Unacceptable behavior from some WPTC members and non-weather users
I know that we all have our ups and downs, and that there are dark times in life, but what I've observed recently on WPTC is absolutely unacceptable. ENOUGH!!! We've had far too many edit wars, toxic/pointless discussions, ANI reports, and other disruptive behavior within just the past few months, over the past year, in fact. This is extremely unprofessional of us, and honestly, it needs to stop. And it ends here NOW. I understand that we all have our bad days. And I'm also very aware of the fact that some people outside of WPTC treat us like sh*t. But NONE OF THAT gives us an excuse to behavior in a toxic manner. ESPECIALLY towards our own fellow editors, on our own WikiProject!! We should not lower ourselves to their level. We are better than this! This stops now. Either we get ourselves in line, or I'll seek administrative action to have it done for us. The conduct I've seen from a few users on WPTC recently has been absolutely unacceptable. Most of us don't need this lecture, but some of us do. I won't name any names, but you know exactly who you are. We need to start policing our own. We need to crack down more on behavior that is blatantly disruptive, ESPECIALLY for repeat offenders. And if you don't want to clean up your act? Then maybe you don't belong here. Net-negatives have no place on WPTC, or WP, for that matter of fact. I will be policing the project more closely now. Continued breaches of policy and perennial disruptive behavior will result in a report. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Now, concerning our treatment by other users outside of WPTC within the past several months, that is unacceptable as well. I've seen plenty of disparaging remarks in places such as WP:ITN/C and on various talk page discussions. The demeaning, disrespectful way in which some editors have treated our own members is appalling, and it sickens me. We need to stand up for our own, and if that kind of behavior continues, we should not hesitate to report them to WP:ANI, or whatever noticeboard is appropriate. Anyone who persistently harasses one of our own should be called out and reported for their conduct. But still, their bad behavior is no excuse for our own. In just the last few months alone, I've witnessed dozens of edit wars (especially image wars, on TC articles), personal attacks (or snide remarks that have come close), and other kinds of disruptive behavior. I've seen a lot more of that nonsense than what this project normally sees on a regular basis, more than what it should see. I've also seen too many discussions over pointless things (really, is it that hard to decide what image we should use for a storm?), and too many edit wars over issues that should otherwise be trivial. This has worsened to the point where some of our members have experienced unreasonable amounts of stress and anxiety. Hurricaneboy23 is afraid to change tropical cyclone images for fear of yet another edit war. CodingCyclone, Destroyeraa, Hurricane Noah, and I, to name some examples, are constantly stressed out or frustrated seeing this crap. And some of our own members have even retired from WPTC due to these kinds of toxic interactions. JavaHurricane has left the project. So has Destroyeraa. They feel that this project is too toxic, and they have completely lose their faith in us. I've only recently been able to convince Destroyeraa to consider returning when he comes out of his WikiBreak this summer (I have his off-wiki contact, for those of you who may be wondering), but I cannot even guarantee that he will return. Especially not if this nonsense continues. Those of you who've conducted yourself in a way thinking that you could edit war or belittle others into getting things your way, you should be ashamed of yourselves. And you know who you are. My greatest fear is that this kind of behavior will continue and drive more our our people out of WPTC, and maybe even WP as a whole. So this has to stop. If it doesn't, consider this the beginning of my resignation. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
To all those who were negatively affected by the recent developments on WPTC—especially those who ended up retiring form the project as a result of it, or are considering retirement—I apologize to you on behalf of the entire WikiProject. What you experienced was one of the darker periods of WPTC, and it is definitely not what our WikiProject is normally like. We can be so much better, and you none of you should've been put through that kind of distress. You deserved much better, and your experience on WPTC should have never ended on such a bitter note. It is such a shame that things devolved so quickly into a sh*tshow for you. We will do better going forward. Because we cannot survive as a viable WikiProject with this kind of nonsense. I hope you will consider rejoining us in the future. Because you are all valuable, and will never, ever be replaced. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
So, please forgive my ignorance, as I only keep this on my watchlist, but as one of the founders of the project, I guess I have a responsibility to it, so ... where can I see examples of this behavior? Are there one or two blatant examples you can show? --Golbez (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I second this. This type of behavior from people is unacceptable. WPTC in my opinion is an amazing project, and I think we have some of the nicest, experienced members, as well as so many enthusiastic people willing to help out with articles. We have over 200 featured pages and over 1,000 GAs. That's not an easy feat. I just think that right now, we are having quite a few bad days. The people who don't want constant edit wars, disputes, drama, and RfCs like me and LightandDark2000 -- we're sick of it. We are tired of having to deal with socks/LTAs, vandalism, stress, and all these content disputes and edit wars. This needs to stop before irreversible damage is done. Before something happens that all of us will regret. 3 vital editors have retired or withdrawn from the project (CycloneFootball71, Destroyeraa, and JavaHurricane). I myself considered retiring from this project and doing mostly anti-vandal work. This needs to stop before we lose anyone else. Before this project turns to shambles. CodingCyclone!🌀📘17:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Whatever happened to the golden rule? Whatever happened to the civil, kind and calm discussions that we have had? Why did things have to get to the point where we have to make an entire discussion on how bad things have gotten? I thought everyone was supposed to know standard WP practice. I guess not. I've tried my best to try and treat others with kindness and respect, but it really is getting hard, especially with all of the crap that is showing up and happening. I would also like to say that I am saddened that our own editors drove away some of the WPTC members like Destroyeraa, but that some of the editors even mentioned/participating in this thread even drove away CyclonicallyDeranged, who, though technically not part of the project, still made good contribs to weather-related articles. Please fix this, or our project will fall apart, and I sure as hell don't want that to happen. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox19:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I have floated the idea of (loose) organizational structure for WP Weather (as WPTC is likely merged to the rest of WPMet to one WikiProject) because of this, exactly. In my view we need to organize the effort rather than doing this one by one. MarioJump83!23:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
IMO: We should be able to remove project members at will, by vote. This behavior (including my own!) should not be tolerated by any means, and any more of this BS should be grounds for me to start swearing the fuck out of someone. I'm done. Completely through. We need to do something about it, and it NEEDS to involve ostracizing people severely. ~ AC5230 talk20:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I personally think that that is a bit extreme (as in, swearing at someone). But I think that we should have the right to vote to remove people off the member list if they have issues with CIR, DE, vandalizing, and the like. CodingCyclone!🌀📘21:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, cussing people out is definitely not what we need to be doing, but article or topic bans could be warranted for persistent bad behavior. Funny enough, the topic ban section specifically mentioned weather. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
If you look at FleurDeOdile's talk page, it is cluttered with warnings, mostly about edit warring over images. Fleur has already been blocked three times, but refuses to listen to any warnings, blocks, or editors. There have been about ten discussions on WP:AN3RR about this. I think an indefinite or long (longer than 3 months) block is warranted. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!10:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
You're suggesting a block here, and in that case it would benefit from discussion with administrators, possibly those who have blocked them before. Also, even if ANI is a "drama board", it's the most-suited place for requesting blocks on contributors. We here at the project talk really can't do anything unless the WPTC admins choose to block the user themselves. Chlod (say hi!) 11:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Is me again, a day ago, a new Tropical Storm has formed in the Western Pacific Ocean. I will be willing to track the cyclone via both Force-13 and Weather Underground, and could give suggestions for the article after Surigae ditisapats, if anyone wants to help me, message on my talk page, thank you! LuigiIsSuppreme989🌀 (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It has recently come to my attention that several of our article writers have recently experienced troubles in writing drafts for tropical cyclones. Specifically, competing drafts within the draftspace. We've had this problem before in 2017 and possibly in 2018, but never to this extent. What happened regarding the Typhoon Surigae drafts was a total mess and must not be repeated again. For each storm that gets a draft, only one draft should exist in the draftspace at any given time, any other drafts (if they exist) should be merged/redirected. The draft that is made first usually gets the deference; however, if it happens that a later draft is much more substantial or higher quality, then it should replace the earlier draft. Anyway, this is assuming that the authors were careless and failed to check for other drafts. But this cannot happen again, because not only does it force a histmerge (which requires an administrator), but it also wastes time in discussions that should be otherwise unnecessary. A histmerge will be necessary in the case of two or more competing drafts of similar quality and extensive histories; otherwise, the attributions from some authors will be lost in the published article. As such, I'm proposing the following guidelines on tropical cyclone drafts going forward:
Tropical cyclone drafts on new or recent storms must remain in the userspace of the author until notability is clearly established. They should not even be moved to the draftspace until the notability requirements are met.
Only ONE draft per tropical cyclone can exist in the draftspace at any given time. Check the search bar for any possible drafts on the same storm before creating/moving a draft to the draftspace. Search up different titles for the same storm. For example, for Surigae, see if drafts exist under the names of "Tropical Storm Surigae", "Tropical Storm Surigae (2021)", "Typhoon Surigae", or "Typhoon Surigae (2021)". Honestly, this shouldn't be that hard. Just keying in "Tropical Storm Sur" or "Typhoon Sur" should bring up any and all relevant drafts within the search bar. For all recent/ongoing storms, this should be mandatory.
If a draft already exists in the draftspace, DO NOT create another one. Abandon the one that you were working on, and work on the existing draft instead. The only exception is if the draft in the draftspace has minimal content or editing history.
In a worst-case scenario, if someone grows careless and moves a second draft to the draftspace, assuming that both drafts have a substantial amount of content and history, request a histmerge. Do this on the older draft, or the draft with a more extensive history of editing. Use a histmerge template and wait for an admin to make the histmerge. However, if one draft has much more content than the older one, the older one should be redirected into the newer one. Ideally, this step should be avoided at all possible costs, but if the worst comes to pass, then this measure should be used to deal with competing drafts.
Article-writing should not be that difficult nor nearly as much of a hassle as it has been recently. This is not intended to disrespect any of our article-writers on WPTC, but we need to do better. Please consider adhering to the guidelines above for all future storms. If there is no agreement, please note that any user has the right to enforce these measures themselves. If competing drafts show up again, they can be redirected/merged without further notice. Competing drafts will be automatically merged into the oldest draft, unless the older draft is clearly inferior to the newer one, in terms of quality. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@LightandDark2000: Thanks for addressing this. I did notice that ever since late-last year there has been some users who quickly begin creating a Draft for storms, especially in the WPac. I am not someone who does begin these Drafts (since I do not know how to start those), but as per LD, in the past that should I manage to make a draft of an upcoming article of a current storm then I begin a draft in my OWN userspace. So I do notice multiple users begin a draft without other knowing or something, but I think if someone does create a draft, then they should mention it in the talk page of the season article reminding other users that a draft is formed - these are my thoughts, though. And I would like to just note that not every storm does require an article imo as sometimes storms do not really affect land, or its impacts and effects info could be fit into the storm section of the season article. I just feel like we shouldn't be TOO excited with making storm articles? Typhoon2013(talk)06:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, would it be the worse for someone to know that their draft isn't good enough to be posted in mainspace? It would quite a way to learn their lesson. Nova Crystallis(Talk)06:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Good and nice suggestions. It is so confusing to have two, three, or more articles to work and update at the same time, like the case of Surigae. But, I don't work for recent or upcoming storms, just past ones. LowercaseGuychow!07:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I like the guidelines, be sure to keep them. And yeah, Surigae was a mess. I apologize if I any editors felt I was ignoring them there, but really the argument was pointless and gave us less time to work on it, so that's why I used DL82's draft (which would've been chosen anyway according to these guidelines) when I was borught into the argument. JoeMT615 (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Kinda tired of seeing drafts made for 40-minute old storms that are eventually left alone for extended periods of time. It would be better to simply update the season article until the storm is notable enough to get split, much like how all Wikipedia articles work. 🍪 Chlod (say hi!) 12:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
This makes sense. It is quite disorganized to have many drafts for one storm anyway and would require a lot of history merging when we publish. It certainly makes much more sense for 10 editors (arbitrary number) to be focusing on one draft than having them all focus on their own. CodingCyclone!🌀📘18:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I’d like to add one proposal. For every active threatening land, there should be a link on the talk page to a draft for the storm, even if one doesn’t exist. If it turns out we don’t need it, then we can salvage whatever info was in there. More often than not, it’ll probably end up being needed (just look at all of the tropical cyclones affecting land that have articles... it’s most of them). So just like the talk pages have a link to the advisories, I think a link should also be added for something like- Draft:Tropical Storm Ida (2021). This will hopefully encourage people to develop the draft before making a sandbox in user space. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I think I agree with @Chlod:, we should just have coverage begin at the season article and split it off when the time comes. This whole competing draft thing was a mess and could be damaging in the case of rapidly moving storms.--🌀Kieran207-talk🌀01:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Many storm articles contain a mention of the work of Hurricane Hunters. This link is actually a redirect to Hurricane hunters which is, in effect, a disambiguation article, covering both NOAA Hurricane Hunters and similar flights by other organisations. Is there any easy way to tell whether the links to Hurricane Hunters refer specifically to the NOAA flights (so the links could be made more precise), or to any other specific type of hurricane-observing flights? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris: The storm articles you refer to would generally be the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific systems, which would not always be able to distinguish between NOAA and USAF. It might be better if we merged NOAA Hurricane Hunters and the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron into the article and renamed the article to something like Aeroplane Weather reconaseance missions since tropical cyclones are not unique in being flown into on a regualr basis.Jason Rees (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! I am not a WPTC editor, but I have been advised by WPTC members on this matter. Recently, some concerns about extensive copyright violations (copyvio) have been brought up off-wiki in both the Wikimedia Discord and in the WPTC Discord. I, and a few other members, have investigated and found enough evidence to raise suspicions of regular copyright violations and documented them in my userspace onwiki (table posted here as well). As this issue does not seem to have a pattern of abuse between consistent members but instead seem like AGF misunderstandings of copyright (which is understandable, this stuff is hard), no blocks will be issued for copyright violation (as what was told to me by a copyright-focused admin). Since a mass quantity of articles will go under review, I feel it is necessary to notify the project of such activities.
Currently, I have reason to believe that pre-2015 Western Pacific basin articles have the most copyvio, but there may be some recent articles with copyvio. Therefore, I want to do a full review of the WPac season and its cyclone articles for copyvio sourced off-wiki. I ask for your thoughts, cooperation, and possible assistance once your local season dies down.
Another issue I want to at least make note of as a reminder/warning is to follow attribution per (Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). This is fairly common, as information is split off of season articles from what I understand. This is not as noticeable as a direct copy and paste, but these improperly attributed nowiki splits and merges violate the dual licensing of Wikipedia. Basically, if there is any other major contributor (formatting, spellchecking, and the likes is NOT major, I consider copyediting for readability to be major though) besides yourself, provide attribution. Since this just happened recently, I ask for a cease and desist of this behavior (copying within Wikipedia without attribution). Further concerns about this include improper draft merging, which may not be a frequent problem but is a potential nonetheless. Normal users can fix copyvio from elsewhere. Admins are the only ones who can fix complex cases that require history merges.
I'm sorry if I come off as curt; copyright matters to me as much as proper documentation of cyclones does to you guys. Again, this is not an attack, accusation, or aspersion towards any current contributor. This is noting that there is a chance of extensive copyvio in all content and a review needs to take place, and current merging and splitting attribution is not taking place consistently. Thank you in advance, Sennecaster (What now?) 02:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
Nota bene: readers would be well-advised to remember that WP:CCI people, for whatever reason, use N to mean "everything is fine, no violation" and Y to mean "there is a copyright violation here". jp×g02:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Update: I have cleared out all but 3 of the listed copyvios. A few escaped complete razing, but yes, there was direct copy paste in many instances that had to go. After the initial batch is done, I am going to move all of the heavy record-keeping to my sandbox from hereon to properly review this project in its entirety. I am sorry for even having to do this in the first place. I will be keeping an eye on this project as the seasons develop, but I do hope I never have to do this again to WPTC. Please take what I say about licensing and copyright to heart, because you guys have a great project going and I loathe to destroy it like I am. Happy stormwatching, Sennecaster (What now?) 03:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Correction; 5 are left, but they are nasty and involve whole season pages and DISASTROUS merge/splitoffs. I'll deal with those tomorrow with the little remaining sanity I have from the rest of the copyvios on enwiki as a whole. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm interested in joining this effort, and stop this mess we're in, but unfortunately I'm very busy. I'll start off by checking on my own article, Tropical Storm Brendan (1991), especially in the Impacts section, given I don't have enough time to work on it. MarioJump83!05:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Windward Islands
I have been creating a draft for hurricanes in the Windward Islands and I have been including information for effects on Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago. However, some people do not think that
Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago are part of the Windward Islands. Should I keep this info for Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados, or should I delete it? Stay safe, CycloneToby22:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cyclone Toby: Before I say anything, it is good to see you again. I saw you took a semi-wikibreak, hope everything's well. Now, in regards to the draft, looks good so far, I think it would be best to keep, because according to this, Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados are apart of the Windward Islands. ~~🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀23:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I would personally object to you guys using the Hurricanes in the Windward Islands title as it has a double meaning and would probably be redirected off to Tropical cyclones in French Polynesia.Jason Rees (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: What would the title be then? I'm quite sure that most people would not be looking for "Hurricanes in the Islands of Barlovento", and I'm not sure of what else to put in there for it not to be confused with French Polynesia. Stay safe, CycloneToby00:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
There is always going to be a lot of overlap between several of these lists for example any system that impacts Northern Vanuatu would impact the Solomon Islands. However, the general purpose of these lists is to document the broader impacts a system has had on the area and highlight significant systems, which it can't if we are randomly merging them all together. For example, Namu had a significant impact on the Solomon Islands but not Vanuatu.Jason Rees (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Vanuatu is about the same size as the Windwards though. It’s not randomly merging, there’s a clear geographic basis. Having one for each island means it’s more likely that it will fall out of date. Also, we might not always have records that every island was affected by a given storm, particularly for older storms. A hurricane might pass by Barbados, and given a hurricane’s size and the small area we’re talking, it most definitely also affected the other nearby islands. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Im sorry Hink but it feels like a random grouping since it would be like me merging, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia into one list. We also have to bear in mind that I could in theory claim the Hurricanes in the Windward Islands for French Polynesia or any other group of islands like Hawaii, which is why i don't think it's the right title.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Honestly it might be more useful as the Lesser Antilles. Dominica is close by, and most storms that affect the Windward Islands and Barbados are also affecting St Kitts and Nevis. Ideally the list could mention affects on each island, which could be the basis down the line for storm lists in each individual island. I don’t think that should be a short term focus though. Just getting the entire territory done would be a big help for this part of the world. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink mobile, Hurricanehink, and Hurricane Noah: I definitely could do the Lesser Antilles. However, because of their proximity down south near warm waters where the hurricanes rapidly intensify, there are many, many storms that hit every year, like Florida. So, if we are going to do Hurricanes in the Lesser Antilles, I would suggest we divide it into time periods (2000-present, 1975/1950-1999, etc...). Stay safe, CycloneToby01:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Yea, going by time period but for the whole Lesser Antilles would be more useful IMO. But I don't wanna force anyone to do anything. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: I was thinking, the 2010s were very active (cough cough, 2017), but it’s kinda an awkward place to put a cut. I mean, I guess the 2000s weren’t that impressive for their own article. Just wondering for your opinion on the 2010s. Stay safe, CycloneToby01:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk21:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I could support a merger for Alma and Arthur along the same lines, but I wouldn't support a merger for Ingrid and Manuel. Alma and Arthur are closely-related and do share a meteorological history (though not to the same degree as Amanda & Cristobal), but Ingrid and Manuel were two completely separate systems with no shared MH whatsoever. I think that we can merge articles for storms with a shared MH (especially if they had overlapping impacts in the same regions), but if the storms aren't related by MH, then I don't think that there should be a merger. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutral on Merging Alma & Arthur, Strongly Oppose Merging Ingrid and Manuel – I could accept a merger for Tropical Storms Alma & Arthur on the grounds of quality and coverage, especially since the storms had a shared MH and overlapping impacts. However, since Alma and Arthur are not a case of a direct regeneration (because Alma's remnant low merged with a tropical wave before regenerating into Arthur), and I'm hesitant to merge those articles, since I'm not certain if we should merger articles for storms that aren't direct regenerations. I personally feel that we should reserve these mergers for storms that are direct regenerations of each other, but if we will have difficulty fully covering the impacts in two articles otherwise, then I will support a merger for Alma and Arthur. However, I strongly oppose a merger for Ingrid and Manuel. Those storms had no meteorological relation to each other at all. I don't think that having shared impacts alone is enough to justify an article merger. The storms should also have a shared MH, at the very least before we consider merging their articles. I don't think that any storms without at least a related MH should have their articles merged together. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment – So, what about the cases where the sytems share a meteorological history, but not the impacts? Should they be merged or kept separated? There are some cases similar to Amanda and Cristobal, but I don't remember any case of both iterations becoming notable enough warrant their own articles, and I'm not sure if the existing articles would benefit from the inclusion of info about their less-notable iteration. ABC paulista (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This one is a little trickier to me. I mean, if we want to go all-in and include everything then sure, we could merge all of those as well. As of right now though, I think that we should merge only the ones that have articles for both phases of the storm (or all three, in the case of Katrina–Victor–Cindy). I think Hurricanehink has some excellent thoughts on which one of those should be merged. If I recall correctly, he was in favor of merging only those in which both cases of any given crossover had their own articles (and I think he also wanted overlapping impacts as well). I'd personally like to merge all of the cases with a shared MH (at least, for the cases that are clearly direct regenerations), but I don't think that this approach would gain consensus at this time. We may have a few other cases similar to Amanda & Cristobal out there, with a shared MH and overlapping impacts, if we were to use such a narrow scope for merging, but as far as I'm aware, we do not have that many out there. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Throughout these recent debates, I've seen some people using the "shared MH" argument, but it was never defined on what exactly it means, and it should be narrowed down on what cases could be considered as such, otherwise even common cases like systems forming from the same tropical wave, or moonsoon through, could be considered to "share the same MH". ABC paulista (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Matmo and Bulbul clearly shared the same MH. Some Atlantic storms that later became EPAC storms could be argued to have shared a history, like Earl and Frank in 2004, but the difference here is that Frank wasn’t article worthy, and there were no shared impacts. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, what does "sharing the same MH" actually means? If that's gonna be the main valid argument for the merging, at least it should have some concrete meaning. ABC paulista (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The end of one storm’s net history leads directly into another one. This wouldn’t apply to Ingrid and Manuel, which were simultaneous storms, but would apply to Matmo-Bulbul, Alma-Arthur, and others. We could merge some ATL/EPAC storms if we follow this too closely, but if the storm in the one basin didn’t affect land, and it already has a comprehensive section in the season article (as with Frank in 2004), then there isn’t a need for a merger. Having them together makes sense when the MH and impacts are shared. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The Perfect Storm formed before Grace dissipated, so no, that’s not an example. I’m talking cases where one storm forms, dissipates, and the remnants become another storm, like Amanda-Cristobal, Alma-Arthur. Normally within the same basin, it keeps the same name, like Dean/Erin 01, Ivan 04. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hurricanehink mobile, Alma wouldn't keep its name even if no basin-crossing was involved, since its remnants merged with tropical waves around it before Arthur formed, on a similar process that separated Tropical Depression Ten from Hurricane Katrina, or Typhoon Nuri from November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone. Also, Grace/Perfect Storm is also similar to them because Perfect Storm's tropical transition only happened after Grace's remnants merged with the Nor'easter, on a similar way of how Alma's remnants merged with previously existing meteorological features to spawn Arthur. ABC paulista (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
At no point in Alma's history was Arthur active, so it's a natural progression going from one storm to the other. Ditto TD 10 to Katrina. And yea, I think Nuri and the Bering Sea cyclone should be merged, since you can't tell the story of one without the other. As for Grace and the Perfect Storm, IDK, they were simultaneous storms, not one storm leading to another. That being said, I could see merging Grace. It is the 24th shortest featured article on Wikipedia, and its lead starts with "Hurricane Grace was a short-lived Category 2 hurricane that contributed to the formation of the powerful 1991 Perfect Storm." It's clearly linked to the Perfect Storm, so I wouldn't be opposed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hurricanehink, Grace merged with the Nor'easter on October 30, and the Perfect Storm only transitioned on October 31, 1 day after Grace's dissipation, so technically they weren't simultaneous as (sub)tropical cyclones. Unless if you're counting its previous extratropical existance as the Nor'easter, then they could be considered simultaneous, but then it would also make sense to consider Alma and Arthur as simultaneous occurences since the tropical wave that formed into Arthur existed at the time that Alma was active. ABC paulista (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
True, are you saying they should be merged? Or are you trying to clarify the nature of having some consistent set of rules? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Hurricanehink, I'm looking for setting the rules. Even if some case-to-case analysis would continue to be necessary, it's still important to define on what would be the elegibility criteria for these merging, and how that should be done (article title, infobox, MoS, etc.) ABC paulista (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The rule should be that storms with a shared met history and impacts should have the same article. The Perfect Storm/Grace would fall into the case-by-case rule, since it's an unusual scenario, and the storms don't directly lead to one another. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Hurricanehink, again, what could be considered to be a "direct leading"? Where do we draw the line? And what would be the main criteria: MH or impacts, or both would have the same weight on this decision? ABC paulista (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Few storms have any kind of shared met history, that's why I don't think we need to draw the line so firmly in black sharpie, and instead treat them on a case by case basis. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hurricanehink, I don't think I agree. Based on this list, that only considers Atl-Epac crossovers and no either intrabasin or other crossover cases, I firmly believe that there are enough cases to warrant some form of criteria or guidelines. ABC paulista (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
For the record this, this is how I think we should define storms that have a "shared MH:"1) storms that play a direct role in the regeneration/formation of the other storm, OR 2) storms that directly contribute to the formation of another storm. And 3) Both storm cannot have ever existed simultaneously in any shape or form. Regarding what makes a pair of cyclones "the same storm,"any storm that directly regenerates into another storm (directly from the remnant low and/or the remnant circulation, so no mergers or splits of any kind) are the same storm, IMO, and should probably be merged in every one of those "same storm regeneration" cases in which both phases have (or will likely have) their own articles. I won't push for this at this time, though. Under this criteria, Amanda/Cristobal could be considered the same weather system (regardless of how the NHC defines whether or not they are the exact same tropical cyclone), and Matmo-Bulbul would also qualify as the same storm. Ten-Katrina and Alma-Arthur would count as related, but NOT the same storms. However, by this same criteria, storms like Grace & Twelve (Perfect Storm) and Ingrid & Manuel WOULD NOT count as being related meteorologically. This is how I think we should determine whether or not a pair of storms should be treated as "the same" or "a related pair of storms". As for whether or not we should merge each pair of "same storm regenerations" and "related pairs", I personally feel that we should only merge storms that were "direct regenerations" in which both phases of the storm warrant their own articles. However, in cases in which there are plenty of overlapping impacts, I could also accept a case or merging articles for pairs of meteorologically-related storms, if such a merger would significantly improve the prospects of getting the new article to GA or FA status; I can potentially support a merger for Alma & Arthur under these conditions. At the very least, we should start with merging all articles for pairs of storms that were both "the same regenerated storm" (as defined earlier) AND had overlapping impacts in the same areas. This is what I think we should do. As for merging other articles, I don't think we should even consider merging articles for pairs of storms that were not actually meteorologically-related to each other (also as defined earlier). However, for the other storms with both a related MH (broader definition, including cases that weren't direct regenerations, like Alma & Arthur) and overlapping impacts, we should consider merging those based on the benefits to both the quality of the merged article and our ability to get them promoted to GA & FA status. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
LightandDark2000, that's not exactly the point. I'm not looking to define how should we treat related cyclones (it's not our attribution to do so, and overrule official, third-party sources over our own criteria is WP:OR. We, as tertiary sources, only follow their statements), but to seek a methodology, a criteria on how to define what cases would benefit from merging. Looking at Amanda's and Cristobal's discussion history, although initially they were merged for being very closely related to one another, most of the users there seem to defend the merging mostly based on their shared impacts, which seems me that, for this process in particluar, sharing impacts have more weight on these kind of decisions than being meteorologically related. I've also seen notability and relevance being used as arguments for similar discussions, so, before starting any merging process, I think we should define first what should be taken into consideration for these cases. ABC paulista (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Support merging Alma and Arthur, Neutral on Ingrid and Manuel Alma and Arthur merged would create a better article with more coverage, I don't believe it's necessary for Ingrid and Manuel.--🌀Kieran207-talk🌀01:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
As someone who wrote the Manuel article back in the day, it's impacts are separate enough from Ingrid that I don't support a merger. Even the Alma-Arthur merger seems a stretch for similar reasons. YEPacificHurricane19:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Neural - Alma/Arthur; Oppose - Ingrid/Manuel I honestly think this issue has grown quite stale. Cristobal directly formed out of Amanda, whereas Arthur formed due to the interaction of Alma's remnants and two tropical waves, if memory serves. And I believe their impacts are easier to separate than those of Amanda and Cristobal. But ultimately, I won't argue if there's a consensus to merge. Ingrid and Manuel I'm opposed to, as they shared zero meteorological history, and it is easy to distinguish their effects. I'd rather follow JavaHurricane off Wikipedia than let such a merger occur. JayTee🐦18:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up @Run n Fly:, however, we have to be careful and wait until the IMD calls it either Depression or LPA BOB 01 before we add it in to the NIO TC Article which wont be for another few days.Jason Rees (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey WikiProject Tropical Cyclone members. I recently proposed an idea for a WikiProject for 2021. Cyclones happen every year, including 2021 and the proposed WikiProject is dedicated to 2021 articles. So I thought I would drop by and let you know about the proposal. Feel free to drop your opinions here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Cyclone Inigo Good Article Reassessment
Cyclone Inigo, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Canvassing within the WikiProject
I've noticed that, ever since I have joined the WikiProject, there are some proposals, like merger proposals (especially for the Atlantic hurricane mergers, which tend to have attention from members outside WikiProject Tropical cyclones) and especially, FleurDeOdile TBAN proposal, always resulted in some sort of consensus whose editors came from this WikiProject. While other WikiProject members notify their WikiProjects for some proposals, like what I did in Template:Ongoing protests (deleted), in here we use our Discord server to notify other members of this WikiProject basically. To me, this is basically stealth canvassing. I believe this is a problem which doesn't do any good to this WikiProject. MarioJump83!01:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
While I agree that there might be canvassing of sorts in some areas, I have to ask to what that means in regards to actions taken for the users who don't use discord, like myself. I haven't used discord in many years, and I definitely haven't used it since joining WP. As for the FDO discussion, I happened to stumble across that while looking through ANI, which I do pretty regularly. That discussion also appears to be mainly consisting of users within the WP, due to looking through contributions and also looking through ANI, while there might be canvassing involved to. I think the abundance of editors from our Wikiproject seems larger in a sense because of the lack of outside attention, which seems to be a common theme when it comes to discussions regarding our editors. However, it does not help when our editors do things like this instance of what Chlod called "brigading" from WPTC members to (unsuccessfully) get an ITN nomination shot down. (Per Chlod, on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 46#Unacceptable behavior from some WPTC members and non-weather users.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox15:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Great disclosure, though brigading is also a serious problem, too. We need a solution for this one to prevent such things from happening again. MarioJump83!23:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I will note however, that while I agree that there is not enough enough attention to weather disasters, whilst other articles of far-less notability get frequently put onto the ITN main page more so than tropical cyclones that cause severe damage and/or death , the way it was executed to try and bring attention to that was very poor, and we should have some sort of guidelines for putting/nominating tropical cyclone/weather articles for ITN, so that we may be more successful at getting these articles on the main page. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox02:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Not just that, however we need something more than that. We need some guidelines about how we conduct ourselves when it comes to serious discussions.MarioJump83!03:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree, however I do not have anything in particular as of now that we could put; did you have any particular guideline ideas that we could use regarding user conduct, such as like actions taken a user who demonstrates poor conduct or actions? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox03:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. You'd need to update the discord server rules (or whomever is in charge of that there) to reflect that.(On here of course we'd need to let users know as well) 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox04:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m a strong opponent of making binding decisions off-wiki. The biggest drawback is said consensus cannot be referred to if asked by an external party. I would also encourage editors to have independent policy-based reasoning for all comments, rather than blindly following another’s proposal. —Jasper Deng(talk)20:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
