WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

WikiProject home (talk) Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 Task forces → Western Pacific task force (talk) → Eastern Pacific task force (talk) → Atlantic task force (talk) → North Indian Ocean task force (talk) → Southern Hemisphere task force (talk) → Graphics task force (talk) → 2018 FT task force (talk) → Weather of YYYY task force (talk) Newsletter (talk) Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 Project resources (talk) Jargon (talk) WikiProject statistics (talk) Article requests (talk) Cyclone Cup (talk) Vital articles (talk) Showcase (talk) Style guidelines (talk) Awards (talk) Assessment Main assessment page (talk) → Assessment tables (talk) → Assessment log (talk) → Assessment statistics (talk) Tropical cyclones portal Parent project WikiProject Weather (talk)

This is an attempt to document a few existing unwritten guidelines for Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Individual storm articles for named storms are named using a "<tropical cyclone> <name> [(<year>)]" methodology. This means that an article is named one of the synonyms for tropical cyclone (e.g., "Hurricane"), followed by its given name (e.g., "Katrina"), then if necessary the year in parenthesis (e.g., "(2005)").

The maximum intensity used in the storm title depends on the tropical cyclone basin in which the article reached that intensity. Use the following table to determine the name used in the article's title:

For articles that spanned several basins, and for which several intensity names can apply (e.g. Hurricane Ioke) are handled on a case-by-case basis. Generally, choose the identifier that represents the storm at its peak (e.g. Typhoon Paka, which formed in the Central Pacific but reached peak strength as a typhoon in the West Pacific). If a storm garnered an equivalent identifier across basins, typically the name from its originating basin is used (e.g. Hurricane John (1994), which was a hurricane in the East Pacific and a typhoon in the West Pacific).

This is simply the name of the storm as given by the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC), such as "Katrina" or "Dog". In some circumstances, a system may not have been named by the RSMC but named by other reliably sourced agencies. This is generally limited to the West Pacific. In those cases, use the alternate name supplied by the alternative agency (e.g. Tropical Depression Auring, as named by PAGASA).

For storms that are the clear primary topic (usually, but not always, storms that are retired), no parenthetical disambiguation is required. Examples include Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Ida, and Hurricane Sally (as of 2021). For storms that were not removed from the naming lists, a parenthetical disambiguation is used (Hurricane Nora (1997)). If the storm is the only occurrence of a particular name (Hurricane Gracie), the year can be left off. Some storms, though not retired, may be enough of a primary topic to warrant forgoing the parenthetical disambiguation, i.e. they are highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. In cases where a retired storm is not nearly as notable as another storm with the same name, the retired storm will retain the year in its title; the more notable, non-retired storm may or may not have its the year left off, depending on whether or not it is the primary topic. A discussion should be raised on the article's talk page as either a general discussion or requested move to consider whether the storm is indeed the primary topic. Any storm that is the clear primary topic, however, should get the main title (without the year), regardless of its retirement status.

Just like named storms, unnamed ones should have an identifier as well as a "tropical cyclone" term and a year. The exact order these go in can vary; there is no single standard but naming should aim to be consistent with article sources as well as other storms within that season/basin/era. Capitalization too can vary — often parts of the "name" should not be capitalized as the unnamed storm is not a proper noun, but there isn't much consistency here as sources often do treat it like a proper noun.

The "identifier" is simply a name or number distinguishing the storm from others in that year. When possible this should be a common name used to refer to the storm in popular sources; this is most useful for famous older storms which have lots of references within literature. Otherwise, the following examples list cases where common names may not be found.

Possible identifiers include:

• Simple descriptors that are the accepted name within the culture for the storm. Examples: Great Hurricane of 1780, Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635, 1804 Snow hurricane, Divine Wind (typhoon).
• The area the storm affects. Just about any storm can be named this way but it can present a problem for storms with significant effects in multiple areas, or when an area gets hit multiple times in the same year, or for storms which never approached land. Examples: 1928 Okeechobee hurricane, 1922 Swatow Typhoon, 1938 New England hurricane
• The date or month on which it occurs. This may also be the commonly accepted name, particularly for storms impacting Spanish-speaking areas; again there can be problems for storms striking multiple areas on different days. Examples: 1899 San Ciriaco Hurricane, 1935 Labor Day hurricane
• A number or other designation, corresponding to the RSMC's internal naming system. This should not be used for older storms since re-analysis could change the numbering; that is to say, don't just take the number off of the best-track data, make sure the RSMC actually refers to the storm in that way. This is equivalent to how named storms should be handled; simply treat the RSMC designation as the name. Examples: Tropical Depression Ten (2007), Hurricane Dog (1950), Subtropical Storm One (1992)
• A number of other designation, corresponding to a non-RSMC or unofficial internal naming, such as JTWC or naval designations. Examples: Typhoon Cobra (1944), Tropical Depression 18W (2009)
• Rarely, the name of a person or ship who studied or was involved in the storm. These names should be verifiable. Examples: 1869 Saxby Gale, 1837 Racer's Storm

Use the variant of the word tropical cyclone appropriate for the basin and strength of the storm, e.g., "hurricane", "typhoon", "tropical depression", etc. See the table above. There are rare exceptions to this for storms that already have an accepted "common name", as for storms of older eras not recognized as tropical (Great September Gale of 1815) or for mixed tropical/baroclinic storms (1991 Halloween Nor'easter).

The Common Era year may either go at the beginning (1900 Galveston hurricane) or at the end with parenthesis as is done with named storms (Tropical Depression Ten (2007)). For storms spanning multiple years the year of formation is generally used. Very rarely the month may be included along with the year (as with the named storm Hurricane Alice (December 1954), though the month can also serve as an identifier on its own). For a storm where the precise year was not known, the decade or century could still be used.

It is extremely rare that the year can be left out; the situation for that would be a common name in which the year does not appropriately fit such as Kamikaze (typhoon). Even well known storms such as the Great Hurricane of 1780 that lack a year in most sources, should still be given one in wikipedia.

Season articles are generally given a name following the <Year> <Basin Max Intensity> season formula. Hence, the tropical cyclone season in the Eastern Pacific during 1997 is given the name "1997 Pacific hurricane season". Within the Southern Hemisphere, there are two hurricane season articles for every given year (e.g. 2003–04 South Pacific tropical cyclone season and 2004–05 South Pacific tropical cyclone season, as the seasons there span adjacent calendar years.

Older storm seasons are usually grouped together by decade, by century, or similar large intervals.

These articles are given names based on the hypothetical maximum intensity of a tropical cyclone affecting the region. For example, California can, in paper, be affected by Pacific hurricanes (and has, by the 1858 San Diego Hurricane); hence its regional list is named List of California hurricanes. Although Arizona has not been affected by a hurricane, the state can be impacted by one, at least in theory, so its list is at List of Arizona hurricanes.

Each article that deals about an individual tropical cyclone (e.g. Hurricane Mitch) is divided the following way:

1. Lead
2. Meteorological history
3. Preparations
4. Impact
5. Aftermath/Naming/Records (see below)
6. Current storm information (for current storms)
7. See also
8. References
9. External links

Changing the structure for a particular article should only be done if there is a substantial consensus to do so.

The Impact and Aftermath sections may be combined if there is not enough information to warrant both of them to be present, or, less frequently, if one section overwhelms the other in size. In case there is not enough content to write a Preparations section, it can be replaced with a Naming section after the Impact/Aftermath section. If necessary, combine those sections into a "Impact and naming" heading.

The last three sections are in the order specified by the Guide to layout. The Guide to layout is confusing about the breadth of the "Notes" and "References" sections, so use the following interpretation as a rule of thumb: "Notes" are extraneous, in-detail explanations of points, while "References" include the output of Cite.php or a different referencing system. As a result, avoid using "Notes" sections unless absolutely necessary, and instead merge the explanation into the main prose of the article.

When mentioning specific times, it should be in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), and not any other specific time zone. As a result, specifying AM or PM is not an issue, as UTC uses the 24-hour clock. In general, it is good not to overuse exact times, as it disrupts the flow of prose.

Additionally, for recent storm seasons, use a button bar template, similar to {{2005 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}}, as the navigational footer for the page, if one exists.

The lead section, or introduction, is the primary focal point of the article. It must define what the article stands for, and do so elegantly and concisely. While the lead's format depends on the size of the article, a good rule of thumb is to summarize any noteworthy records in the first paragraph, impact statistics in the second, and the storm's or season's aftermath in the last paragraph. Even if the article is not large enough to generate three paragraphs, having the lead touch these points in this order is still a good idea.

Leads should avoid being purely statistical summaries, and instead must strive to be appealing to the general non-meteorologist reader. While not mandated by Wikipedia policy, in general, leads for articles about individual tropical cyclone should be a summary of the article, not an introduction. Additionally, they must cover material located only within the article, and that is adequately referenced to Wikipedia standards. For this reason, footnotes in the lead section are discouraged, but not prohibited.

The lead must contain an infobox; which one depends on the type of article. For individual storm articles use {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} ({{Infobox hurricane}} and {{Infobox typhoon}} also redirect to this template). The particulars of what to place in the infobox are discussed in the Infobox section below.

The infobox for tropical cyclone articles is {{Infobox tropical cyclone}}; {{Infobox hurricane}} and {{Infobox typhoon}} redirect here and can be used interchangeably. For current storms, use {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}}. For aesthetic appeal and consistency, MODIS images are preferred; if unavailable, use other free high-resolution satellite imagery for the infobox picture. Peak intensity pictures are favored over landfall pictures, which in turn are favored over other images. For older storms, use radar images, damage pictures or surface analysis maps, if available.

One of the most important things about tropical cyclone images is geographic context (for storms if they are near land). High-resolution satellite images with political borders or nearby landmasses visible are preferred over the same images without borders or landmasses visible, with the exception of "Meteorological history of..." articles. However, where possible, images without latitude-longitude grids are usually preferred. ATCF (Automated Tropical Cyclone Forecasting System) images typically do use these lines. In addition, if a satellite image used for an infobox has labels, coastlines, or other overlays, those features should be clear enough to be at least somewhat discernible in a thumbnail. Otherwise, they might be perceived as more of a nuisance to interpreting the cyclone itself.

Where possible, the picture of the storm used should be a satellite image at or near its official peak intensity as determined by their respective Regional Specialized Meteorological Center. "Near" peak intensity may be considered subjective, and discussion at talk pages should be utilized to get feedback on if one image is preferred despite being not exactly representative of a a cyclone's peak intensity. Furthermore. clarity of the storm image and its context should be prioritized over its exact time close to its peak intensity; images that show more of the storm and its surroundings are preferred over those that are more zoomed-in and consequently show less, images which are low resolution, or contain areas of no data.

The following indicates the order of precedence for these images.

1. The most iconic image of the storm. If such an image exists, it should be used as the main infobox image. Most of the time there will be no exceptions (unless a new image proposed is a significant improvement.) It should always be a high-quality, true-color, visible satellite image.
2. High-resolution true-color visible imagery. This includes but is not limited to imagery from the MODIS instruments aboard the Aqua and Terra satellites, the VIIRS or day-night sensors on Suomi NPP, NOAA-20, and NOAA-21, the AHI sensor on the Himawari satellites, and the true-color approximations of the ABI sensor on GOES-16, GOES-17, and GOES-18 (the GeoColor enhancement used by NESDIS and Colorado State University, for instance). A popular website for gaining a majority of this useful data is EOSDIS Worldview, however there are certainly exceptions. This does not include simulated true-color images created by overlaying grayscale visible data (typically referred to as Red Visible) on a colorized basemap, such as the classic Blue Marble image. See below for those.
3. Visible imagery overlaid on a true-color basemap. This includes any grayscale visible (Red Visible) image that has been superimposed on top of a Blue Marble image (which shows a blank image of the Earth without clouds) or a similar basemap. Images of this variety may also be generated by EUMETSAT, NESDIS, or similar agencies. When these are used, it should be specified these are not true color images. These images are most useful when the available image satellite times for true color images do not match close enough to the storm's estimated peak intensity (close to sunset or sunrise, most typically) if these images are even available. Grayscale visible images are usually deleted after 30 days of being captured and no longer accessible (unless the storm is particularly notable).
4. Infrared imagery overlaid on a true-color basemap, also known as nighttime images for their use when tropical cyclones peak at times when the sun is not shining on them. Overlaid visible imagery is almost always preferred over overlaid infrared imagery. Exceptions are in cases where a nighttime image is more clearly representative of the storm's character. A nighttime image is not only used for if a storm peaked at nighttime and can be a last resort if the visible images do not clearly represent the storm.
5. False-color visible imagery. This includes synthesized AVHRR data (producing the familiar blue/yellow clouds). Usually, these images do not require significant editing and are usually for storms from older time periods.
6. Grayscale visible or infrared imagery. These images can be easily improved by overlaying a Blue Marble background beneath and are not very commonly used.
7. False-color infrared imagery. This includes any infrared data that has been mapped to a color ramp.

• If no satellite imagery can be found at or near peak intensity, satellite imagery at some point of significance (such as landfall, closest approach to land) or meteorological significance (secondary peak) should be used, following the order of precedence above. Satellite imagery from other points in a storm's lifetime can be used, so long as they are still somewhat representative of the storm (for example, an image of a super typhoon as a tropical depression should probably not be used). Otherwise, either surface analyses of the system at or near peak or its impacts should be used
• If the storm had multiple similar peak intensities (or a mismatch between the peak pressure and peak winds, such as Hurricane Sandy), or the storm's peak image does not look like a good representation of the storm, then a high-quality image from any of the storm's peaks may be used (or the most iconic image, if one exists).
• If satellite imagery cannot be found, surface analyses of the system at or near peak or its impacts should be used.
• If there are no image of the storm or its impacts, its track should be used as the infobox image. This will typically be track images generated using the WPTC track generator, but may also be unofficial tracks from studies such as those associated with tropical cyclones outside official track databases.
• If there is no picture of the storm or its impacts, a relevant map of an affected area can be used as the infobox image.

The meteorological history section must be present in all articles for individual tropical cyclones; no article may be above {{Stub-Class}} without it. It should provide a concise description of each facet of a storm: from its origin as a tropical wave or extratropical low pressure area, to its peak intensity, and landfalls, if any. This section is always in chronological order. Begin this section with {{storm path}}.

One common problem is that this section tends to become excessively mired in technical jargon. This section is the most challenging, in a way, as it must be meteorologically accurate, while still accessible to an educated layman. Try explaining technical vocabulary such as "outflow" and "convection" within the text, instead of just assuming the reader knows it. Linking to terms is always good, but requiring extensive background reading to understand the passage is not ideal. If unsure whether a term is jargon or not, consult the common jargon list; synonyms and alternative wordings for many technical terms are included there.

If this section becomes too long, split it into a "Meteorological history of X" page, such as Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina and Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma.

Another common problem here is with older storms which do not have sources for the full synoptic-scale history. In such a case the {{storm path}} can be left off; just do the best you can for the rest of the summary. Remember, there's nothing wrong with saying that information is not known! 1780 Great Hurricane is probably a good example of this case.

This section is essential for landfalling storms, and if possible, should be sub-divided by area. If a storm makes an impact on two separate regions or administrative divisions, list the regions chronologically.

In this section, it is important to include information such as previously-issued tropical cyclone watches and warnings, evacuation orders, shutdowns of major corporations or government entities, and similar.

The impact should provide an overview for all land areas affected by storms that affected land. For storms that caused minimal impact to land, or caused indirect impact, the section should be as comprehensive as possible. Possible examples of impact for non-landfalling storms include beach erosion, lifeguard rescues, or increased winds from a high pressure system. For storms that caused moderate to heavy impact largely to one area (examples: Hurricane Fabian or Hurricane Ioke), the info should go into more depth than what would be considered an overview.

For storms with minor to moderate impact to more than one area, the section should provide a comprehensive overview for each area impacted. If there is enough info, the section should be divided into sub-sections for each major area. The impact should include a section for meteorological statistics, meaning wind maxima, rainfall totals, surge values, wave heights, beach erosion, tornadoes, and/or river crests. The next paragraph should have general statistics interspersed with important specific details; similar topics (such as impact on housing, or environmental impact) should be kept together. Statistics that are important to include in each section include people affected by power outages, injuries, population affected, major roadways closed, flooding details, and houses damaged/destroyed, while vital statistics are damage totals and death totals.

For storms with major impact in more than one area, one or more sub-articles might be warranted, such as Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans or Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina. The articles should either divide information by sub-regions or by topic. In all cases, the sub-articles should be linked to the main article following the guidelines set by summary style.

Ideally a damage image should be included in the section, though if it not possible an image from the Tropical cyclone rainfall page should be used. If neither are available, another satellite image can be used. For longer articles, more than one image might be warranted, to avoid having large tracts of un-illustrated prose.

The following sections are optional, depending on the characteristics of the storm. In most instances, some or all of the following sections can be merged together, and in some cases, potentially could be merged with the impact section.

For most storms, the damage is not great enough for there to be a significant aftermath of the storm. In instances where there is some aftermath, but not a significant amount, than it would suffice for that info to be interspersed with alike info in the Impact section. For example, if there is reported aftermath in one of the earlier areas, than the aftermath could go there, and not at the end of the impact section.

For the more impacting storms, including most landfalling hurricanes, there should be a separate aftermath section. Topics to discuss include emergency declarations, aid for the affected people, info on evacuees returned home, when/how impacted houses/buildings are rebuilt, and overall information on how the cyclone's impact was undone. For storms that had a long lasting impact, be sure to mention its long range affects.

For most storms, a separate naming section is not necessary. Information on retirement generally goes in the Aftermath section. It is optional to list previous usages of the name in the section/paragraph. Naming records are appropriate here.

If a tropical cyclone broke a record, it is appropriate to mention the previous record in the same section. It is not acceptable to solely rely on HURDAT, IBTRACs or other such TC Databases for these records.

For most cases, a separate section for records is unnecessary. In most cases, this information can be safely placed in the Aftermath section, or woven into the Meteorological history section.

The first section after the prose of the article is the see also section. The first item must be {{Portal|Tropical cyclones}}, which is a link to the tropical cyclone portal. For a storm article, after that, the article should list a few relevant links. Generally, the link should not be to List of tropical cyclones, List of Atlantic hurricanes, or List of Pacific hurricanes, as that was the previous standard. Instead, the link should go somewhere relevant. Retired storms and Category 5 storms should have List of retired Atlantic hurricane names and List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, respectively. If the storm caused impact in an area that has a List of XXX hurricanes article, such a link would be useful. Otherwise, a link to Climate of XX or Geography of XX would suffice. For the lesser impacting storms, a new proposal was accepted to link to the dab page.

For season articles, there are two prevalent formats: the "old" format (generally used in seasons before the year 2000) (e.g. 1933 Atlantic hurricane season), and the "new" format (e.g. 2007 Atlantic hurricane season). Both treatments have essentially identical structures, with the exception of the Storms section. Most modern season articles start with the old format, and are later converted to the new format to shrink the article's size. However, when a conversion is done, the old content in the Storms section should be moved to a "List of storms" article, such as List of storms in the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season.

Thus, season articles should be organized in the following way:

1. Season summary, as part of the Lede
2. Seasonal forecasts
3. Storms
4. Impact
5. Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE)
6. Records and statistics
7. Storm names
8. Season effects
9. See also
10. References
11. External links

These guidelines work well for 900+ articles; however, there are a few exceptions (such as 2005 Atlantic hurricane season) to this rule, depending on the size and impact of the storm or season. Changing the structure for a particular article should only be done if there is a substantial consensus to do so.

The last three sections are in the order specified by the Guide to layout. The Guide to layout is confusing about the breadth of the "Notes" and "References" sections, so use the following interpretation as a rule of thumb: "Notes" are extraneous, in-detail explanations of points, while "References" include the output of Cite.php or a different referencing system. As a result, avoid using "Notes" sections unless absolutely necessary, and instead merge the explanation into the main prose of the article.

The same principles as for storm articles apply to season articles. The lede should be a summary of the tropical cyclone season, and not just an introduction, and should be sufficiently independent to stand by itself.

For season articles, use {{Infobox tropical cyclone season}}. The particulars of what to place in the infobox are discussed in the Infobox section below.

This section documents preseason and midseason forecasts by reputable publications, if available. The preseason and midseason forecasts should be presented both in prose and table format, and the table should point out how many 35-knot, 64-knot, and 100-knot storms (e.g. tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes in the Atlantic basin) the forecasting agency is expecting. Additionally, the levels of actual activity should be noted once the season is over (or an "As of {{date}}" notation added to the actual activity levels).

Typically, this section has a brief one-paragraph introduction, where the definitions of an average, above-average and below-average season are presented. In some cases, the definition for a hyperactive season is presented here, if necessary. The section then has two sub-sections: A #Pre-season forecasts section, and a #Mid-season outlooks section. Each one should be a couple of paragraphs of prose or so, and their content varies greatly dpeending on the season.

An example table and section introduction is included below.

As discussed previously, there are two different approaches to this section.

Note: Both formats have their supporters, so establishing a consensus for a switch is generally ideal. A conversion between formats should not be taken during the season; instead, a consensus for a format change should be obtained during the post-season, as that makes writing a List of storms article simple.

The way most current season articles are initially constructed is by adding a storm's section when the storm forms, and expanding it as the storm develops, until an individual storm article becomes necessary. In general, each storm section is given with a level-3 heading (e.g. ===Hurricane Alex===, followed by a {{main}} link to the storm's article (if any), and either {{Infobox tropical cyclone small}} or {{Infobox tropical cyclone current}}. The latter infobox can be directly copied from a storm article if the |stormarticle= parameter of the infobox is filled.

A few paragraphs are written about the storm. This prose should summarize the storm irrespective of the existence of a storm article, so it is essentially identical in purpose to a storm article's lede. However, since this section is not in the same page as the main detail in the storm article, all information in these sections must be cited with full inline citations.

Example

Hurricane Alex (2010), with references removed

“

Main article: Hurricane Alex (2010) Category 2 hurricane (SSHWS)   Duration June 25 – July 2 Peak intensity 110 mph (175 km/h) (1-min); 946 mbar (hPa) On June 12, a tropical wave emerged off Western Africa, and eventually traveled along the Intertropical Convergence Zone. It was first noted by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) on June 20, while it was crossing the Windward Islands. The next day, it organized itself, and the NHC assessed a 50% chance of development into a tropical depression within next two days. It became less organized the next day; however, conditions were still favorable for development. On June 24, it began to reestablish south of Jamaica, although it was poorly organized. Later that day, shower activity increased, and pressures began to fall. Hurricane Hunters flew inside it the next day and found a well defined circulation, and based on that data, the NHC began issuing advisories on Tropical Depression One, the first tropical depression of the season. Early on June 26, the NHC upgraded the depression to a tropical storm and named it Alex. Alex moved west and strengthened before making landfall in Belize with 65 mph (105 km/h) winds on June 26. On June 27, Alex emerged into the Bay of Campeche and began to strengthen again. On June 29, after continuous drops in pressure, the Hurricane Hunters found that Alex had strong enough winds to be upgraded to hurricane status. Accordingly, late that night, Alex was upgraded to a Category 1 hurricane. This made the storm the first hurricane of the season, and the first June hurricane in the Atlantic since 1995's Hurricane Allison. Continuing to strengthen, Alex later went on to make landfall at peak intensity as a strong Category 2 hurricane in Soto la Marina with an unusually low barometric pressure reading of 946 millibars (27.96 inHg), typical of a Category 3 or 4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale.

”

Most season articles are built in the old style, and then they are optionally converted to the new style, with a List of storms article receiving the content in the season's old Storms section.

The newer approach is only prose-based; no paragraph demarcation between storms is needed, and no templates are used. This approach gives the editors of the article maximum flexibility for drafting content.

Due to the free-form nature of these sections, only limited guidance can be given on how to write one. That said, storms sections of this nature tend to only discuss impacts of a storm in a broad manner, and make extensive use of storm articles for summary style exposition. The section is split chronologically in months, with the limits for each subsection determined by the season's activity. Some examples of this approach are 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and 2007 Atlantic hurricane season.

Within the season articles, systems are listed in chronological order by the date of the system was first noted as a tropical/subtropical disturbance/low/depression, with ties broken by the time they formed and/or storm number (ie XXE, XXF or XXL). We do not list them in alphabetical order by when they were named, as in most basins, the names roll from year to year with no regard to alphabetical order. It would also ignore what the warning centres do and end up in Original Research. Within the Southern Hemisphere, we include Tropical Disturbances and Tropical Lows, when they are numbered by the relevant agency, however, articles for significant tropical disturbances and depressions maybe better suited as a part of a broader article on floods.

This section describes the combined impact of all tropical cyclones in the basin that season in prose. Avoid a proseline laundry list of damage stats and statistics, and emphasize storms that were particularly destructive or deadly. The same considerations as for individual storm articles apply here.

Prior to October 2012, season articles had a level 2 section dedicated to tabulating the accumulated cyclone energy of the storms in a season, with the boilerplate text and table shown below. The listed values were independently calculated (typically a subpage of the article's talkpage, e.g. Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season/ACE calcs). Following lengthy discussion that spanned several months that culminated in a request for comment, the project decided to remove the section from the standard season article format for the following reasons:

• Having an entire section dedicated to a calculation gave undue weight to that calculation, especially compared to more relevant material such as the storms themselves.
• RSMCs rarely listed ACE on a storm-by-storm basis (calculating values was potentially original research).
• Reliable sources calculating ACE used differing methodologies and criteria for calculations, making such values unverifiable.

Rather than dedicating an entire section, discussion of accumulated cyclone energy should be noted in prose in the season's Season summary section. The following example boilerplate provides the necessary detail:

The deprecated style guideline for this section is found below.

All of the below is based on style guidelines per WP:MOS.
Note: The names and titles used as examples in this guide are fictional and do not represent real articles or reports unless otherwise stated

• For news and journal articles, the title of the article is written in lower case. Naturally, proper nouns, as well as names of places, people, etc., retain their capitalization. Example: Not More Than 500,000 Left Homeless in Brenden Moses County by Hurricane Julian, but More than 500,000 left homeless in Brenden Moses County by Hurricane Julian.
• For reports, books, press releases, and conferences, the title of the text should be fully capitalized. Example: Not Rainfall report on Hurricane Julian and its tropical remnants in Brenden Moses County, but Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian and its Tropical Remnants in Brenden Moses County.
• For regular websites, the reference title assumes the capitalization format of the original website title. However, full-caps words or titles still need to be rewritten in lower case.
• All titles should have proper punctuation per the WP:MOS (e.g. straight  '  rather than curly  ’  apostrophes or quotation marks, spaced en dashes instead of misused spaced hyphens, unspaced colons, semicolons, etc.), even when the source titles may not be stylized as such. Example: Not Brenden Moses County on alert : JULIAN plays wait-and-see - Forecasters warn of storm’s “undivinable” nature, but Brenden Moses County on alert: Julian plays wait-and-see – Forecasters warn of storm's "undivinable" nature.

• The publication date of a source is listed in the |date= field. While this can normally be found at the top of the source, it is sometimes hidden in a more obscure location (e.g. the bottom of the page, the page history, or the url of the page). For web sources that are frequently updated, use the most recent revision date. If the source is undated, this needs to be indicated by adding "n.d.", as such: |date=n.d.
• For online sources on web pages that may be suspect to domain changes, the retrieval date (the date upon which the source was found and last accessed) is listed in the |accessdate= field. This is always the case for online newspapers or web sites, though retrieval dates should be considered for online reports as well. For books and journals, even when electronic (such as Google Books), a retrieval date is unnecessary.

• In the |author= field, only list the name(s) of the person or people that wrote the piece (i.e. the "First" and "Last" fields are applicable). Anything else does not belong in the author field: never a (government) institution, department, or organization, nor their sub-branches—these belong in the publisher.
• Agencies and government institutions tend to have multiple sub-departments or branches. For example, the "Weather Prediction Center (WPC)" is one of nine service centers under the umbrella of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), a part of the National Weather Service (NWS), which in turn is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. government.

• Although these all fall under the |publisher= field, it is rather cumbersome and impractical to include every single parent department (NCEP, NWS, NOAA) in |publisher= for a report or document published by the WPC. Therefore, simply listing the lowest branch as the publisher suffices (so Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). Weather Prediction Center. rather than Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). Weather Prediction Center; National Centers for Environmental Prediction, NOAA. or something).
• Above all: DO NOT compartmentalize these branches and spread them across the fields. These are the |publisher= of reports, not the |author= or |work=. Example: NOT Hink, Andrew; Weather Prediction Center (2015). Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian. National Centers for Environmental Prediction (Report). College Park, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), but simply Hink, Andrew (2015). Rainfall Report on Hurricane Julian (Report). College Park, MD: Weather Prediction Center.)

• The |work= field is often redundant here, unless the referenced report/document is part of a project, database, or contained in a separate website. In this case the project/database/website name may be listed as work, though this is often optional.

• A recent example can be found here [1]. This is an undated rainfall report for Hurricane Earl (2010) from Météo-France published on their site, so an appropriate formatting would be {{cite report|url=http://pluiesextremes.meteo.fr/antilles/2010-Earl.html|title=Earl 2010: Ouragan|publisher=Météo France|date=n.d.|accessdate=September 13, 2015}}. However, note the "Pluies Extrêmes Aux Antilles" ("Extreme Rainfall in the Antilles") at the top of the webpage and within the url; this suggests this is a separate web archive/database for extreme rainfall events in the Antilles, documented by Meteo France as an extension of their website (meteo.fr). In this case, the |work= parameter may serve disclose this additional information.

• In the |newspaper= field (or the more obsolete |work= field), list the name of the newspaper. Online newspapers are sometimes hard to distinguish from web or radio sites; looking for an "About us" section on the site or searching the newspaper name on Wikipedia may help in this case.
• The |publisher= parameter is used for sources from broadcasters (i.e. BBC), news channels (i.e. CNN, Fox News), radio channels (CBS Radio), etc. For newspapers, listing the publisher is unnecessary and redundant.
• One of the most frequent errors in newspaper citation formatting is misusing the |author= field for the news agency (i.e. AFP, AP, Reuters, etc.). There is a special |agency= field to list these agencies. Again, only names of individuals should be included in the |author= field.

Works ought to be cited based on their format—not what media they were produced in. A book can be published online. A sequence of data can be a book. How do we work out what type of citation to use (and by extension which citation template)?

• Is the work an extended single document, or comprised of identical chapters, and published? It is likely to be a book.
• Is the work a small unit written by one author, in a work edited by someone else? It is likely to be a chapter.
• Is the work a small unit written by one author, in a work that is serially published or has an ISSN? It is likely to be an article.
• Does the work have a unique volume title (e.g., "Volume 4: Hurricanes of the Antarctic")? Then that is likely to be the volume title, and the book title is likely to be the other portion: "Hurricanes of the World. Volume 4: Hurricanes of the Antarctic", where |title=Hurricanes of the World, |volume=Hurricanes of the Antarctic
• Was the work "unpublished", issued in a declarative manner by an official body? That's a report!
• Is the work a whole single unit, but part of a larger publishing series of works of an identical type, with a name for the higher order grouping? Then it is in a series and the series name is added to the |series= field (i.e the NHC's Digital Storm Wallet Archive)
• Only when you've exhausted those possibilities, is something a website (citeweb). Websites aren't serially published, but they aren't declarative and official, but they aren't an extended single document. Particularly when you find a document deep inside a /whole/bunch/of/html/directories/on/a/meteorological/site, it is very likely that the document is part of some other publication, so get out your web browser's location bar, and start removing directories, or click on "Up one level" or "Parent Document" etc... Websites are really institutional "about this organisation", personal, blogs, or the like, and citeweb is meant for them.
• Important: When we evaluate a work, we evaluate what kind of format the document is, not where it is hosted, or how it is available. If a source is formatted in a print or PDF document with a certain publisher, but hosted by another, unrelated web source, try finding a version by the original source (searching the title in Google). This saves a lot of formatting work. If the work cannot be found elsewhere, the hosting site needs to be mentioned in the citation as well (i.e. adding "as archived by" or "as hosted by" behind the original publisher in the |publisher= field).