Jump to content

User talk:Hurricanehink/Archive 22

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

Main page appearance (4)

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 17, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 17, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 18:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Alberto near peak strength

Tropical Storm Alberto was the first of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Forming on June 10 in the northwestern Caribbean Sea, the storm moved generally to the north, reaching a maximum intensity of 70 mph (110 km/h) before weakening and moving ashore in the Big Bend area of Florida on June 13. Alberto then moved through eastern Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia as a tropical depression before becoming extratropical on June 14. Across the western Caribbean, the storm produced heavy rainfall, causing minor damage. In Florida, a moderate storm tide caused coastal damage and flooding, while Alberto's outer rainbands produced several tornadoes. Alberto was indirectly responsible for two drownings off the coast of Tampa Bay. In North Carolina, heavy rainfall caused locally severe flooding, and one person drowned after running into a flooded storm drain near Raleigh. The remnants of Alberto produced strong winds and left four people missing in Atlantic Canada. Overall, damage was minor along Alberto's path. (more...)

File:Sunday Newsday Sept. 29 1985 Gloria Cover.jpg

[edit]

I have tagged File:Sunday Newsday Sept. 29 1985 Gloria Cover.jpg, which you uploaded, for deletion for the reasons indicated here. Kudos on your work on the article, by the way; I found it to be a most interesting read. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 1866 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

[edit]

a soul mate for you and julian?

[edit]

Re:

[edit]

Yeah, sure Hurricanehink! Hurricanefan25 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

[edit]

I want to start writing a hurricane article about Hurricane Adrian. Can you teach me the...er...basics of hurricane article writing? See also: User:Hurricanefan25/Adrian. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did spend time reading wiki pages till 1 am yesterday/today morning...so that basically explains my experience, I guess. I like reading! (as said on my userpage) :) Secondly, thanks for all that information, I'm going to read it ASAP. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do images (like the ones I listed at User:Hurricanefan25/Resources) count as sources? Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I am checking HURDAT if they have anything on Debra. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, HURDAT has nothing on Debra. :( Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this might be obvious, but I'm confused, so I'm going to ask anyway. The page for the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season says there is one depression so far. Arlene was never classified as "Tropical Depression One" as the first recorded winds were 40 mph. [1] Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who works at the NOAA or its "sub-agencies" (e.g. NHC, SPC, etc.) on Wikipedia? I need to upload a few images... Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer this one just to point you slightly closer to the right approach. Some people from those agencies sometimes reply to emails from Wikipedians - they don't edit Wikipedia though, as far as I know. However, what's the image you need to upload? If it's an image like this one then you don't need permission from anyone because it's already public domain, thanks to the U.S. federal government's nice policy about such things. If it's an image like this one then, although the data comes from the NHC (and I believe is public domain), Wikipedians generate the image themselves. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice a lot of pages like 1990–91_South_Pacific_cyclone_season#Severe_Tropical_Cyclone_Sina have bad conversions. 85 mph winds isn't a category 4 (SSHS) hurricane! Hurricanefan25 (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Sina's case there is a poor conversion between the warning centers that monitored it. For some reason the Joint Typhoon Warning Center reported windspeeds over 1-min of 125 kts (a c4 TC) where as TCWC Nadi reported windspeeds of 75 knots (85 mph).Jason Rees (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Nora at GA

[edit]

Hi, I reviewed Hurricane Nora (2003), which you nominated for GA a while back. You can find the review page right here. Not too much to worry about; just some prose and ref issues. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations with Nora; I've passed it at GAN. And you're welcome for the review. :)
In any case, thanks for the opportunity. I learned a lot while reviewing the article. And thanks for catching me on the subsequently thingy; I've got to watch my preferences a bit more carefully so they don't intrude! --Starstriker7(Talk) 07:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working on Debra

[edit]

I'm working on Debra here, but I'm worried at how I'm doing on the article and the "title" of the references. They are really long, like "Monthly Weather Review - Volume 107 - Atlantic Hurricane Season of 1978 - page 6" - is that okay for a reference name? Hurricanefan25 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still stalking hink's talk page :-) Titles do sometimes get extremely long, and that's fine, but you need to swap the fields round a bit from what you have. I think work=Monthly Weather Review|title=Atlantic Hurricane Season of 1978|page=6|volume=107|publisher=National Hurricane Center|location=Miami ... or something like that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Delete Tropical Storm Debra (1978) per G6 Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatcha think of it? Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks hink! (can I call you hink? ) Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that a lot of hurricane articles are assessed on their discussion page. Mind assessing it for me? :) Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can just call me Hurricanefan or HF25. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Worm that turned suggested that I ask you if Debra could make a good article. What do you think needs to be done to get it to that status? Can you comment here too? Hurricanefan25 (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me making that suggestion Hink - I was just very impressed with the article and I knew you'd be the person to go for weather work. Especially since you two were already chatting! I'm not particularly interested in weather myself, unless I'm stuck in it. WormTT · (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I think it's fairly close to going for GA, but it's just missing some more info. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of it now? Hurricanefan25 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter

[edit]

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Scotland Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Ohio Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) and Bavaria Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless?

[edit]

I added this pic to Tropical Storm Arlene (2011)‎‎ because it was the NOAA EVL pic of the day and a pretty impressive picture. How is that pointless? --TimL (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would have to agree, that blob of clouds does not really add to the article. Though perhaps having both images adds value, so for now I'll leave the one you intended to delete. I guess my point being that with both of those images there one can see what it is that Arlene came from. Thanks for the follow up! --TimL (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "good stuff"

[edit]

All I managed to find of what you wanted in the Debra article was "Rainfall totals around 7 inches (180 mm) in the Beaumont–Port Arthur area caused minor street flooding." and "Power was knocked out at four blocks of the Memphis International Airport. Gas supplies were cut off in Memphis, and and downed trees and power poles blocked many streets." Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 21:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if I get some feedback at peer review by the 10th and fix all those issues, I'm going to nominate it for "good article" status. Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 21:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Writer's Barnstar
For your amazing successful efforts at improving articles to FA quality on Wikipedia, in addition to your steadfast contributions of meticulously well sourced new article content. — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I think that was my first use of the WikiLove tool - that was fun! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of Tropical Storm Linda (1997)

[edit]

I've put the article on hold for now. As I said on the review, this is quite a nice find. I have mostly grammarish nitpicks and a few reference concerns to regard, as well as a few suggestions regarding expansion ideas. --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two items left to address, and then you're all set. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 07:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've passed the article. Good work, and definitely keep it up! --Starstriker7(Talk) 06:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

[edit]

Re

[edit]

Don't worry, I'm back now...I was on vacation :) Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Without you, I wouldn't have been able to get the article on Tropical Storm Debra (1978) to its current status, and for that, I thank you :) Take good care of the kitten!

Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Vera 1959

[edit]

Hey Hink. I have a discussion section on Typhoon Vera (1959), and I want you to check it out. Thank you,--Ryder 07:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) talk

Should be sorted (165 not 170).Jason Rees (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

[edit]

Happy Birthday!

[edit]

Happy Birthday! I have a kitten for you!

YE Pacific Hurricane 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hink! Have a wonderful birthday! Thanks for the mention in IRC :) -- RattleMan 01:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1991 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

[edit]

Hello Hurricanehink, I just reviewed the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season for GA. My comments can be read here.--12george1 (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article promotion

[edit]
Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making 1991 Atlantic hurricane season a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.

In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Back now!

[edit]

Just really busy, sorry. Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 14:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
Wow!! What can I say? For almost six years, you have done superb work for Wikipedia. It's astonishing to see how much work you've done and accomplished during the time you've invested into Wikipedia. I believe everyone in Wikipedia should give you a big "Thank you!" for your tireless efforts. You especially, deserve recognition because hardworking Wikipedians like you are rare and few in between. Thank you for your services. And as always, have a nice day! Regards, —Terrence and Phillip 03:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small talk

[edit]

By the way, if you're not busy, mind a bit of some small talk? —Terrence and Phillip 04:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's life in New Jersey? —Terrence and Phillip 04:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

[edit]

I want to create another one from scratch. Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 16:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Atlantic Hurricane Season

[edit]

Hi, you restored my edit(s) to the article specified in your dicussion post. I'm sorry for not being clearer but LOOK AT THE TITLES. These storms are not real. They've been copied and pasted from other seasons and the people don't even attempt to change the titles. If you look at the season, there are 11 storms there (official ten - I'll explain in a moment) and suddenly the eighth of eleven storms listed is Tropical Depression NINETEEN??? I'm sorry to dissapoint you but THAT'S WRONG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Atlantic_hurricane_season http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Tropical_Depression_Nineteen (This is a fake storm - one of many in the surrounding articles)

(For the most part, what I wrote below is the same as what I had to write to user marek69 about the 1969 Atlantic Hurricane season edit.

That's not a real storm in ANY season. Except in the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season (but the track shown doesn't match that of 2005's nor does the description). I do have an account but I haven't logged in for so long I doubt I'll remember the password (and yes I'm aware of password recovery but that takes time and frankly my IP address serves as identification enough). Now, if you would be so kind as to reassess your re-installment of the season (and maybe check out the seasons surrounding it because I had to clear up suspicious activity in the 1967 and 1968 season, that would be wonderful. Oh, and here's a source if you're not sure that the storm is real or not: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyread-2009.html

That is a link to an official hurdat on NOAA's site. As I'm sure you know, the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmostpheric Administration) is in charge of the NHC (National Hurricane Center) which is where nearly all of the information on wikipedia about the statistics of the storms (directly or behind the scenes) comes from. Therefore, the source is both trustable and official. Hurdat stands for hurricane data. This one is basically a log of all the officially recognized data about each storm since the 1850's. When it comes down to it, this hurdat is what calls the shots. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please restore my edit and feel free to search the articles.

Oh, and so you know, the articles I have been searching since 1950 contained uncited statistical information much of which is made up. Wind speeds are off for many storms as are barometric pressures (and some storms which never had a recorded barometric pressure suddenly have one on wikipedia). Remember that this hurdat contains that information with and official air. Please feel free to ask me other questions. It is now hurricane season and we need to tighten up this information. (I didn't edit most statistical information. I planned on putting up discussion posts once I had found the extensiveness of the incorrect edits. However, I HAD to start editing around the 1969 area after seeing some of the "BS" (pardon the acronym) storms.

Much Obliged for your time to read this, 60'smusic (<-my username if I remember correctly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.101.22 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Username

[edit]

And so you know I wasn't lying about the username, I logged in. :) Wiki (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Atlantic Hurricane Season

[edit]

Wonderful! I'm glad you cleared that up and I'll be sure to add some links to my page for those with questions about hurricanes. However, there are still problems with the title. In the 1970 ATLANTIC hurricane season (and not the joint 1970 seasons where it is, in fact, the 19th storm) the storm is in fact the eighth of the season. (As I'm trying to convey, the ATLANTIC season and not BOTH COMBINED.) This also means that Hurricane Nine that year is actually Ten and that Hurricane Ten that year is actually Eleven. Do you not agree? Wiki (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misassessment

[edit]

I see that I read the information incorrectly. However, because it is the 19th storm, there is a much bigger problem on our hands, where are the other 12 storms that preceded with it in the season. Furthermore, if it did have that many, it would be a record breaking season and rival 2005 with vigor. Do you not agree? Wiki (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of storms

[edit]

FURTHERMORE, even the article has conflicting information. It says there were 10 total storms (which in all articles will include unnamed storms or tropical depressions). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Atlantic_hurricane_season

According to this hurdat http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyread-2009.html there were 10 storms. Also, according to this archive by the NHC, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/atlantic/atl1970-prelim/ there were seven named storms which means that of of these (Tropical Storm Four, Tropical Depression 19, Hurricane Nine, or Hurricane 10) must not exist. Furthermore, the information for the last storm of the season does NOT correspond with the hurdat. The last storm was a 70mph Tropical Depression and NOT a Hurricane. However, the ninth storm was a hurricane. However, the fourth storm was a tropical storm. That means that Ten has incorrect data and 19 most likely doesn't exist as I originally suspected. Wiki (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To your latest message

[edit]

Then, as you say, those storms were hardly to be considered storms? Maybe we should consult an expert on the matter. There are many hurricane specialists working for the NHC in Miami that may be able to clear things up. I seriously doubt that it would be correct in any way to put these many "storms" on the page. They are clearly not recognized as, if they were, earlier seasons would probably have the official record for highest number of storms and not the 2005 season. Wiki (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then

[edit]

Then almost all of the articles for all of the seasons prior to about 1980 (and probably many of the seasons recently) should be marked incomplete until the storms have been added. Also, it would be wise to denote the storms with their number within the season. What happened to 3, 4, 5, and 6 on the chart http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/roth/ebtrk_nhc_final.txt and why is it called seven instead of unnamed or something like that. I still doubt it is OFFICIALLY recognized and some area of consistency MUST be instilled within wikipedia's storm pages. You MUST find all the storms or find a better naming system, otherwise, the articles will NOT make sense. Even my season almanac does not list these "storms." Wiki (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

[edit]

If you would like to discuss ideas for proposing consistencies among the Atlantic hurricane articles (and eventually the pacific though I haven't checked to see if the problem exists there), we could bring this to the attention of the main hurricane article editors such as manek69, you, and whoever else may edit them, and thereby allow some better organization (and maybe give people like me peace of mind). Wiki (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

[edit]

Talk:Hurricane Floyd (1987)/GA1

[edit]

Hello Hurricanehink, I am just letting you know that I reviewed Hurricane Floyd (1987). You can read my comments here. Regards, --12george1 (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Barnstar

[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar. Well, yea, EPAC storms get can very boring sometimes, but land impacting cyclones (save all the devastation) or high intensity storms are interesting to track IMO.YE Pacific Hurricane 15:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article promotion

[edit]
You did it again!
Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Hurricane Floyd (1987) a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)
P.S. And again! 1991 Perfect Storm!
Thanks :) I hope to get plenty more this year, as I'm in the semifinals in the Wikicup. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Hurricane Bridget (1971) too! You're blowing through these like a... like, um... I just can't think of an appropriate metaphor... – Quadell (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A vacuum! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improving/expanding articles

[edit]

Thinking about it, I've pretty much only started from scratch on articles here. Any advice? I think on improving Hurricane Tomas to good article, but it already looks pretty good to me, though personally I'd add some more ;) Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-tropical NOAA Hurricane Conference debate in 2009

[edit]

I know you like hearing about these things, so here you go. In 2009, NHC wanted to start using the post-tropical terminology used by Environment Canada for years. No one in attendance was opposed to this. However, they only wanted to use the term when a system was indeterminate...basically when they weren't sure it was a remnant low or an extratropical cyclone. So the term was going to be sparingly used when compared to remnant low and extratropical. A couple of us from OPC and HPC fought against this, thinking that if both categories were truly subcategories of post-tropical that the post-tropical term should used more often, not less often. Eventually one of the NHC reps brought up that extratropical was more understood, which is when things became more interesting. We (the rest of the NWS) had to point out to NHC that no one else routinely uses that terminology within their text products, due to public understanding issues. I had to point out that the only reason HPC uses it within our advisories for inland systems is because NHC uses it. They were quite surprised by this, and after a break, relented. NHC relenting on issues doesn't happen very often, but they really wanted to use this term, and came up with the compromise of using POST-TROP/EXTRA and POST TROP/REMNANT in their discussions to hammer in the point about the others being subcategories of post-tropical. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it was one thing in particular. Maybe NHC became aware of the Canadian usage, liked it, and decided for whatever reason that 2009 was the time to address it. OPC in particular was thrilled with NHC's embrace of the term. It could have been Danny (2009) for all I know. I have to try to determine cyclone phase when extending low tracks for the CLIQR database. If a system isn't frontal, I'm just going with L (remnant low). If it is frontal, I throw in the E (extratropical). You'd think this would be straightforward, but in some cases this is forcing a change to the lettering of the cyclone phase initially within HURDAT and the EBTD because a number of these "extratropical" cyclones weren't frontal, which is problematic. I do know one thing...most people aren't interpreting NHC's use of "absorbed by a low" the way NHC seems to mean it...which is not our fault within wikipedia particularly. Much of the time, they seem to mean "coupled with an upper level low" rather than merger/absorption by a different surface cyclone because I'm finding several systems which NHC says were "absorbed by a low" whose surface circulation tracked much farther than shown in HURDAT and noted in their storm reports. David and Frederic (1979) are the most recent examples to this within the additions to the CLIQR database, though Stan (2005) and Matthew (2004 or 2010) are examples of this within NHC tropical cyclone reports. Stan and the latest Matthew weren't absorbed by a pre-existing monsoonal gyre, they BECAME the monsoonal gyre. With some systems like Nicole (2010) and Danny (2009), no one really knows for sure...it just appears to be a center jump caused by an upper level feature which in some cases in HURDAT is treated as one cyclone, but in other instances is not. The hurricane reanalysis needs to address all this in the coming decades. Fun fun. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

[edit]

Hurricane Bridget (1971)

[edit]

Hi Hurricanehink, just wondering, if I review Hurricane Bridget, are you willing to review one of my GANs? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 08:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1987 PHS MWR

[edit]

Hello Hurricanehink, I have some good news. I found monthly weather review for the 1987 Pacific hurricane season. The bad news is, it only has individual storm info on the systems that became hurricanes. However, it also includes a table listing all tropical cyclones, so then we can also add more info about the TDs. Here is the link: [2]--12george1 (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notifications

[edit]

Hey Hink, just a reminder that you must notify other editors when starting a discussion on them at ANI. In Bowser423's case, I've now done this for you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

[edit]

We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are New Zealand Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and Russia PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Scotland Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

[edit]

My "zone"

[edit]

I track the tropical atlantic/caribbean/gulf basin from june 1 all the way through november 30, but I usually do most of my "heavy lifting" work in the area from about now until the end of the season. As to what I enjoy, I enjoy trying to outdo the NHC, I enjoy trying to be one step ahead of nature, I enjoy trying to see if I can save anybody's lives and property, and I know I will enjoy personally field-tracking hurricanes as I get older. I find tropical cyclones to be an amazing concentrated form of nature's already-powerful storm features. I issue semiregular tropical updates here and a map of warnings that I have issued here. neither are updated during lulls, but generally I will update them during active periods. In the off-season, I track blizzards and winter storms, categorizing them with my winter storm scale on a scale of 0-5 and I track severe thunderstorms, and if there is a complete severe weather lull, I just do plain old forecasts.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright Chat Me Up 04:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Georgette

[edit]

Oh well, thanks for the review though. BTW,I am already addressed some of the issues, put ill probably do the rest in like a week or so. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1865 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]

Just put your article on hold, if you can go ahead and make/address these changes I will pass it ASAP. Peace -Marcusmax(speak) 00:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some Link rot issues you need to take care of on Hurricane Neki. See the GA Review here. -Marcusmax(speak) 15:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

[edit]

Re: Pamela 76

[edit]

Can't do anything about that, that's just how the program produces that particular track. It's due to the considerable northward movement of the system which forces the program to make a larger image. Typhoon Pamela tracked from about 6N to 50N fwiw... Best thing to do if it's an issue in the met. history is to force the size on the thumbnail. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What UTC time on the 26th? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crap....JMA doesn't make it ET until 00z on the 28th...which one should I go by? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Used the JTWC time and uploaded, should be good now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

Have a bit of patience - i was working on adding a sentence to the article and sourcing it. Besides my name is not CB and the source was the same source as Gilbert and Celia.Jason Rees (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

[edit]

DYK for Typhoon Pamela (1976)

[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for all the work you do on Hurricane-related articles, bringing many up to GA status. Your work is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

[edit]

Hurricane Irene (2011)

[edit]

Hey hink,

I'm back! I admit to have been reading news stories on Irene all afternoon, and my writing seems a bit like a news source at the moment. See this. :/

HurricaneFan25 18:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That can always be copyedited. We'd rather have the info and the references and have to have somebody else go over it than for us to not have the info at all. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heard you are evacuating. I know how awful that can be. Good luck! Hope you, your family, and your homes stay nice and safe. Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll be leaving tonight. It's been a fairly fun process so far, oddly. My brother and I joked about putting an old broken computer desk we still use outside so the storm can wash it away. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviews

[edit]

Hi, HH. I read your cri de coeur on the FAC talkpage, about your problems in finding sufficient reviewers to move your current FAC forward. I sympathise; it can be very frustrating when an article languishes near the bottom of the FAC list for want of reviewer attention. Here are a couple of suggestions for countering this problem in the longer term:-

  • Move out of your comfort zone and, for a change, write an article on a different topic. While I respect the enormous amount of work you have done over many years in the hurricane field, the subject is of limited interest. Storm articles are very well represented on Wikipedia, and more articles in this vein risk provoking general reviewer fatigue. A new subject area, be it music, literature, sport, pop culture or whatever, might act as a very welcome breath of fresh air.
  • Get involved at WP:Peer review as a regular reviewer. Your experience in steering articles through the FAC process would be invaluable here. The PR process is non-judgemental; the reviewer can be perceived more as an ally than an adversary, and you'll find that in return, editors are more prepared to review your articles, even without your asking them to. At least, that's my experience.

Judging from Karanacs's posting, you may presently have more urgent problems, but when you have the time it might be worth considering my suggestions. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

[edit]

Review of Hurricane season now done, as promised...

[edit]

Hello, my review is up. If you agree with some of my suggestions and you make changes and then want me to change my judgement (it is currently "weak oppose") then I should notice your edits on the FAC page via my watchlist. If not, please feel free to hit me up for another look by posting on my talk. Take care. --bodnotbod (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, the question of boredom is a thorny one. The FAC criteria do state that the reader should find "its prose is engaging, even brilliant," yet there will always be subjects that are not going to lend themselves to that. I can well imagine it would be much easier to write the generic hurricane article to featured standard than one about a season. And then there's the question of how the audiences would differ for each of those articles. I would expect 'hurricane' to have a wide readership, whilst a specific season is likely to appeal to a) people with a deep interest in hurricanes and b) people who were affected by the storms. They are two very distinct audiences; the (a) group will be comfortable with all the terminology, but the person who has had their house blown down won't necessarily be.
But it doesn't sit right with me that you should go away thinking "1991 season cannot be a featured article". It makes me feel like I've done something bad. (Don't worry, it won't keep me up at nights, but it is making me think).
Perhaps there is a compromise here. As noted, the article isn't as long as many other FACs I've seen, so perhaps in those cases where there was more human interest (ie damage) caused by the storms those sections could be expanded a little. I hesitate to suggest it because it's perhaps bad taste, but in the case of fatalities perhaps an indication could be given of how some of the people met their demise in more detail? Especially if the circumstances were a little odd. If you're not comfortable with that, then I don't blame you, I'm not entirely comfortable with it myself.
A less problematic route would be if there were further details of damage to buildings and infrastructure. Say if a well-known company's HQ were damaged or well-known monuments or museums/galleries etc. You already did that with mention of George Bush's property, maybe a little more of that sort of thing would go a long way.
Perhaps the most demanding thing about FAC criteria is that asks to be both "complete" (ie, to give a full account) and be "engaging" (which often means talking about people and personalities or at least talking about nature in ways that illicit some emotional response). Very often, giving a full account is bound to include stuff that isn't immediately interesting. Not every bit of every phenomenon can be exciting.
I notice that the good article criteria do not mention being "engaging" at all. One way to think about all this, I guess, is that FAs get on the front page so enjoy a wide readership. Can some articles only ever be 'good' because their appeal is not to such a wide audience but are naturally appealing to a smaller demographic? I wouldn't feel happy asserting that but it's something to ponder.
I would be happy to conclude "some articles are a lot harder to make featured than others" I guess. And you have chosen a hard one. I think biographies are always easier (not easy, but easier): people relate to people more than they do anything else.
If you do end up making some significant additions to the article (whether inspired by anything I've said or not) then I should notice it on my watchlist. But if you ever want me to, er, review my review(!) - want me to take another look - then don't hesitate to drop me a talk-message. --bodnotbod (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Thanks for dropping me a message. I have changed my review to one of support now. You addressed all my points, so it would have been churlish not to ;O) bodnotbod (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willamette River

[edit]

Hello. Thanks for your comments at the FAC of Willamette River, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Willamette River/archive1. You caught some errors and vague information, and it really helped. I wanted to know if you had any additional comments about how the article could be improved; now that the article was not promoted, I am planning to nominate it for peer review once more or go straight back to FAC once the time comes. Any feedback on the talk page is vital to the article's future. Thanks so much. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

[edit]

The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:

  • Scotland Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
  • Russia PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
  • Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
  • Ohio Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
  • Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
  • Canada Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
  • Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
  • Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Poland Piotrus (submissions), United Kingdom Grandiose (submissions), Bavaria Stone (submissions), Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), Saskatchewan Canada Hky (submissions) and Wisconsin MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

[edit]

Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma

[edit]

There is significant overlinking going on within this article, which passed FA four years ago. This, along with some of the redirects, violates the current version of MoS, as far as I can tell. Luckily, there's no linkrot regarding the references section. It's unclear to me whether or not this violates FA criteria, but I would think it would. Could you fix these issues sometime in the next week? I know the fixes are seemingly trivial, but I'm in the middle of fixing the hundreds of redirects from Atlantic hurricane to North Atlantic tropical cyclone, and still have over 300 left. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for Wikimedia Foundation

[edit]

Hi Hurricanehink, I hope this finds you well. My name is Matthew and I work in the fundraising department at the Wikimedia Foundation. We're preparing for this year's fundraiser by expanding on the appeals that we run asking for support. Rather than just have Jimmy's face gracing the page, we'd like to show the diversity of people who make Wikipedia so important. This both better represents the community and assures the public doesn't get sick of seeing Jimmy on their Wikipedia. Would you be interested in speaking with me about your work and your perspective? Please let me know by emailing mroth@wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 22:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Debra (1978)

[edit]

Hey Hink,

I've completed another series of edits on Tropical Storm Debra (1978), and I'm wondering what your opinion is about the current state of the article. If possible, please give a few brief comments on my talk page. Thanks,

HurricaneFan25 15:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm 100% back! I'm thinking of expanding one of the 2010 articles, probably Tomas, to GA, but I'm searching for one to start from scratch in the Atlantic basin that formed between 2000-2009...and I haven't found one yet that's notable enough for it's own article. HurricaneFan25 15:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catawissa flooding image

[edit]

You removed an image I'd added saying it was a copyvio, but I personally took that image. I have more I didn't upload to Commons out of laziness but should have. It is possible I may get back up to Catawissa in a few hours and take another shot of how the floodwaters have risen (if the stream flowing down into the Susquehanna there hasn't cut the town off ... it was lapping the side of the road yesterday) If you saw this photo on the news I'd be curious where - most likely they had their own people take the shot, since this is from one of a few streets close to route 42 where you can't cross the river to Bloomsburg/Danville as I wanted to, but who knows, maybe someone actually used my photo. ;) (I doubt it). In the future please be a little more careful before accusing people. Wnt (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see I didn't successfully add a license to that image, which probably explains your reaction? (when I uploaded it to Commons I noticed I missed the tag and selected a license on the menu and hit the upload button again, but apparently that doesn't work) Wnt (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debra

[edit]

I've fixed the Debra article after the comments you gave it yesterday, though the lead still sounds excessively boring. HurricaneFan25 15:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best I could think of was "Tropical Storm Debra was a short-lived tropical cyclone, maintaining tropical storm status for only 12 hours," which isn't very interesting either, unfortunately. Another problem, there's a string of ten (now 6) refs citing the tornadoes at the end of the MH. In addition, the Preparations/impact section looks horribly messy. Also, I'm thinking of firing another shot at good article status. Whaddya think? HurricaneFan25 17:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*cough* You forgot to sign a post... HurricaneFan25 00:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be impossible to merge all of the information about Louisiana into one paragraph, so it is still three paragraphs. Other states make up the last 2 paragraphs. HurricaneFan25 16:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Debra is ready for another good article nomination? HurricaneFan25 18:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

[edit]

Congrats :O)

[edit]

Hello. I see from Signpost that your 1991 Hurricane season article got featured in the end. Well done ;O) bodnotbod (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR for Tropical Storm Vamei

[edit]
Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Tropical Storm Vamei. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hurricane Ella (1970)

[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

[edit]

Tropical cyclone forming locations (timeline)

[edit]

Hey, I'm working on a sandbox for the 1984 Atlantic hurricane season timeline, and I'm wondering where you get the formation locations (e.g. ...formed xxx mi (xxx km) [cardinal direction] of [location]). Specifically, for tropical depressions. Thanks! HurricaneFan25 19:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Hurricanehink. You have new messages at Talk:The Box (Fringe)/GA1.
Message added 21:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ruby comment! 21:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Tropical Storm Debra (1978) just became a good article, and I'm sure it wouldn't have passed without you! Cheers! :) HurricaneFan25 22:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

Yeppers, got User:Hurricanefan25/Timeline of the 1984 Atlantic hurricane season and Hurricane Paula to work on now :) HurricaneFan25 22:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Debra

[edit]

Meh, I alwyas forget that a bot does not update WP:GA.YE Pacific Hurricane 22:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything?

[edit]

Hey, you're a good Wikipedia editor for the tropical cyclones...I was wondering, do you have any articles to work on (preferably post-1970?). I'm working on getting "Timeline of the XXXX season" for 1980, and will do the 1970s as time progresses. Thanks in advance, TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1979 TD One

[edit]

No, seems to be a coincidence, actually! Browsing storm articles, and this one seemed...well, to have a lot of potential and caught my eye. But as a matter of fact, I think I will steal Tropical Storm Greta (laughs evilly). And no, I'm not going on IRC, I'm going to sleep, but I will hopefully be on tomorrow afternoon. See you there ;) HurricaneFan25 01:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greta

[edit]

I couldn't find much for the MH of Greta; I only could find the storm wallet and MWR. Regardless of that, at least it's still two paragraphs. I'll be on IRC this afternoon. See you there! HurricaneFan25 14:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks hink! HurricaneFan25 15:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't much in the article; but I'm going for a DYK. HurricaneFan25 17:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Greta

[edit]

See talk page. HurricaneFan25 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

[edit]


1991 Atlantic GTC

[edit]

Errr, your sig appears twice there :/ HurricaneFan25 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hurricanehink/Archive_22&oldid=1146830061"