User talk:Hurricanehink/Archive 4

Re: Arlene

Thanks for that, of the non-articled storms it was Arlene which was going to have the impact section being worthwhile. It probably is B-class now with those additions (Doesn't mean I go over it though, all the storms are going to get some treatment on the non-impact info). That research you did is the best justification yet for the all-storms approach, having an article with "unknown" damages encourages research; I mean the info you found is hardly new and despite the Arlene section in the season looking poor, noone could be bothered.--Nilfanion 10:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not totally sure about the NY figures, it looks like much of the rain was from something else and Arlene's remnants contributed to it, as this (Google cached) article suggests. Is this a repeat of Stan's deaths confusion on a smaller scale? the link you found certainly mentions heavy rain from Arlene. Certainly if Arlene did drop 6 inches in places, those were already waterlogged from the previous rainstorms, so how much damage can be attributed to the remnants?--Nilfanion 10:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing the damage total to say $11.8 million (including non-tropical rains) and explaining in the NY impact that the remnant was a part of a larger system? Thats the approach which Stan uses, with that Arlene is B-class. What the Irene GA nomination tells me is with the content they have the fishspinners can be GAs, but they need a thorough copyedit first; so hold them at B-class. I want to get all 27 2005 storm articles to B-class or higher; once thats done, I will go and work somewhere else. Btw, for someone whose policy is to "avoid 2005" you have 4 sections here on specific storms and more on generalities, (its good to see the Hispanic storms getting work though), Lol....--Nilfanion 12:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the phrasing to take the non-tropical stuff into account and upped it to a B. I found a pic of flooding from Arlene here, but I don't know how to get it out of the PDF, nor am I sure about it being under permissible copyright (I think it might be PD as a product of FL state govt but not sure there). I'm getting there on 2005AHS..--Nilfanion 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover storms

Would a tropical cyclone that passed from the central Pacific into the western count for the western Pacific's number of total storms? Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Beta

No. It says that government will help with 30 million lempiras only. Later in the text are mentioned again the 30 million but it says that the government, with 30 lempiras, the emergency could be done. That could means it could be more or it could be less. The only important figures of damage are the damnificated people in that country. Listed by departments:

- Gracias a Dios: 8,882 - Colón: 400 - Atlántida: 222

And thats all the information I can give about the news article juan andrés 23:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Hurricane report. And also, you don't have to find info in Spanish, it must be info in English too. I'm going to try to find info to. juan andrés 23:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see... juan andrés 23:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hudah

Okay, so now I finally have some time on my hands. Apparently Karen has some other editors now, and it should sustain itself for some time. I'm going to try Hudah again sometime in the next few days. Omni ND 18:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Cyclone Article Creation Alert Cancelled

This cancels Ref. A. I currently am starting another project on tropical cyclones; go to my Article Laboratory in my subpages section to see a page under construction. I will put in a request for Hudah in a few minutes. The chance of the Cyclone Hudah article being created in the next 24 hours is downgraded to poor.Omni ND 18:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Very quick question

My calculator gives around 7500 million dollars (I think this is more correct) juan andrés 00:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Atlantic hurricane season

Talking about Pauline, can someone make anything to make the 1997 Atlantic hurricane season article FA. I've been asking this for to months and a half, and I've not got reponse. juan andrés 00:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISASTER HAS STRUCK!!!!

My God! Is it true??? GIBBS has no archives other than 2006!! WHAT HAPPENED!!?? This is terrible! every picture from 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01, 02, 03, 04, and 05 GONE!! AAHHHH!! --has a heart attack and dies a horrible miserable slow and painful death-- — →Cyclone1→ 21:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I KNOW!!! This sucks! Majorly!!!!! It'll come back right? It has to!! *rocks back and forth in denial* →Cyclone1→ 23:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atleast somebody shares in my extreme current anger! Somebody deserves to be slapped upside the head with somethin heavy, whoevers behind this madness!!! →Cyclone1→ 23:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Thinkin, H. →Cyclone1→ 01:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, everything's still there. Example: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/rsad/gibbs/1992/1992.html . Replace the "1992" with any other year and it'll work. -- RattleMan 05:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rattleman told me, too, Hink. What a relief. What i wonder about is why they unlinked from that page. hmm... →Cyclone1→ 05:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gahh! O well. Ja e-mail 'em, yet? →Cyclone1→ 15:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanx. →Cyclone1→ 18:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YAY! Everythings back. →Cyclone1→ 21:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone MALA was a super cyclone

Cyclone Mala was not a very severe cyclone. Actually some typo was made but I personally know it was a super cyclone because some websities had information saying MALA was actually a minimal super cyclone in the north Indian hurricane scale. Please do not revert my edits about Super cyclonic storm MALA that is true. User:mr.parks 19:41, 7 May 2006 (PTC)

Okay, first of what I have to say is that when I was writing down all of my information inside the Cyclone Mala article about MALA being a super cyclone, you anyhow reverted my edits even though it was true. Second of all, I want to know what kinds of information did I delete because all I ever did was type down that MALA was just a Super Cyclonic Storm MALA, never about deleting any information. Third of all, if I write down my information, someone keeps on reverting my information I put down. Fourth of all, I never vandalized that article. User:mr.parks 16:46, 8 May 2006 (PTC)

I never ignored what you said and yet I never remebered on what I deleted information on what you said. If you strongly believe that I am still being wrong, then I want to you to give me an explanation why everything is becoming so difficult. But I never vandalized that article or even tried to take out information when I try to explain that MALA was a super cyclone. User:mr.parks 18:02, 8 May 2006 (PTC)

So do you think I am messing up or vandalizing things? Because I seriously am getting frustrated, not on you, but on the matter which is coming on. But to tell you, I saw a website saying something about MALA being a super cyclone though it may be unoficial. If you strongly believe I am wrong, notify me and I'll figure out what to do. User:mr.parks 20:44, 8 May 2006 (PTC)

Re:Typhoon of 1944

Thanks for catching my mistake! It was in the NOAA Photo library. It says that it was captured "by a Navy ship's radar". Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think it's public domain, feel free to nominate it for deletion. I won't mind. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

You may want to put the <small> tags inside the wikilink brackets, because otherwise, the signature dies... Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 22:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Yes, the images would fall under our Fair use guideline, as they're not under the public domain. Make sure to tag them with the {{Non-free fair use in}} tag, as well as {{Unimage}}. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 00:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded it to commons. As it is fair use, it can only be uploaded to the local Image: namespace, so you have to reupload it through Special:Upload here. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 01:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be uploaded locally now, and a commmons admin will delete it soon. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 01:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the link to the Odette article in the page. The only thing you need to do is to write {{fair use in|article}} and that will make the template work. Also, to check if the images are fair use or not, you just need to look at the bottom of the Wikipedia:Fair use page and if it matches, claim fair use, if no free alternative is available. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 01:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article boilerplate

I'm not completely sure we need it, but not completely sure it would hurt either. I don't see anything particularily objectionable to that, but you may want a bit more of input in the project's talk page. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 17:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCCOTF

How come no ones been checking the TCCOTF? I've posted some things-but no response. No one besides me has edited since may 2. Just trying to make sure it was still active. Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LNBS Reformatted

You should see the work that i did.HurricaneCraze32 22:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Do you like the other choices i made + Bonnie ('86)'s article?HurricaneCraze32 18:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping Marco for the moment.Jerry,Clara & Floyd i moved.Gabrielle never madelandfall but caused enough.Bonnie's i had my teacher copy/edit today actually.I'll move Danny in a minute. Frances i'll keep for now also.HurricaneCraze32 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else i can change-That doesnt mean moving.15 is enough.

Matthew,Kyle,Michael,Jose,Tanya,Marco,Gabrielle,14,Bonnie,Bob,Ella,Emmy,Frances, Caroline & Cleo.HurricaneCraze32 19:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna help me at least? Starting with Matthew.Only asking cause i'm not perfect.HurricaneCraze32 19:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look ready for Matthew?HurricaneCraze32 20:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.Other than Jose & Kyle, did any other storms have articles?HurricaneCraze32 21:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like my Matthew (i cant find damage), Kyle and Tanya ones?HurricaneCraze32 17:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Mother

You've done *a lot* of work on hurricane-related articles.. I am *very*, *very* impressed with it. Man. Everyone at work with the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject has done an outstanding job with an unbelievably comprehensive listing with maps and wow just everything. Just saying thanks for all your tireless work..! drumguy8800 - speak 03:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Another quick question

Here, "Total de recursos" means "Total damages". And no problem, you never bother asking me. And yes, I have to admit it, I reply late because I'm very busy with school. juan andrés 03:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm an user on wiki (user:Yug), and I some time do other edits under IP. If they are good please don't revert it after 1 min... That's a little too fast I think. Yug 17:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast

I just removed it! Do you have my userpage watched or something? I removed it because it was getting old, and it seems like everyone has one now. Maybe if I get more indignant responses I'll put it back. —Cuiviénen^T|C, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 22:19 UTC

RfA

Hello! I have decided that you deserve to be an admin and have nominated you. The link is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hurricanehink. Good luck! Icelandic Hurricane #12 14:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear about your RFA situation. I hope to see you back on WP:RFA in 3 months or so. DGX 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. Just to let you know, your an admin to me anyway. Icelandic Hurricane #12 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome very much. Icelandic Hurricane #12 19:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Huricanehink, I'm sorry you've decided to withdraw your candidacy. As Srikeit has said, this is not about your worth as a Wikipedian; please don't take it personally. You're a good editor and valuable asset to Wikipedia (perhaps one of the most valuable, with so many article improvements); it's just that adminship may not have been the right thing at this time. If you get some of the more admin-related tasks under your belt, I'd be happy to nominate you myself in a few months' time. Good luck, Tangotango 16:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a way I'm glad that you have withdrawn your RFA. An RFA sometimes feels like an inquisition where you feel everyone's against you. This causes many useful contributors to leave Wikipedia. As I stated in my vote, your contributions to hurricane & tropical storms related article is nothing short of exceptional. Just a bit more experience in the other areas of Wikipedia & you'll have my complete support next time.

Cheers & keep up the good work

Srikeit^(talk ¦ ✉) 16:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok

I just wanted to notice you that I was an IP but that's was a good will, and not a vandalism. From that I learned on Wikipedia, we only know 2 "super typhoon" : Tip, and the currently one in China sea. I think that can be good to notice the fact they are only 2, and that's is maybe linked to the climatic growing temperatures Yug (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC) <bad english, but improving english :] >[reply]

Help

Hello, do you remember when recently, you and I Mr.Parks had a discussion about Cyclone MALA? Well, I came to ask you that on my user page, Alastor Moody, has some trouble. I was only wondering if you can help me because, do you know in your own user page that you have a user infobox? Well I have one to, but mine doesn't seem to be right. Just for now, I ask you if you can help, but if you reply to me on my user talk page and state weither you are going to help or not, I'll be glad to get your reply. I will also explain more about it later. Thank you. Alastor Moody 20:03, 18 May 2006 (PTC)

Well, I'm saying that my userbox is having some trouble. My userbox acts very strange when I try to type something or start a new section in my user page below the userboxes. Well, I know you also have one but yours doesn't seem to affect anything. I grant you permission if you can help me by editing my page. But if you cannot help me, its okay. Alastor Moody 19:50, 19 May 2006 (PTC)

Thank you very much as for what you did on helping my userboxes. I also really appreciate for your help on what you were able do to. I can see you are a talented Wikipedian user. Anyhow I am grateful about it. Well, see you later. Alastor Moody 20:13, 19 May 2006 (PTC)

Where in the world is User:E.Brown?

What happened to User:E. Brown ?, because had made no edits since April 2006 nor responded to our recent article creations. And theres nothing on his user page of the reasoning of absence (wikibreak, blocked, banned, quit?). Storm05 17:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Images

Grr, my schoolworks picked up at the moment so don't really have time to do major editing currently. Still I've got through 13 of the storms and just 33% of 2005's storms are starts currently - fair achievement I think (nevermind Irene an FA). Anyway, real reason for this message, the discovery of another useful source: Here's a link MODIS raw images. The L1B granule images are the ones which the NASA Earth Observatory polishes up; and those are our first choice for storm pics. It's quite time consuming to wade through all the images to find any good ones, and annoying when the storm is only half visible, like this one of 2004's Bonnie but patience does pay off - here's the unnamed 2005 subtropical storm. What do you think?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the summer break was as long on my side of the pond. Thanks for that comment and I certainly want to contribute on more important storms now. That image database does have a lot of stuff - more tedium to wade through, yay! (I certainly have the mindset for that after trying to make Lee sound interesting.) Also, I'd like to thank you for the support you've given me, its certainly helped a lot. If there was a Tropical Cyclone WikiProject award I'd give it to you now; perhaps it should be created?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to say Europe doesn't suffer from tropical storms Hink, but I know what you mean (I'm a Brit if you want to be fussy).... The MODIS images are certainly better looking but they aren't exceptional; if there's a decent preexisting image like Allison's, it becomes more a matter of taste than being clearly better. I suspect that that database will be more useful in the non-Atlantic basins, there the images are either absent or much lower quality on the whole.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded MODIS images of TS Gert and TD 10 (check the list page); I'm not sure I got the images quite right, but they are ok. MODIS imagery certainly has its problems, for example the image of Hurricane Katrina is a little off center because the original MODIS frame wasn't quite in the right place. Oh and on an aside on Camille's talk page I agree with what you are saying, there was recon data to support the 901 but the NHC discounted it for whatever reason - and they discounted it in best track (meaning it is unofficial). It will be borne in mind when the hurdat people reanalyse it, but I don't know how they would interpret it (If Camille was downgraded to Cat 4 I would not be shocked).--17:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Just To Let You Know

UGH.Now i have to dump all my work!!!!!!!!!Can you check Kyle and Tanya ones?HurricaneCraze32 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man-he has every bit of info except the trivia section which i put in his.There goes any bit of work...I cannot get luck....i guess all i am good at is making button bars...just check Tanya and Kyle..HurricaneCraze32 21:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina

Time to start work on the big one I think. I copied the Florida section from the Hurricane Katrina effects by region article into Katrina and left section headings for the other important areas. I think we don't need to trawl through the sources, just through the other articles in Wikipedia's Katrina series - once thats done we will be close. The only thing lacking really in Wikipedia (if not Hurricane Katrina itself) is the effects on Cuba; admittedly minor but there were some.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, excuses excuses. In any case Katrina is well and truly within my remit as a 2005 storm (its my job dammit). If the Effects subarticles were any good this would be easy; but they are much poorer. Katrina is going to have proportionally a shorter impact than most other storms, but thats because there are so many subarticles - summary style means a relatively short section in the main article. Still I've started (Mississippi is underway). I think it isn't going to be as bad as we feared, once we have the effects article summarized, the content is there its just copyediting, LOTS of copyediting...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree the subarticles are the responsibility of the Katrina people really (I'm not going to touch them), but Katrina's article itself is within ours - it will be the tropical cyclones wikiproject that submits it to FAC won't it? Looking at the state Katrina was in, I was tempted to work it up as a user page; but putting in section headings and expansion requests means more people will help I think. By the end of the month I hope to get it to FA standards (I'm not going to shy away from it, I know its within my personal remit...)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that so far there has been no reaction to the changes I did on Katrina so far... I'm trying to think what impact subsections would make sense, would this work:

• S Florida
• Cuba
• Louisiana (splitting into New Orleans and elsewhere in the state)
• Mississippi
• Alabama, the Florida Panhandle and Georgia
• Other US states
• Canada

Do you think that seperation works? If so what is an appropriate name for the Alabama/Florida Panhandle/Georgia section? I think Bahamas info could be added to Cuba as "Caribbean" as well...--Nilfanion (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that; with the subpages I should be able to get the major work done fairly quickly. You are right, no one cares - I'll add the impact content and then bring it up on the assessments page for fine-tuning in a week or so I guess. Am I the only editor who is actually seriously working on any of the 2005 articles?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The effects article is my major source currently (or to its sources if you want to be exact), I'm just adding in details from it - that gives the framework which Katrina needs. Thanks for that info, I can work it in later , do you think the S Fl/Cuba and Other sections are adequate in terms of content? The only problem with going from fishspinners to Katrina, I don't know how long impact should be...--Nilfanion (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought as much just wanted to double check. I'll try not to bother you on specifics like this anymore Hink, when I finish with my work, I'll raise the issue on the projects assessment page when it is appropriate (I found yet more sources (thousands of pics urrgh) - you know what I'm like for that...). On other things, I see Hurricanecraze32 and Icelandic Hurricane are getting into a little fight; hope you can get them to calm down (WP:OWN is the relevant policy). If you can settle them down without needing admins, it would certainly be good for an RFA in the future :)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caught!

[with hands up] You caught me! I make one little tweak when passing by and...wow! I guess I don't have the right to remain silent. I took a bit of a break. I was getting a little bored. There wasn't that much to do except chew over promising articles. Unfortunatly, you guys are probably not going to see as much of me over the next few months. I have exams coming up and a busy summer ahead of me. I'll be at the beach all June and my condo down there doesn't have internet. I'm not as much the enthusiastic pioneer as I once was. I've done my pioneering and it now seems time for me to pass the torch to the new hurricane junkies and hope they have the same passion for the subject that I do. I remain a guardian of the the hurricane archives, 2004 and back; the work I created and amplified, but I've tired of the war on the future seasons. My work will now be almost entirely on the articles that exist right now (excluding the '05 chaos). Otherwise I'm still the staunch tradionalist you're used to. I feel almost old (17 in 3 weeks). You could call almost call us old timers, since we've been here since I took the project under my wing. Remember Cyrius, Golbez, you, me, Bob Rulz, Rattleman, Tomf688, and later Jdorje? Good times, good times. What have I missed? -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 02:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My tradtionialism will still be there, I'll just be spending most of my energy trying to ensure that what happened to '05 AHS doesn't happen to the prior seasons. You might want to read my post on the Tropical Storm Jerry talk page. We need a Notability Summit. This stuff has gotten out of hand. We need to draw the line and we need to draw it now. When that is done, I can relax and hopefully only have to keep a casual watch over the pages. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 03:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The seasonal articles should have most, if not all of the information. Having all these induvidual articles negates the purpose of the seasonal article. I thought you and I agreed on that front. You're beginning to scare me here. If they want to copy and paste every single NHC report on every single storm into induvidual articles, let the idiots knock themselves out. It's cheap, fake and worthy of no commondation, but they can do it. Nobody will read it, but they can do it. Slowly but surely, all the good things about this project when it was started are being exterminated. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That true. Not to split hairs, but I didn't disagree with the idea of storm pics but I originally thought they were overused. I've come around now. And with the New Jersey hurricanes thing, that's not really something to get in a twist over. I just didn't think it was nessesary, that's all. You disagreed and that's fine. I still think that we need a summit on the notability issue. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 03:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More fair use

Sorry for taking a while to reply (I've been away for the weekend), but the images don't have a clear copyright statement, so they would need to be fair use. While they are in a Federal govt. site, they are not taken by an employee of the Federal government while fulfilling his duties, so they do not fall automatically under the public domain. The most we can claim is fair use (and we may have a very strong rationale), or try to contact the photographers (which is not easy, as he site does not identify which pictures are whose). WP:FU is the way to go here. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: That's just mean

I know that Most of it sounds like his article, but I began to change it around a bit. I still haven't quite finished doing that though, and you just happened to check at the right time to see it in the middle. It should sound a lot different by tommorow afternoon. Ok, are we clear? Good. Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 00:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hink,i told him to delete the article-or i would report him.Please can you get rid of that?HurricaneCraze32 20:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is the 2nd article he's taken my work from.HurricaneCraze32 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna have to finish Emmy/Frances duo....HurricaneCraze32 21:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What's going on in here? Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have Titoxd's page watched. I did stumble onto this mess near the start but didn't look further into it. It seems to have gotten slightly out-of-hand. However, the moment Hurricanecraze posted the stuff onto his userspace (AKA, Wikipedia), he effectively gave up his rights to them, as far as I am aware. I do not see any problem. Just get HurricaneCraze to improve on the article while in mainspace. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:52 UTC (2006-05-24)

• I'm not sure it is a huge deal. If they both agree, I can do informal mediation to try to resolve the issue, as it is something really minor and they are both good contributors. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 03:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a med storm

ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/isccp/b1/.D2790P/images/1984/366/Img-1984-12-31-21-MET-2-IR.jpg Here it is. Its near the north side of Africa. Tiny, orbular, but spinning kinda. Not very impressive but i found it when i was looking for south atlantic storms for my new subpage. (coincidentally enough, that big blob of convection to near S. America becomes a storm on my page). Just thought I'd let you know. →Cyclone1→ 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I kinda figured you were tired of it. I was just bingin in up. Any way I only have three storms on that page. Finding Meditteranean storms is much more pleasant...err pleaent...or however you spell it. →Cyclone1→ 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, In my mind all storms are kool. →Cyclone1→ 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links are down

The links to 1986 Atlantic hurricane season, Tropical Storm Bret (1993) and Talk:Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones are down. How long it would be untill someone fixes the links to those articles? Storm05 15:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad you said this. I thought something was wrong with my computer. I tried responding on your talk page, but apparently, a lot of links are down. I have no idea how long it will be, but I hope it's fixed soon. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Fifi Picture

Has there been any sign that the site (AMS) has public domain pictures? Jake52 My talk

Excuse me? Fifi pic? Is it possible you left a message on the wrong talk page? →Cyclone1→ 03:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, It's fine. Your human. I'll just delete it. →Cyclone1→ 12:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Aletta

Tropical Storm Aletta has formed over the Pacific Ocean. Alastor Moody 13:56 (PTC)

HPC Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Project

This has been a one person project (ummmm...me) over the past 7 years (gasp). It took me until 3 years ago before I got help with automating the plotting of the data, and progress has been steady since. I'm glad you think I'm moving quickly. =) It seems as if I cover about 5 years of storms every year...it's the type of slow pace you expect from someone on shift work. Every so often I discover an error and have to correct it. You're the second person to ask about the U.S. Pacific island groups being added to the project, so my guess would be yes, but it is probably months away. Thegreatdr 21:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple more Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Island systems from 1995, Javier's (2004) Mexican rainfall, and a correction to Marco/Klaus 1990 to contend with this next week. Then, I'll be going backwards chronologically for the most part after they are done, unless a tropical cyclone comes along in the meantime which requires me to step back out of order, like Rita (which prompted Carla 1961), or Wilma (which prompted Isbell 1964). After I get back through the 1979 storms (there aren't many left from 1979-1982 that are not already in the TC rainfall climo), I'll add the numbered tropical depressions that struck land from 1979-1984. I'm still uncertain what to do about the September 1979 and September 1984 systems near Texas; they will likely be left alone unless the hurricane reanalysis deems them worthy at some point in the future. Thegreatdr 15:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could do that for those two September cyclones, putting subtropical storm wording and a question mark. That way if they're added into the reanalysis, the rainfall is already complete. Thegreatdr 23:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not as easy as it sounds, because frontal zones drape over 2/3 of the tropical cyclones that move into the United States, and sometimes upper cyclones can force the development of tropical cyclones at the surface. If the rainfall appears unconnected to the tropical cyclone on satellite images, it will likely not be considered part of the storm total rainfall. If heavy rain focuses on a draping front over a system, that will count as it would be exceptionally hard to separate out, and chances are, the next tropical cyclone that forms in that area and moves in a similar direction will also have frontal interaction, so really it is not worth separating that rainfall out of the storm total. Grace (2003) was intriguing as it was a small tropical cyclone already moving into an area where there was an ongoing rain event, so no rainfall along the front to its north was counted until it was impossible to distinguish between the frontal rainfall and the tropical cyclone rainfall. In the case of Fran (1996), this was exercised as well. Juan (1985) was the reverse; an upper cyclone booted the former tropical cyclone out to the north, but the rain continued across the Mid-Atlantic. For Juan, I cut off the rainfall when the former tropical cyclone moved out of the United States and before the upper cyclone began to induce significant rainfall. I hope this isn't too confusing. Thegreatdr 17:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I need a 5" isohyet in there for the maximum for Edouard (1996). Thanks for the catch. Thegreatdr 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Total Rainfall for Bonnie (2004)

I find that linking the rainfall that fell from Pennsylvania northward directly to Bonnie's rain shield (2004) very hard to believe. I was actually in Baltimore on the day Bonnie passed by to the east, and we had a mid-upper level deck of clouds that morning, but no rain on a day where the rain chance was forced up to 100% per the TPC track forecast. After double checking, it looks complicated, as a frontal wave was riding along a front located a few hundred miles north of Bonnie [1]. At the time of the 12z daily weather map on August 13th, the rainfall patterns for the frontal wave and Bonnie are depicted separate, even though the 24 hour precipitation plot and satellite imagery makes the two cloud/rain bands look merged. I seem to remember the rain pattern remaining separate, so I don't plan on adding that swath of rainfall across Pennsylvania and New England into the Bonnie graphic. The most you can say is that the frontal wave tapped the tropical connection into Bonnie, like the NCDC article states.

If those type of rain patterns were included in the storm total rainfall graphics, both Lili's (1996 and 2002) which indirectly led to rainfall events in New England, would have to be included, even though the storms were several hundred miles away to the southeast. Is this slicing the cheese to thin? Maybe. Keep in mind that there are tropical cyclone researchers that think I include too much frontal rainfall into the climatology as it is and is likely why no one else has tackled tropical cyclone rainfall graphics on an organized storm-by-storm basis since 1955. They are likely the same ones that think Stan wasn't directly related to the thousands of deaths in Central America, even though everything looks very clearly related to Stan's circulation on satellite imagery; their and my only source of data for Central America. Thegreatdr 17:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep...storms that affect the extremities of the region are the easiest. =) Thegreatdr 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1944 Cane Damage.jpg

Just as a general matter of interest, do you know quite where Image:1944 Cane Damage.jpg originally comes from? I just noticed that it's using an image copyright tag that I got caught up in a debate about on Commons a couple of weeks back - a couple of us spotted that the tag is actually wrong and images that fit the tag descriptions may well not be public domain after all: only work from the Library of Congress collections specifically marked as "presumed P.D." is actually likely to be. What surprised me is that usually these images contain a link to a Library of Congress URL and it is possible to check the status there, whilst this picture's source is listed as a page in a (presumably copyrighted) book. Does the book have a photograph index that states that their source was the Library of Congress Collections? Did it specifically say whether it's public domain? I've just realised that if there are more images like this, where a reviewing Wikipedian (or Commoner, I guess, over there!) has no easy way to check the copyright status, it will be even harder than anticipated to clean up the category when the migration to an accurate, copyright-free template occurs! :-/ It'd be really handy if you could find a way to confirm that this one really is public domain... might stop a bamboozled license-checker bringing it up on your talk page later! TheGrappler 12:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame, it's a nice picture. If it was possible to be sure that the photograph was produced by the Department of the Army then it would clearly be public domain, but even that seems uncertain. (A long shot would be to email the authors: it's likely they will have spent quite a lot of time and effort tracking the image down themselves!) I guess there is a shortage of images of the damage available. As for alternatives: anything that can be picked from the Vegabond Hurricane is likely to be PD on grounds of age (almost certainly published pre-1923). Another thing to consider is that lots of the hurricanes are described as having "parallelled" the coastline - slotting in an example image of a particular hurricane with a "parallel" path would probably be a good idea in terms of showing readers what actually happened as well as breaking up the text. That might make replacing the Cane Damage photo more palatable aesthetically. By the way, have you considered actually referencing individual pages from Great Storms? Not only would that improve the quality of the references and the ease of fact-checking, it would also mean that the row of letters going a b d d ... m n o would vanish, which can only be a good thing! TheGrappler 17:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not necessary but on the other hand it would be nice. As you can probably tell, I am all for making featured lists as brilliant as possible so other list-makers can look and say "right, now when I am making a list from scratch, I need to do X, Y and Z", but on the flip side I won't oppose when a list has clearly made it over all the criteria hurdles. One thing I have found from bitter experience myself (especially after the new cite.php referencing came along) is that it's definitely a good idea to keep a record of exactly where the information you are writing is coming from. A lot of the most prolific FA-writers say they actually produce their articles offline, carefully assembling all the components (all the facts they are going to use together with the exact reference to back them up) then put them all together before "going live" on wikipedia. Thinking about it, that makes a lot of sense. I tend to add stuff piecemeal, sometimes do a bit of reading about, then add a couple of paragraphs all over the place, then spend ages trying to figure out where what I said actually came from :-) TheGrappler 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane John (1994)

Someone has kindly promoted it to a GA. Could you look at it one more time and tell me if it should be A-class? I've also put it up for peer review, so if you have any suggestions, please put them there. Thanks =). —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 13:22 UTC

Article formatting

Dear Tropical cyclone editor,

As a member of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, you are receiving this message to describe how you can better tropical cyclone articles. There are hundreds of tropical cyclone articles, though many of them are poorly organized and lacking in information. Using the existing featured articles as a guide line, here is the basic format for the ideal tropical cyclone article.

1. Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (mph in non-metric countries, km/h in metric countries), with the other unit in parenthesis. The lowest pressure should be in mbars. Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there.
2. Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
3. Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexible, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be around 3. Storm histories can be longer than three paragraphs, though they should be less than five. Anything more becomes excessive. Remember, all storm impacts, preparations, and records can go elsewhere. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history.
4. Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm.
5. Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals.
6. Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
7. Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
8. Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the {{cite web}} formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense.

Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask.

Just thought you should get it as well Hink, you're on the list how come you didn't get spammed, lol. Actually I've been thinking, perhaps it would be a good idea to get up a wikiproject newsletter or something similar?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope the newsletter isn't as long as that message! —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 23:01 UTC

Sure, I'd be interested in a newsletter. I was only kidding about the length. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 23:06 UTC

Didn't take you long to notice that Hink did it? Sure thing I will help back to 2003, I agree with you on it going faster; I'm just trying to psyche myself up for Ophelia at the moment. Check the Ophelia graphics archive and see how badly they forecast that storm and then contrast it with the TCR where they say they forecast it well, you can see why I'm not looking forward to the storm history for it. On the (short) newsletter - yeah I think I'll say as much when I can get round to it (procrastination...) By the way, that table isn't actually a todo list; I plan to extend it right back to the start of naming in the Atlantic, simply to summarise article quality (doesn't mean I think there should be articles on all the storms).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that table make more sense now Hink? It isn't so much a todo table (for me) but a summary of status on all named storms in the Atlantic (which is probably for all). It excludes many articled storms but I think it could be a useful display for how we as a project are doing. I know I have a low threshold for articles, but I'm sorta similar to you. The absolute earliest all articles can work at this time is 1998 (first year with advisories available online). Having a table with every named storm I think is clearest for the purpose I made it for...--Nilfanion (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all done now Hink, every single Atlantic storm or season article is listed. I agree 2003 is probably about the limit for all storms- my comment about 1998 is that is the earliest possible that a Irene standard article can be wrote on the fishspinners, the fact there will be no info on minor landfalls stops all storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you Hink, do 2003-5 then consider what to do then. That table I've made isn't so much a todo as a summary of the status of the WikiProject- it might belong best on Project namespace once its stabilised. You can see a lot of info at a glance. I've redesigned my pet tables purpose thats all - Its the Wikiprojects todo list, not my personal one.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The newsletter idea seems to be evolving nicely, it was a good idea I think...--Nilfanion (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured writer's barnstar

		Featured writer's barnstar
		Here's this Featured writer's barnstar, due to your prolific and high-quality work in tropical cyclone articles, which has made Wikipedia among the premier sources of cyclone information in the Internet. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 05:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot

1) Whats this WPTC newsletter?

2) I redirected Tanya for now.

3) Can you check my reformatted 1887 page under "Page Reformatting Section"?

4) Is Emmy/Frances ready yet?HurricaneCraze32 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5) 14?

6(Reply to 1)- How do you make a newsletter on Wikipedia?HurricaneCraze32 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7) T.D.14 is ready yet?

8) You know i'm not active in Wikiproject.HurricaneCraze32 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9) I found some Edouard pictures from the NHC,want them?

10) What else is missing from 14? If i remember correctly-its latest version was rewritten by you.

11) This maybe stupid-but i'm starting to work on Erika (1997) again.HurricaneCraze32 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(index reset)

12) Can you think of an article for me to work on?-Something 1979 or earlier

13) How's Kyle look?

14) Any chance we should give 2003 and 2004 its own set of articles?HurricaneCraze32 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 in reply to 12)Would 2001's Iris work?HurricaneCraze32 21:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16) I know that-hows it look now?HurricaneCraze32 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY

Dude, you left me hanging.