraid, is the upshot of all this. The community as a whole rejects regular weather events, albeit ones which may have some kind of lasting impact. The main page is not a weather ticker, nor should it become one. Our readers are equally, if not more interested in other events like politics and sport yet we aren't suggesting they should have some special place on the main page so they can avoid the usual consensus-based selection for items there. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A weather section is not what we're going for. We are just fed up with significant storms not getting on ITN, whereas most sports events do. Frankly, it's absurd to me that the results of a rowing event get posted, but a storm that kills 40 (Hurricane Iota) takes two nominations to get posted. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 21:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. A lot of people are interested in that one event. A lot of people are not interested in the innumerable weather nominations we've had in the past. You'll need a better argument than "it's absurd to me" to get any traction at ITNC, and rightly so. Oh, and look above, "We should make a section for Recent natural disasters".... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a separate section for natural disasters wouldn't work, at the very least because it would be too narrow in scope. Why should a natural disaster be prioritized over a man-made one of similar magnitude?. Given that ITN only lists a few items, at best we would have a general "events" sections, which is basically what we have now. Though, I do understand the frustration on the sports end of things. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is ITN based on interest or historical significance? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with TornadoLGS's suggestion of a cutback. I also agree with Mjroot's note that these articles need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. These are better options than a full-on moratorium. That being said, I am very disappointed that you and other editors are willing to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. IAR does not apply here and claiming such is a misinterpretation of the rule. Being butthurt about oppositions, losing your cool, then proceeding to suggest pulling the plug on nominations entirely is unwarranted, counterproductive, and is an overly-defensive move. If you think an argument is bad, point out why it is and discuss. Don't call it "bull shit" without further explanation.
Rather than going nuclear immediately, why not impose WikiProject-level guidelines on what should get posted to ITN? A minimum death count, damage count, or whatever - just so that we can filter out the storms that can appear insignificant to most other editors. And to the editors choosing to involve their personal thoughts, stop being uncivil. The sarcasm, snark, and rude behavior reeks of incivility and no one needs it on-wiki. We make articles, not drama. Chlod (say hi!) 15:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per TornadoLGS and Chlod. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since my suggestion of a cutback seems to have some support, I do want to make sure @Elijahandskip: is aware of this discussion, since he has made a a number of our ITN nominations. Also, since @The Rambling Man: has joined this discussion, I did not mean this suggesting as a way of gaming the system. I do suspect, based on part on your own comments, that some of us "crying wolf" on the notability of storms has led to some of the opposition to other systems. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an element of that. But just look again at the OP: Another Hurricane Katrina happened? Too bad, it wasn't significant enough for the ITN regime to post it. ridiculous. And of course people who aren't in this microcosm of a project will simply nominate significant weather events, regardless of what this poll "concludes". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I find it frankly confusing why someone would support this idea. It's spiteful and unnecessary — and what if an ITN nomination fails? No real harm will be done to the project and the world definitely isn't going to end. The only harm being done to the project right now are the current issues of incivility already being pointed out by other editors. Not everyone is interested in weather events and I understand some of the frustration of those who have to deal with weather-related nominations several times a month. And yes, per the others, this is clearly POINT, this does not qualify for IAR since it doesn't improve Wikipedia, and the main page isn't a weather bulletin. Akber mamps 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming merger of WPTC and other meteorology WikiProjects into WikiProject Weather

Bumping thread for 415 days. Until after the merger process is completed LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, there was a discussion held on whether or not to merge all of the existing meteorology WikiProjects (with the exception of the Climate Change WikiProject) into a larger WikiProject, WikiProject Weather. The discussion ended with a consensus to merge the various WikiProjects into one. The discussion was held because the Meteorology WikiProjects other than WPTC have long suffered from manpower and interest issues, with the WikiProjects besides WPTC and WP Severe Weather remaining either at minimal activity or becoming outright defunct. WPTC is currently the center of gravity of the Meteorology WikiProjects, in terms of both manpower and activity, and this will probably remain the case even after the merger. Right now, work is currently under way behind the scenes to prepare for the eventual merger, which will happen sometime this summer, within the next 1–3 months. Please see the linked discussion for more details. Essentially, the former WikiProjects will all become large task forces operating under WP Weather. Most of the existing WikiProject pages will remain, but will be renamed to task force pages, while the new WikiProject will be getting its own pages. The biggest changes will come in the overall categorization of articles and coordination between the various topics. After the merger, everything will be managed under one large umbrella, but the internal dynamics within each major task force/former WikiProject will remain pretty much the same, for the most part. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments are welcome below. (Please do not fire off questions at me, since I am not aware of all the details and I only recently learned of that discussion.) This thread should not be archived until after the entire merger process has been completed. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 377: / Line 377: @@
 :'''Oppose''' I find it frankly confusing why someone would support this idea. It's spiteful and unnecessary — and what if an ITN nomination fails? No real harm will be done to the project and [[WP:WORLDSEND|the world definitely isn't going to end]]. The only harm being done to the project right now are the current issues of incivility already being pointed out by other editors. Not everyone is interested in weather events and I understand some of the frustration of those who have to deal with weather-related nominations several times a month. And yes, per the others, this is clearly [[WP:POINT|POINT]], this does not qualify for [[WP:IAR|IAR]] since it doesn't improve Wikipedia, and the main page isn't a weather bulletin. <span style="font-family: Bahnschrift">[[User:Akbermamps|<span style="color:
 #f54;">Akber</span>]][[User talk:Akbermamps|<span style="color:black;">mamps</span>]]</span> 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
+== Upcoming merger of WPTC and other meteorology WikiProjects into WikiProject Weather ==
+[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|14px|link=|alt=]] {{Small|1='''Bumping thread'''&#32;for 415 days. Until after the merger process is completed '''''[[en:User:LightandDark2000|<span style="color:#C69214">Light</span><span style="color:#410064">and</span><span style="color:blue">Dark2000</span>]]''''' 🌀 ([[User talk:LightandDark2000#top|talk]]) 04:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 16:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1653494857}}
+{{clear}}
+Last year, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Meteorology/Archive_11#Proposal. there was a discussion] held on whether or not to merge all of the existing meteorology WikiProjects (with the exception of the Climate Change WikiProject) into a larger WikiProject, '''WikiProject Weather'''. The discussion ended with a consensus to merge the various WikiProjects into one. The discussion was held because the Meteorology WikiProjects other than WPTC have long suffered from manpower and interest issues, with the WikiProjects besides WPTC and WP Severe Weather remaining either at minimal activity or becoming outright defunct. WPTC is currently the center of gravity of the Meteorology WikiProjects, in terms of both manpower and activity, and this will probably remain the case even after the merger. Right now, work is currently under way behind the scenes to prepare for the eventual merger, which will happen sometime this summer, within the next 1–3 months. Please see the linked discussion for more details. Essentially, the former WikiProjects will all become large task forces operating under WP Weather. Most of the existing WikiProject pages will remain, but will be renamed to task force pages, while the new WikiProject will be getting its own pages. The biggest changes will come in the overall categorization of articles and coordination between the various topics. After the merger, everything will be managed under one large umbrella, but the internal dynamics within each major task force/former WikiProject will remain pretty much the same, for the most part. '''''[[en:User:LightandDark2000|<span style="color:#C69214">Light</span><span style="color:#410064">and</span><span style="color:blue">Dark2000</span>]]''''' 🌀 ([[User talk:LightandDark2000#top|talk]]) 04:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
+Questions and comments are welcome below. (Please do not fire off questions at me, since I am not aware of all the details and I only recently learned of that discussion.) This thread ''should not'' be archived until after the entire merger process has been completed. '''''[[en:User:LightandDark2000|<span style="color:#C69214">Light</span><span style="color:#410064">and</span><span style="color:blue">Dark2000</span>]]''''' 🌀 ([[User talk:LightandDark2000#top|talk]]) 04:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)