Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 36

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) to be moved to Tropical Storm Stan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Greetings WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 36 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Jose (1999) to be moved to Hurricane Jose. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi Guys, In a recent discussion on the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season, it was noted that we use the word storms in the infobox for the Atlantic and that the section where all the storms are contained is called storms. As a result I would like to propose that we change the level 2 header from Storms to Systems. Ideally I would need someone who has access to AWB to perform this manover since it affects so many articles.Jason Rees (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. "Systems" is a more neutral term, especially as some basins have tropical disturbances and zones of disturbed weather. Anyone have strong feelings either way? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier if we changed "Total storms" to "Total tropical storms" in the infobox? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: If you think about the classifications used these days, you will realise why that is not a feasible option.Jason Rees (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

True, hadn't though of that honestly. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing no major objections, should someone start making this change via AWB? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There have been a several discussions over the past few months (including one back in August and a more exhaustive one recently Talk:Hurricane Stan (disambiguation)), and it's time we have one centralized discussion to figure it all out. For the disambiguation/set index articles, we have 680 pages (example: Typhoon Muifa), which show the storms of a given name. Many of these articles are only 2-4 lines long. We have several different formats for covering these articles: List of tropical storms named Koppu, List of storms named Ada, Cyclone Mick, Cyclone Hina (disambiguation) (usually if the name was retired), Tropical Storm Helena, and 09F. The recent discussion on Talk:Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) reveals a split among which option to take: List of storms named Stan, Tropical Storm Stan, or Cyclone Stan. Jason Rees (talk · contribs) noted that some storm names were used for non-tropical cyclones, and given that the disambiguation pages are for all of Wikipedia, the titles must reflect any sort of storm. I propose to go a step further.

As we have 680 dab pages, it would be a lot easier if many of them were merged (given that most only have 2-4 storms), so all A storms would be lumped together in an article called List of storm names (A), and so on. Here is an example for what I propose, using the names from U to Z (so far just Atlantic and EPAC names are in there). This would solve the problem of having to move disambiguation pages when a storm name is retired, and it would reduce the number of set index pages to maintain. Further, it would be useful having Tropical Storm Ana and Tropical Storm Anna on the same page, given how close the names are.

Ping @Andrewa:, @Tavix:, @Gorthian:, @Bkonrad:, @Ebonelm:, @GPHemsley:, @GPHemsley:, @Yellow Evan:

I'd like to resolve the discussion from the Hurricane Stan page, which is why I pinged the above users. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not conflate disambiguation pages and set indices. A set index page format such as Typhoon Muifa, if it were a disambiguation page, would not contain links (or extraneous explanatory text) in the leading line and would not include a succession box. Similarly, there should be only one blue link for each entry on a disambiguation page, as is sometimes seen with set index pages (for example Typhoon Nanmadol). There are a some other related issues:

1. If set indices are to be the standard, the category Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages and it's subcategories should be renamed.
2. If set indices are to be used, then pages including "(disambiguation)" should not be used as titles and should not be created as redirects.
3. If more generic set indices are to be used, some determination may be needed for succession boxes (i.e., may look odd to have a Pacific typhoon season names succession box on a page that includes other types of storms)

PS, regarding the specific proposal of one or more alphabetical lists, that would work for me, although there may need to be a forest of redirects (and perhaps a way of tagging and categorizing the redirects). older ≠ wiser 16:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I like the alphabetical list idea. Less pages to maintain. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference, but it seems like the number of storms is small enough that a single list page would do, if you went that route. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: The whole point of this conversation is to un-confuse the SIA's/DABs and put them all the same format and name them in the same way. I like Hink's format, but am not sure that only 1 page would work for the entire world and would prefer at least 21 pages. As for redirects I suspect a mass deletion would be better, but we will look at the links on each of the 680 pages and point them in the right direction over time.Jason Rees (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but referring to them as "680 dab pages" when many of them are not dab pages is conflation, especially so when many well-intentioned editors don't appear to see the distnction. Also, I'm not sure where that number comes from. Counting pages in subcategories of Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages gives 877 or so. older ≠ wiser 18:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Tropical Storm Iris is an example of a page with several different types of storms. older ≠ wiser 19:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with about a page per letter. One page would defintiely be too much, so they should split into manageable sizes (obviously more obscure letters should be grouped). Any redirect that ends with "(disambiguation)" would need to be deleted, but I'm not sure what else would need to go. I guess anything questionable should go to WP:RFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have no preference regarding the article names, but I strongly support making them into lists or set-index articles; dab pages are high maintenance no matter their size. And I endorse every one of Bkonrad's points. — Gorthian (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see no advantage whatsoever in merging/splitting articles as proposed, and many disadvantages. For a start:

• It's complicated. Some notable storms will have articles and some will not. Navigation will be made more difficult. Navboxes are problematical. A reader who knows the name of a storm but not its technical type and title will need many clicks to find the page they're after.
• It's high-maintenance. It's a lot less work to maintain many short pages, one on each storm name, than fewer more complex articles (probably in table form).
• It's a lot more work to set up in the first place.

IMO there should be at least one article for every name that has been used to name storms, worldwide. That's the simplest structure. If there's only one such storm then that's the topic of the article. If there's more than one, then all by that name are covered, and the format should be a list of some sort or a BCA. What are the problems with that? Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the points. One thing worth considering: given that most naming lists rotate, and future names are always announced in advance, might it be less work having 22 or so lists, as opposed to going through the hundreds of naming pages? As for ease of use for the readers, a lot of storm names worldwide aren't in English, but the pages almost always list the locations affected. Here is a potential benefit of having all of the A names together, for example: a user could do a page search for a location, and get all of the A storms that hit a certain area. We currently have List of historic tropical cyclone names for tropical cyclone names by year, and it would only be a natural extension IMO to have a general list by letter. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

But is it at all likely that anyone will want to know only the names of storms that start with A? If they know the first letter, normally they'll know the name, surely?

Similarly with the ease of maintenance. When would we ever have to go through hundreds of naming pages? I don't see that scenario as likely... can you be more specific as to how it might occur? Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If there's consensus for a new formatting, all 600+ pages would have to be updated. It'd be easier to manage 22 pages than several hundred, especially on one's watchlist. For your other question, I can easily imagine someone wanting a list of all named storms, which this would provide. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. But there are two different issues here.

And I'm wondering if we're even discussing the same proposal! How would what you're suggesting provide a list of all named storms? That's exactly what it does not provide. Nor does it provide a list of all the names that have been used.

Just to clarify this, what I'm questioning is the grouping/splitting of storms alphabetically. I think a list of all named storms is an excellent idea, as a sortable table perhaps. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

To the issues. Firstly, there's the once-off task of going to any new format, and secondly, the continuing maintenance afterwards.

The once-off needs to deal with all of the 600+ pages regardless of the target format. I'd argue (and do above) that it's a lot less work to convert these 1-1 than to merge them.

The continuing maintenance is a strange one. Do you really watchlist 600+ pages at present? There must be better ways to do such things. The more logical format should be no bigger a maintenance task. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hurricanehink would you be willing to create this list(s)? If so, how much effort do you think it would be to create? -- Tavix ^(talk) 06:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• The more I think about this, I'm liking more and more the idea of alpha sorted list articles. Although I don't edit these pages beyond disambiguation-related tasks, it seems to me a finite number of such lists would be considerably easier to maintain that a plethora of individual pages. But I do wonder what will become of the individual names. Will these become redirects to sections or named targets in the list articles? For example, if something similar to the example partial list given above, were to be adopted, would Typhoon Virginia continue to exist as a set index or disambiguation page? Or would it become a redirect to to the named anchor "Virginia" on the list article? I'm assuming the latter would be preferable, although I think there would need to be some apparatus for keeping track of such redirects. older ≠ wiser 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I would presume it would become a redirect to the "Virignia" anchor at the list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... and similarly, Typhoon Stan would redirect to the Stan anchor unless there was a storm which was the primary topic, in which case Typhoon Stan would be either a primary redirect or the name of the article on that storm, with a hatnote to this Stan anchor? This proposal could work fairly well provided that was done and the redirects were in an appropriate category which included also the actual storm articles... still not convinced it's the best way. Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes! Now you're getting it... -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

With those important details filled in, the proposal does provide good tools for a naive user to get to the article they want, and my one remaining objection is that it's initially a lot of work... but I take it we have volunteers, so that's answered too. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, I seem to be the only one with any reservations about splitting the list according to the initial letter of the storm name. If that is true then I'll certainly admit to consensus against me.

And it's certainly a workable solution to the current issues. I'm just concerned that it may not be the best solution.

One {possibly final but maybe not) question: Is there an example of this working elsewhere in the article namespace? I think I've seen it done by time ranges (even then can't think of where) but that's a different thing IMO. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There are lists of roads (see the categories applied by {{road index}}). Not quite analogous, but somewhat similar. older ≠ wiser 20:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the members of Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title, not even similar. To follow that example, we'd have a separate List of storms named Stan rather than a List of storms starting with S, and so on, just as there's a List of highways numbered 32A which is separate to List of highways numbered 32. I'd have no problem with that approach. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Roads is a bad example. The format would probably be List of tropical cyclones (S) (a spin-off of List of tropical cyclones). That would imply one list that has been split by letter due to length. For an example I worked on: List of NHL players is way too massive to have one list, that's why we have List of NHL players (A), etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks... will look at that example... I was looking hard myself, just not in the right places I guess. Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That kind of list is very common in sports, and would work well here. Just like List of NHL players is listed both alphabetically and by team, List of tropical cyclones can be listed by basin (✔check) and alphabetically. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello there. It's been a while.  :) CPHC concluded on their Facebook page that Pali was considered a continuation of the 2015 Pacific hurricane season yesterday, and left the storm off its 2016 map. Thinking this was more than enough evidence, since blogs by Joe and Jane Schmo are used nowadays for determining records, I made the changes. They were immediately reverted. The call was for a better reference. Enlighten me as to how an RSMC Facebook page is LESS authoritative than a blog by Joe Schmo? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources confirm this is now online here, which places it at a slightly higher level than a tweet, Facebook posting, or blog. I'm not going to continue a revert war, for obvious 2007-based reasons. What say ye? Thegreatdr (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Good to see you back on here! Regarding your source, it says In addition to the 6 tropical cyclones during the season, Hurricane Pali which occurred in January 2016, is included in the 2016 calendar year cyclone total of 7. I think Pali could have a mention in the 2015 season as an extension of the activity, but its section and totals should be in the 2016 article IMO. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

CPHC goes out of their way to say it wasn't part of the 2016 season in line 1, and doesn't include it in their 2016 seasonal map. That makes it pretty clear it should be dealt with the other way. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If they imply it wasn't part of the 2016 season in line 1, yet they explicitly correlate Pali with the 2016 season in line 2, then respectfully this report doesn't "make it pretty clear" the storm should be moved to the 2015 article. It makes it ambiguous. I don't think any changes should be made until the CPHC portion of Pali's TCR is released and it clarifies one way or the other. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for sidetracking this for a second, but why is this being argued in 2 different places? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted a broader audience. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

And good discussion is always healthy. Happy holidays, my fellow Wikipedians. :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hurricane Jose (1999) to be moved to Hurricane Jose. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

There have been a several discussions over the past few months (including one back in August and a more exhaustive one recently Talk:Hurricane Stan (disambiguation)), and it's time we have one centralized discussion to figure it all out. For the disambiguation/set index articles, we have 680 pages (example: Typhoon Muifa), which show the storms of a given name. Many of these articles are only 2-4 lines long. We have several different formats for covering these articles: List of tropical storms named Koppu, List of storms named Ada, Cyclone Mick, Cyclone Hina (disambiguation) (usually if the name was retired), Tropical Storm Helena, and 09F. The recent discussion on Talk:Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) reveals a split among which option to take: List of storms named Stan, Tropical Storm Stan, or Cyclone Stan. Jason Rees (talk · contribs) noted that some storm names were used for non-tropical cyclones, and given that the disambiguation pages are for all of Wikipedia, the titles must reflect any sort of storm. I propose to go a step further.

As we have 680 dab pages, it would be a lot easier if many of them were merged (given that most only have 2-4 storms), so all A storms would be lumped together in an article called List of storm names (A), and so on. Here is an example for what I propose, using the names from U to Z (so far just Atlantic and EPAC names are in there). This would solve the problem of having to move disambiguation pages when a storm name is retired, and it would reduce the number of set index pages to maintain. Further, it would be useful having Tropical Storm Ana and Tropical Storm Anna on the same page, given how close the names are.

Ping @Andrewa:, @Tavix:, @Gorthian:, @Bkonrad:, @Ebonelm:, @GPHemsley:, @GPHemsley:, @Yellow Evan:

I'd like to resolve the discussion from the Hurricane Stan page, which is why I pinged the above users. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not conflate disambiguation pages and set indices. A set index page format such as Typhoon Muifa, if it were a disambiguation page, would not contain links (or extraneous explanatory text) in the leading line and would not include a succession box. Similarly, there should be only one blue link for each entry on a disambiguation page, as is sometimes seen with set index pages (for example Typhoon Nanmadol). There are a some other related issues:

1. If set indices are to be the standard, the category Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages and it's subcategories should be renamed.
2. If set indices are to be used, then pages including "(disambiguation)" should not be used as titles and should not be created as redirects.
3. If more generic set indices are to be used, some determination may be needed for succession boxes (i.e., may look odd to have a Pacific typhoon season names succession box on a page that includes other types of storms)

PS, regarding the specific proposal of one or more alphabetical lists, that would work for me, although there may need to be a forest of redirects (and perhaps a way of tagging and categorizing the redirects). older ≠ wiser 16:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I like the alphabetical list idea. Less pages to maintain. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference, but it seems like the number of storms is small enough that a single list page would do, if you went that route. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: The whole point of this conversation is to un-confuse the SIA's/DABs and put them all the same format and name them in the same way. I like Hink's format, but am not sure that only 1 page would work for the entire world and would prefer at least 21 pages. As for redirects I suspect a mass deletion would be better, but we will look at the links on each of the 680 pages and point them in the right direction over time.Jason Rees (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but referring to them as "680 dab pages" when many of them are not dab pages is conflation, especially so when many well-intentioned editors don't appear to see the distnction. Also, I'm not sure where that number comes from. Counting pages in subcategories of Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages gives 877 or so. older ≠ wiser 18:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Tropical Storm Iris is an example of a page with several different types of storms. older ≠ wiser 19:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with about a page per letter. One page would defintiely be too much, so they should split into manageable sizes (obviously more obscure letters should be grouped). Any redirect that ends with "(disambiguation)" would need to be deleted, but I'm not sure what else would need to go. I guess anything questionable should go to WP:RFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have no preference regarding the article names, but I strongly support making them into lists or set-index articles; dab pages are high maintenance no matter their size. And I endorse every one of Bkonrad's points. — Gorthian (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see no advantage whatsoever in merging/splitting articles as proposed, and many disadvantages. For a start:

• It's complicated. Some notable storms will have articles and some will not. Navigation will be made more difficult. Navboxes are problematical. A reader who knows the name of a storm but not its technical type and title will need many clicks to find the page they're after.
• It's high-maintenance. It's a lot less work to maintain many short pages, one on each storm name, than fewer more complex articles (probably in table form).
• It's a lot more work to set up in the first place.

IMO there should be at least one article for every name that has been used to name storms, worldwide. That's the simplest structure. If there's only one such storm then that's the topic of the article. If there's more than one, then all by that name are covered, and the format should be a list of some sort or a BCA. What are the problems with that? Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the points. One thing worth considering: given that most naming lists rotate, and future names are always announced in advance, might it be less work having 22 or so lists, as opposed to going through the hundreds of naming pages? As for ease of use for the readers, a lot of storm names worldwide aren't in English, but the pages almost always list the locations affected. Here is a potential benefit of having all of the A names together, for example: a user could do a page search for a location, and get all of the A storms that hit a certain area. We currently have List of historic tropical cyclone names for tropical cyclone names by year, and it would only be a natural extension IMO to have a general list by letter. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

But is it at all likely that anyone will want to know only the names of storms that start with A? If they know the first letter, normally they'll know the name, surely?

Similarly with the ease of maintenance. When would we ever have to go through hundreds of naming pages? I don't see that scenario as likely... can you be more specific as to how it might occur? Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If there's consensus for a new formatting, all 600+ pages would have to be updated. It'd be easier to manage 22 pages than several hundred, especially on one's watchlist. For your other question, I can easily imagine someone wanting a list of all named storms, which this would provide. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. But there are two different issues here.

And I'm wondering if we're even discussing the same proposal! How would what you're suggesting provide a list of all named storms? That's exactly what it does not provide. Nor does it provide a list of all the names that have been used.

Just to clarify this, what I'm questioning is the grouping/splitting of storms alphabetically. I think a list of all named storms is an excellent idea, as a sortable table perhaps. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

To the issues. Firstly, there's the once-off task of going to any new format, and secondly, the continuing maintenance afterwards.

The once-off needs to deal with all of the 600+ pages regardless of the target format. I'd argue (and do above) that it's a lot less work to convert these 1-1 than to merge them.

The continuing maintenance is a strange one. Do you really watchlist 600+ pages at present? There must be better ways to do such things. The more logical format should be no bigger a maintenance task. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hurricanehink would you be willing to create this list(s)? If so, how much effort do you think it would be to create? -- Tavix ^(talk) 06:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• The more I think about this, I'm liking more and more the idea of alpha sorted list articles. Although I don't edit these pages beyond disambiguation-related tasks, it seems to me a finite number of such lists would be considerably easier to maintain that a plethora of individual pages. But I do wonder what will become of the individual names. Will these become redirects to sections or named targets in the list articles? For example, if something similar to the example partial list given above, were to be adopted, would Typhoon Virginia continue to exist as a set index or disambiguation page? Or would it become a redirect to to the named anchor "Virginia" on the list article? I'm assuming the latter would be preferable, although I think there would need to be some apparatus for keeping track of such redirects. older ≠ wiser 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I would presume it would become a redirect to the "Virignia" anchor at the list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... and similarly, Typhoon Stan would redirect to the Stan anchor unless there was a storm which was the primary topic, in which case Typhoon Stan would be either a primary redirect or the name of the article on that storm, with a hatnote to this Stan anchor? This proposal could work fairly well provided that was done and the redirects were in an appropriate category which included also the actual storm articles... still not convinced it's the best way. Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes! Now you're getting it... -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

With those important details filled in, the proposal does provide good tools for a naive user to get to the article they want, and my one remaining objection is that it's initially a lot of work... but I take it we have volunteers, so that's answered too. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, I seem to be the only one with any reservations about splitting the list according to the initial letter of the storm name. If that is true then I'll certainly admit to consensus against me.

And it's certainly a workable solution to the current issues. I'm just concerned that it may not be the best solution.

One {possibly final but maybe not) question: Is there an example of this working elsewhere in the article namespace? I think I've seen it done by time ranges (even then can't think of where) but that's a different thing IMO. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There are lists of roads (see the categories applied by {{road index}}). Not quite analogous, but somewhat similar. older ≠ wiser 20:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the members of Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title, not even similar. To follow that example, we'd have a separate List of storms named Stan rather than a List of storms starting with S, and so on, just as there's a List of highways numbered 32A which is separate to List of highways numbered 32. I'd have no problem with that approach. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Roads is a bad example. The format would probably be List of tropical cyclones (S) (a spin-off of List of tropical cyclones). That would imply one list that has been split by letter due to length. For an example I worked on: List of NHL players is way too massive to have one list, that's why we have List of NHL players (A), etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks... will look at that example... I was looking hard myself, just not in the right places I guess. Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That kind of list is very common in sports, and would work well here. Just like List of NHL players is listed both alphabetically and by team, List of tropical cyclones can be listed by basin (✔check) and alphabetically. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Update - List of named storms (U–Z) - here is the first list I prepared, getting all of the TC names from U to Z. Assuming we want to go further down this route, then the dab pages for the U-Z storms can be redirected here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Good work, Hink! I think there's consensus to follow suit for the rest of the alphabet. Let me know if you'd like some assistance. One quibble: shouldn't the title be something like "List of named tropical cyclones (X)" so there isn't confusion with named winter storms? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! As for the named winter storms, those could be added later on, along with the European wind storms. This could serve more use than just for tropical cyclones, especially as it's going alphabetical. All storm names by letter? Sounds like something you'd see in an encyclopedia. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

See "Propose merging Template:Infobox tropical cyclone small with Template:Infobox hurricane". – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013, Meow, Yellow Evan, and Jason Rees: This practice needs to stop (spurred by this). The problem is that the JMA is not labeling the TD on the map with "Nock-ten" nor the number 1626. It is purely WP:SYNTH to connect that "TD" with a previous storm when the RSMC is not making a direct statement to that effect. This practice causes readers confusion and should stop. Any ambiguities will be resolved when the JMA releases their best track.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Why? It is the same system, even though it doesn't say "Nock-ten" or "1626". And TD means "Tropical" Depression, therefore we have to add it in the Season totals. So if you're saying by this then the "TD" active in South China Sea right now is a separate system? Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: How do you know? For all we know, JMA could've happened to add a new TD near the same area. There is no way to tell for sure. Doing otherwise is improper synthesis of what they are saying.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Well I mean obviously JMA BT will be much better. But there are also JMA BT in Weather maps and will show the storm weakening to a tropical depression (if you're wondering why the number of TDs so far this season has changed). Also it's very unlikely that a TD had newly formed in the exact same area where Nock-ten "dissipated". Also you should've done this a long time ago because when I came here everyone was doing it. I was like you before but I got warned a lot. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: "But there are also JMA BT in Weather maps and will show the storm weakening to a tropical depression (if you're wondering why the number of TDs so far this season has changed)" - this statement does not make sense. And "very unlikely" - says who? Just because I decided to open up a discussion about it now isn't relevant here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Never mind about the first one. But to be very honest imo, "Using JMA weather maps to extend western Pacific storm tracks needs to stop" does not make sense at all and I'm sure if JMA has an account for this, they would disagree. I'll ping other users since no one has joined @Cyclonebiskit, Supportstorm, and Hurricanehink:. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: If they were to comment on this, they would ideally clarify it. But then it becomes an explicit statement by them. It's not our call to make.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Sorry need to add more. So you stated it's WP:SYNTH and has led me to "no original research" if I am correct? How is this thing original research? This is clearly using JMA sources. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

How did you prove that TD was part of that storm?—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@CycloneIsaac: Because it states "TD", "DOWNGRADED FROM TS 1626 NOCK-TEN". Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Where does it say that on the map? Note that the final advisory by the JMA was at 21z and therefore it is verifiable that it was downgraded at 21z, but not afterwards.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Says on the map. Otherwise words are too small too see. Downgrading to a TD doesn't mean that it dissipated. Dissipated means when it's not tropical or downgraded to an LPA. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Typhoon2013: And I just went to the map; the language "DOWNGRADED FROM TROPICAL STORM 1626 NOCK-TEN (1626)" does not make any explicit connection to the TD, and even if it does, is due to them having just issued the final advisory rather than connecting it on the map.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: How do you know that it has no connection to the TD in the South China Sea? Also do you mean 18Z? JMA's final advisory was at 18Z. TC Advisories are issued every 3hrs, while JMA weather maps are every 6hrs. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Yes I meant 18z. And the burden is on you to show that it does have such a connection, since you are the one proposing to add that statement. If I were to add another TD instead, then the burden would be on me to show it has no connection. Neither is verifiable; the weather map's statement, at least to me, doesn't cut it. And it doesn't hurt to wait until best track.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: First of all before we do anything else, is to wait for other users' opinions. So if for example, we have a new thing now, then we would have like about 70 TDs so far this season, and we would change many storm durations. What I was mentioning earlier is that JMA issues BT also for TDs. Like this, the BT, shows the same thing what we're talking about in previous storm. So say for example Dianmu, it weakened to a TD during the 19th and you are saying that the TD that existed until the 20th is a separate system? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Once the BT is out, we go by whatever is in that: if the BT shows it's the same system then that's what we say. Simple. But operationally, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to connect the two. Bear in mind that they are no longer issuing RSMC advisories on it, which they are supposed to do for active (and only active) storms.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Ok so obviously BT data will solve and reveal it all and there should be no problem with it. Only problem is when counting active storms. So you're saying that if the JMA has downgraded it to a TD, it is a separate system. But imo it's the same as it states "downgraded from Nock-ten". That's our only problem, especially how no one is contributing here. It would reveal it more if more users join this discussion and I wanted to hear other people's responses because 2 users would not solve the problem as it could make confusion to other users as they may not be aware of it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I'd actually prefer that we not count such TD's at all because both directions are not verifiable information to add.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: So you are saying if we should not include other (unnumbered JMA) TDs? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: That's a different discussion to have. However, in that case, I think there's far less ambiguity and those are fine.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we please apply some common sense please I know its not explicitlly stated by the JMA that Nockten is still active but the JTWC and the rest of the OFFICIAL warning centers are still in warning status and its pretty damm obvious that its Nockten.Jason Rees (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Yes it would rather be in a different discussion than this. But anyways, the best person to talk to is @Jason Rees: as he pretty much is the "boss". I, for myself, personally think I'm bad at solving problems when it comes to something like this. But I just do what is "right" and I just follow other users so I don't get users angry again or have to warn me. If no one else contributes to this discussion in the coming hours, we just have to leave it for now and discuss again a different time. Besides, Nock-ten will be our last named system and we wouldn't have to deal something like this again in several weeks when Muifa arrives. But I am really curious what will happen with this situation so I know. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To add as well as there was an edit conflict, I know it'ts not the RSMC, but Jasper, the JTWC still issues advisories as Jason had states above ^. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Either we break with the convention that the RSMC's word is the only one that counts, or JTWC's does not count.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng, Jason Rees, and Typhoon2013: I'm with JR on this one. The assertion that every time a named system is downgraded to a TD a new system must be started until the best track is released is asinine. Use common sense and, when policy gets in the way, there's always WP:IAR to maintain quality. We can use basic logic to continue systems like Nock-ten since it's blatantly obvious that the TD in the South China Sea is the remnant of Nock-ten. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, not to mention, it will be sourced later once the BT comes out. If you're worried about sourcing, check the rest of the season article, which has plenty of unsourced parts. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don’t need to answer anything about this ridiculous question. -- Meow 04:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Sorry for a late response but I was just browsing through my old talk messages and found this: User talk:Typhoon2013/Archive2#TD and dissipation. This was the first time I got warned and is similar to what happened to the both of us two weeks ago. It's just fyi, but have a good day! Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This list, which has been featured for nine years, no longer needs to exist. It was part of an experimental format for season articles (various discussions can be found in the archives), but for consistency, nearly all articles should have the the same format. 2005 is the only article with a separate list article, and given the number of storms in that season, perhaps that is still appropriate. But I don't think it's needed for 2003 - the content all fit well in the main article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)