Talk:2013 Pacific hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurricane Cosme (2013)[edit]

So, this morning there was a fight on IRC over the length of Cosme's section with TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contribs). Last night, he expanded Cosme's section, making it like 3 times longer than infobox on my screen. He argued that the section was not too long (which I HIGHLY disagree with) and that it was well-written and sourced (which it is :) ). I don't think the 2nd is exactly relevant, this is only suppose to be a summary after all, not a storm article. So, therefore, we are left with two options. Either make a storm article for Cosme (which is meh in my eyes) or trim it don't. I tested a trim version here, which I reverted so we can talk it over here. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the section is grossly overweight and provides undue attention to Cosme. At most, a typical EPac storm such as Cosme with minor impact would warrant two paragraphs of information at the most: one for met history and one for preps/impact. It contains excessive detail on the development of the system which can easily be summarized and condensed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned trimmed version itself remains too large for my tastes as well. It seems as though very little was changed to the preps/impact part which mostly consists of in-depth details for minor damage. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. We make storm articles and, in their meteorological history section, provide great detail about which way/why it tracked that way, its structural changes, methods used to gauge their intensity, etc. as I did in Cosme's section. The storm itself is not worthy enough for its own article...does that mean we should leave out the detail that would've otherwise been added in its article had the storm been notable enough just because season sections aren't "normally" this long? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to provide such in-depth detail on an article which is designed to provide a general overview of the storms in the season. It's not a matter of the storm not being notable enough, it's a matter of keeping the size of this article in check. As of this response, the 2013 PHS article is exactly 49 kilobytes long and covers a mere five storms. It's a general suggestion by Wikipedia that articles be split off when they reach 80 kb to make them easier to navigate, if possible. By including this much detail, as I said before, you've giving a storm undue attention and by extension, creating a grossly overdone article. The purpose of the sub-articles is to allow us to go into those more in-depth details since it's a focused article. Writing a full-blown meteorological history within a season article is not appropriate. If you feel so strongly that this information needs to stay, split it off into its own article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agreed with CB. He removed minimal info, and I did the same. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cosme /could/ get an article, it did widespread granted minor damage, but that is besides the point. CB got in right on the head here. TAWX, WP is not a list of all possible details as I've told you on IRC. It's season article can not handle its content is when you split and/or trim. We chose the latter. Now, trim Dallia's section and I am happy. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dallia's been trimmed, so are we all okay with it's length? Wanna make sure before we move on. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Flossie[edit]

Should Flossie cause significant impact on Hawaii, could it get an article? Hurricane Andrew (444) 17:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could indeed get an article if it did have a significant impact on Hawaii.Jason Rees (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop debating on whether an article should be made :P Instead, consider being bold and make one yourself. Regards. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold is the reason we always have these unnecessary articles. This edit notice (applies to this article) has a general guideline: "Please refrain from creating individual articles on active tropical cyclones until the storm has been discussed in extensive secondary sources—usually after it has impacted or began to threaten populated areas." United States Man (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do we have unnecessary articles?? YE Pacific Hurricane 18:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice all the time that individual articles are being created, only to be redirected or merged, sometimes only minutes or hours later. United States Man (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with USM. Also consider WP:CRYSTAL. If an article does end up being appropriate, we can wait until after whatever impact occurs. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind everyone who may be considering the publishing of an article on a currently existing or running storm, that a moratorium for the creation of current storm articles exists and has been in place since last month. Should you be concerned for the validity of the creation of such an article, talk page discussion is always appreciated, note that the talk page template encourages such activity. However, there is also a moratorium in place – should there be additional confusion on the validity of such article creation the moratorium is there to set guidelines that must be reached for an article to be created. An article may be "unnecessary", but the moratorium has been set such that there is now criteria for a storm to be created, and, as such, a storm is likely "necessary" or "encouraged" if they meet such criterion. Conversely, a storm that does not meet such criteria is likely "unnecessary" or "discouraged." Furthermore, if the validity of the newly created article is to be questioned, discussion will likely take place on that article's respective talk page, furthering discussion on the creation of current storms (or storms of equivalent or similar notability) and it will refine the moratorium and its guidelines. Remember that Wikipedia is a continuously changing online encyclopedia, and criterion set does not mean it will be criterion forever. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CRYSTAL, "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The thousand dollar question IMO is will Flossie almost certainly be notable? FYI there has not been any real non-generic hurricane preps for Flossie yet. However, it does meet the moratorium and likely passes the edit notice. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this warrants an article. What I said above applied to other storms that shouldn't have articles, but are created anyway following "be bold" encouragement. United States Man (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I was never the biggest fan ever of that type of argument. I was often told by others on Talk:2010 Atlantic hurricane season to stop debating over whether an article should or should not be made. Several discussions regarding this on the 2011 AHS talk page (aside from Bret) where closed, but after looking at it further, they were mostly storms like Phillipe and in the case that there was a notable storm (like Ophelia), we made sandboxes before an argument starts. I had been thinking about making such article for the past day or so, but I hate being the guy that always makes all the articles. But if anyone wants to make one, Ill happily help with impact. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest storm[edit]

If all info here is correct, Henriette and Cosme would both be strongest storm. How do you put two storms with different windspeeds in the same place? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if pressure is equal, the storm with the greater windspeed takes precedent. — Iune(talk) 17:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the CPac hat trick[edit]

Just trying to figure out the damned origins of these two storms...need a place to make sense of the flip flopping in the CPHC archives starting on August 13. Took the systems mentioned and put them in order rather than the mixed ordering in the outlooks.

The systems are listed in CPHC order from the August 13 outlook:

1) Tropical Storm Unala
2) Tropical Depression Three-C
3) Tropical Storm Pewa
4) Disturbance

NHC Outlooks (Disturbance 1 is TD 3C, Disturbance 2...starts 8/8 12z...is TS Unala)

2013-08-07 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2013-08-08 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2013-08-09 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2013-08-10 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2013-08-11 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2013-08-12 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2013-08-13 0000z // 0600z // REFER TO CPHC

CPHC August 11–13 (precursor to Unala)

2013-08-11 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2013-08-12 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2013-08-13 0000z // 0600z // SEE BELOW
  • August 13
    • 1200z
      • 1) 900 mi SE of the Big Island
      • 2) 1,500 mi ESE of the Big Island
    • 1800z
      • 1) 850 mi SE of the Big Island
      • 2) 1,375 ESE of the Big Island
  • August 14
    • 0000z
      • 1) 775 mi SE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 2) 1,300 mi ESE of Hilo, Hawaii
    • 0600z
      • 1) 700 mi SE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 2) 1,230 mi ESE of Hilo, Hawaii
    • 1200z
      • 1) 700 mi SSE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 2) 1,100 mi ESE of Hilo, Hawaii
    • 1800z
      • 1) 545 mi SSE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 2) 835 mi ESE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) 1,050 mi SW of Honolulu, Hawaii
  • August 15
    • 0000z
      • 1) 410 mi S of South Point, Hawaii
      • 2) 775 mi ESE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) 1,075 mi SW of Honolulu, Hawaii
    • 0600z
      • 1) 475 mi S of the Big Island
      • 2) 750 mi SE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) 1,125 SW of Kauai
    • 1200z
      • 1) 675 mi S of Kauai
      • 2) 675 mi SE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) 1,150 mi SW of Kauai
    • 1400z SPECIAL
      • 1) 650 mi S of Kauai
      • 2) 675 mi SE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) 1,150 mi SW of Kauai
    • 1800z
      • 1) 650 mi S of Kauai
      • 2) 600 mi SE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) 1,150 mi SW of Kauai
    • 2100z SPECIAL
      • 1) 650 mi S of Kauai
      • 2) 600 mi SE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) 1,175 mi SW of Kauai
  • August 16
    • 0000z
      • 1) 675 mi SSW of Kauai
      • 2) 525 mi SSE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) 1,175 mi SW of Kauai
    • 0600z
      • 1) 700 mi SSW of Kauai
      • 2) 500 mi SSE of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) 1,200 mi SW of Kauai
    • 1200z
      • 1) 775 mi SSW of Kauai
      • 2) 450 mi S of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) 1,250 mi SW of Kauai
    • 1800z
      • 1) 800 mi SW of Kauai
      • 2) 450 mi S of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
  • August 17
    • 0000z
      • 1) 900 mi SW of Kauai
      • 2) 450 mi SSW of Hilo, Hawaii
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
    • 0600z
      • 1) 920 mi SW of Kauai
      • 2) 300 mi SSW of South Point, Hawaii
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
    • 1200z
      • 1) 960 mi SW of Honolulu, Hawaii
      • 2) 350 mi SW of South Point, Hawaii
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
    • 1800z
      • 1) 980 mi SW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 2) DISSIPATED
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
  • August 18
    • 0000z
      • 1) 1,000 mi SW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 2) DISSIPATED
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
    • 0600z
      • 1) 1,080 mi WSW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 2) DISSIPATED
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
    • 1200z
      • 1) 1,120 mi WSW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 2) 650 mi SW of Lihue, Kauai (Says another surface trough but this is the same system)
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
      • 4) 1,100 mi ESE of Hilo, Hawaii
    • 1800z
      • 1) 1,120 mi WSW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 2) 650 mi SW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
      • 4) 1,100 mi ESE of Hilo, Hawaii
  • August 19
    • 0000z
      • 1) 1,150 mi WSW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 2) 750 mi SW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
      • 4) 1,020 mi ESE of Hilo, Hawaii
    • 0300z SPECIAL
      • 1) TROPICAL STORM UNALA
      • 2) 750 mi SW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
      • 4) 1,020 mi ESE of Hilo, Hawaii
    • 0600z
      • 1) TROPICAL STORM UNALA
      • 2) 900 mi WSW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
      • 4) 1,000 mi ESE of Hilo, Hawai
    • 1200z
      • 1) TROPICAL STORM UNALA
      • 2) 970 mi WSW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
      • 4) 750 mi SE of Hilo, Hawaii
    • 1800z
      • 1) TROPICAL STORM UNALA
      • 2) 1,000 mi WSW of Lihue, Kauai
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
      • 4) 750 mi SE of the Big Island
    • 2000z SPECIAL
      • 1) TROPICAL STORM UNALA
      • 2) TROPICAL DEPRESSION THREE-C
      • 3) TROPICAL STORM PEWA
      • 4) 750 mi SE of the Big Island

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any evidence that 3-C and Unala were 92E and 93E respectively? IIRC they were. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sectnum parameter[edit]

I think this has changed somewhere down the years, but it now seems that with the Infobox hurricane current template it is never right to specify sectnum=1. Even when there are multiple active storms the tag on the first one remains #Current_storm_information, not #Current_storm_information_1; so the sectnum parameter should be omitted here, while still being sectnum=2 on the second storm, and so forth. Not that I imagine anyone ever actually clicks on the See more detailed information link!--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Season Map Update[edit]

The season map is in serious need of an update. It doesn't even show Kiko, Lorena, or Manuel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.127.64 (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The season track has recently received an update. But if something is missing, then you need to see Supportstorm, Keith Edkins, or Cyclonebiskit to fix it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Summaries[edit]

Seriously, what is going on? Why aren't people updating the storm summaries with new (reliable) information? Now the labeled summaries seem incomplete, because of an apparent lack of editing. So why isn't anyone updating the storm summaries? LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Instead of complaining, you can do it yourself. United States Man (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are plenty of more important season that need to be worked on than this one, Wikipedia is a work in process. This article is light years better than the PTS article for once. All that really matters the most IMO is that all the impact of up to date, and sans Sonia, that's the case here. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I try, but I'm not always all that up to speed with the latest advisories on many of the storms. I'm just kind of disappointed in the decrease of edits of expanding individual storm sections. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sans Manuel, this season is not that important, so don't fuss over it. There are plenty of more important articles that need to be finished. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know. But I would still like this page to have the quality of that of its predecessors; they were a lot more complete than this page. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the season is over, you can edit it and make it better :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to resort to TCRs for this kind of stuff, and with my increasing schoolwork, I don't exactly have a lot of time. Not all of the TCRs are out yet, and since I wasn't able to monitor much of those systems actively, it will be extremely difficlut for me to update their respective sections. But just in case it helps, here is the link: 2013 East Pacific TCRs. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2013 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on 2013 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on 2013 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2013 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Pacific_hurricane_season&oldid=1196644808"