This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Tropical cyclone scales#North Indian Ocean|very severe cyclonic storm]] The anchor (#North Indian Ocean) has been
deleted by other users before.
[[Tropical cyclone scales#South-Western Indian Ocean|tropical cyclone]] The anchor (#South-Western Indian Ocean) has been
deleted by other users before.
[[Tropical cyclone scales#Australia and Fiji|Australian tropical cyclone intensity scale]] The anchor (#Australia and Fiji) has been
deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
The whole point is that the entire table can be sorted, whether by deaths, total storms, total damage. Editing it is like other articles. Ctrl + F whatever year you're going for, go to the basin, badabing, badaboom. (or no?) ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
01:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)reply
That is why I think there is a benefit to having everything in the same table, even if it is ginormous. Users should be able to sort by the deadliest years/seasons, which would point to a lot of North Indian Ocean seasons. The costliest seasons are either Atlantic or WPAC. I'm all for improving the article/table, and open for suggestions, especially if the consensus is that it's better splitting it up. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)reply
...Yea, looking at this again with some perspective with time, I apologize, we should split this by century IMO. I think decade is a little too often, since it goes back to the 10th century. The first one should be pre-15th century. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
00:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Sources
I am going to spend the next couple of months adding sources to this article. I will have to split it into 20-year segments to make it doable.
NoahTalk19:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks @
Hurricane Noah: adding the sources will add even more to the credibility of this article, and will help it one day become a featured list. Possibly the most important list in the project. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
19:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Hurricanehink: Keep in mind I will have to add another column in to host all the refs. We may be fine, but size could be an issue when it comes to this page. If there are ONLY 5 sources (will be more than this) per basin per year (7 basins), that adds up to 35. In the 20 year period I selected to start with, that would mean 700 sources. If each source is around 300 bytes... Im sure you see where I am going with that. I will keep going as long as I can, but if we approach 2000k, the page will have to split.
NoahTalk19:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Some things can be sourced in bulk, like the number of storms in the Atlantic in a given year (
[1]). Some users above mentioned the desire to split up this page, so I won't oppose if there's a consensus for that. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
19:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Hurricanehink:Yeah, I'm well aware of the sourcing by bulk for storms... the issue comes from damages and deaths for which each storm generally needs its own sources. I'm actually going to have to split my smaller portion into decade lengths to avoid hitting the limit when I go to archive links. I'm just stating there is a high possibility of us hitting the technical limit for article size when we add in the thousands of sources needed to substantiate all this info.
NoahTalk19:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Yeah, a split by decade seems the best option for keeping the articles under the technical limit for templates and page size. WP frowns upon articles around 500k for whatever reason. Should we change the page structure any? I will begin sourcing 2010–2019 tomorrow evening.
NoahTalk23:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)reply
If anyone wants to tackle the beast that is splitting up this article, by all means go ahead. I'm just rather busy these days between work and moving, so I won't be able to get around to it anytime soon. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
23:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Here's a thought. What if, when the article gets too big, parts are transcluded, rather than being split up? I believe there is value in having a single page documenting the number of storms by every year. I believe transclusion would allow for the a table and references to show up, but it wouldn't cause the article to be too large. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
01:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)reply