User talk:Jdorje/Archive3

Test articles

Thanks for the editing and help on the test articles. I had originally deleted the categories because they were not articles yet (no consensus among us all) but later reverted those done seeing they were done for all of them. The rest of them (for the storms without pre-made articles) are forthcoming. Delta is planned to be my next one, due to its interesting history. CrazyC83 03:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW I have been publishing them in random order - although the first three (Epsilon, Maria and TD19) were intentional: Epsilon since it had been requested and has since become the main article, Maria due to its interesting history and TD19 due to it being the "lowest common denominator" - I wanted to see what an article for the least notable storm of 2005 would be like. CrazyC83 03:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a good criteria. 1995 would be the only other one that comes close, and paring down some of the more notable storms could reduce that - 2005 was unique in that there were very few non-notable storms! CrazyC83 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving the pages required me to put the current date-modified redirects up for speedy deletion, as I cannot move onto them using the "move" button. Only the depressions can be moved immediately, and it would look silly to have them be published first. CrazyC83 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Infobox nopic

Good question. The current format is fine. All we have to do is find which ones are left. There can't be that many, right? All we have to do is look in the Hurricane Articles needing a picture, and go from there. In fact, I'll do that right now. Hurricanehink 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There, I think I got all of them. What's next? :)Hurricanehink 22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hurricanehink 02:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane lists

I created those since I thought that "New England" meant, litterally, the six states of the region, which is why I created Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New York (I'm wondering if West Virginia and DC should have categories - neither region have any part on the coast, but they do get hurricanes - and if the New England states are split apart, same with Vermont). Of course, most hurricanes that affected those regions will likely get placed in several (or almost all) of those categories (i.e. Floyd, Isabel, Donna, Hazel) CrazyC83 21:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Few hurricanes affecting the Northeast? That's not true at all...any hurricane make landfall from the Carolinas northward (unless it quickly turns back to sea, i.e. Ophelia), will affect that region in some form or another. Most of those hurricanes that were listed can stay, since they still affected those six states. As for the west coast of Canada, there has never been a hurricane or tropical storm that has even come close; the waters even off northern California are too cold and unstable, let alone British Columbia! The six New England states should remain grouped together (as they are very small and most hurricanes that affect the region affect at least 4 or 5 of the 6 states), but the other states should keep their own categories. The Hurricanes in Canada category should remain as is; it isn't very often that a hurricane penetrates into central Canada (i.e. Hazel). CrazyC83 21:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete data

I added those only to storms that are clearly not showing a realistic lowest central pressure (i.e. Ethel, Carrie) and have no pressure readings AT ALL shown from its peak intensity. If it is estimated (before dropsones) but fully recorded, I did not mention it. CrazyC83 19:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Template: Infobox hurricane

When I looked at the Tropical Storm Zeta page around 15 minutes ago (10:40 AM EST), I noticed that the "Tropical storm" heading (against the blue background) was properly centered and supposedly fixed from what I saw yesterday. Now, it is suddenly left aligned in my browser again. Is there any way we can fix that? I am posting this here because you have made many edits to the template, and I'm not sure exactly how to center the heading. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 15:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Does it look misaligned to you, though? -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It must just be my computer then :). -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Track proposals

Could you make an estimated track for the 1635 Hurricane. I have some more hints to its path now in the article.66.30.58.20 23:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because my tracks are made from the NHC official data and there is no data on this storm. Jdorje 23:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a little idea where it traveled. See the article and islandnet.Ice 02:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

TD22

I wrote it in the form that is used on the NHC site - where Twenty-two is shown as one word. Twenty-Two should be created as a redirect though... CrazyC83 03:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

French Wikipedia To Commons

Hi,

You sent me a message today asking me to move some pictures of tropical cyclones to the WikiCommons space. As I created the article about Tropical Storm Gamma, I wasn't knowing very much about WikiCommons, so my pictures weren't shared with other language Wikipedias.

Later, I discovered WikiCommons and put most of my pictures there, but for the one you wrote, I didn't. It's done right now.

For now, I'm rewriting the final version of the French version of the very long article about Hurricane Katrina. It will keep me busy for weeks...

Have a nice year !

-- The Shadow Knows - 207.134.29.126 02:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

New Template

I was thinking of providing links to sections in the main season article within the text of the season timeline articles, so I created {{Tcarticle}}. For example:

{{tcarticle|2005|AT|H|TS|Arlene}} makes its first landfall near [[Cabo Corrientes]] in western [[Cuba]].

would be in Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.

However, it tends to display like this:

Tropical Storm Arlene makes its first landfall near Cabo Corrientes in western Cuba.

Do you know of a way to correct this?

— Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 17:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of my template is to display a link like 2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Arlene as Tropical Storm Arlene and not have to type that whole thing out. I'm planning to use this for links in the timeline articles (e.g. Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).

Does the text above, "makes its first landfall near Cabo Corrientes in western Cuba", display in a box of some sort? That's what it looks like in my browser. Using subst causes the same thing to happen, and just adds more lines of text to the article. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Response on help desk

Seeing as you have contributed since, but maybe not responded, I figured you may have not seen the response to your question on the help desk. jnothman ^talk 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Image problems

reply by Good kitty 04:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Odette

There wasn't anything to merge really. Most of the info in the subpage had already been stated in the main article. Trust me, I checked. I did omit the fact about Lili, that was an oversight, I was in a hurry to go to dinner. I apologize for that. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 05:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

confusion re years and seasons

Hi

I note that you modified the link which I made re 2005 and 2005 season, with a comment to the effect that it is confusing. First I should say I only made the change to be consistent with a prior change made in the article by some one else. Second I do not think it is necessarily confusing as (1) holding the mouse over the hyperlink shows clearly that it will go to the season page, rather than year and (2) this style is used quite regularly elsewhere in the hurricane season pages as far as I can see. I found many examples on a quick look through the main 2005 atlantic season article for example. Anyway just my tuppence worth... Nashikawa 14:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I thought that I did everything correct when writing those articles, maybe I should've doublechecked before submitting. Storm05 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

re:subst:clear

It's listed in the list of templates that should be subst'd, so I followed that. --AySz88^-^ 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? Did I do something wrong? I guess we don't have to follow that if you don't want to. --AySz88^-^ 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

intro

I think it's useful to explain why it was longer, like we did with 2004. One question mark is sufficient. --Golbez 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Hurricane_Maria_September_6_2005.jpg

The image is the original as far as I know, and it came from the Earth Observatory, which is a part of NASA. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Template for the grading scheme, cyclone assessment work

Hi,

I noticed that you created Template:Grading_scheme recently for use on the WP 1.0 assessment explanation page. This is the page where we explain what each grade means, and we link to it in case anyone wonders what "B-Class" actually means. Can you explain the reason for creating a template for the table? My understanding of the software is rather tenuous, so it's not surprising that I don't understand why the new template is needed! Also, I wanted to commend you and others on your cyclones project for looking at assessing your articles. We will be contacting the project soon requesting a list of articles, it looks like you will have one all ready! At WP:Chem we created a worklist to track our assessed articles (380 of them!). Thanks, Walkerma 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply on my talk page, that sounds fine. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I was missing, especially as I recently had to defend one of my templates from deletion over a misunderstanding! Cheers, Walkerma 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tagging Dab pages

I accidentally started tagging pages as |class=dab (lowercase D) instead of |class=Dab . It added the orange "disambig" but didn't give any indication that it wasn't putting things in the right category. I've started correcting it, but perhaps it should accept both lowercase and uppercase? --AySz88^-^ 19:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm done with everything that should have class=Dab. I'm pretty sure Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation and Category:Disambig-Class hurricane articles match now. --AySz88^-^ 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I managed to refresh a few talk pages by editing the page and clicking "Save page" without changing anything. At least, it managed to refresh the name in the category. --AySz88^-^ 01:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Todo

I 100% agree. I'll have that be my next project. Problem though. What do we do about retired storms with next to no info? Some early ones, and the 1990 ones, have extremely little information on it. Hurricanehink 01:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

2002 Season

My apologies... I was adding that information to the season when it was moved... when I saw the edit conflict I assumed that someone had vandalized it... next time i'll check to see if it has been moved before making changes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I just moved most of them back to their original locations... and someone else moved 2002 back. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced hurricane seasons

Uhm, what are the redirects? NSLE _(T+C) 00:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Infobox small

That isn't too bad of an idea, but it seems a little too much for older storms. For the 2005 season, it could work, but there's no need for that much when the sections are very small in pre-2004 seasons.

Now it's my turn to ask a question. For seasons with the pictures and paths, what should we do about the short sections that are 1/10 the size of the table? Should they be filled with more information, or be left as they are? Hurricanehink 00:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'll get around to that one of these days, unless someone else does it (ha!). Hurricanehink 04:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Breaking up the Atlantic storms article request list

God bless your soul. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 03:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I was looking at the timeline of major hurricanes on your page and I noticed a few were missing, like Camille. Would it be okay for me to add her (and maybe others) in or do you just not want anyone to touch your work? Fableheroesguild 03:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with corrections, but if you look closely you'll see that lists only hurricanes that hit the east coast, so Camille isn't supposed to be on there. Jdorje 03:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing your pages

Jdorje, Your user pages are showing up on categories. While working on articles in your user space, you should remove the categories. The easiest way to do this is to turn them into a link by typing :category, so for example, instead of putting this page in the Hurricane category, it appears like this Category:Hurricanes. When you copy over the articles all you have to do is remove the colon. If the categories are from a template, start all templates with tl| this will display the template instead of using it. Any questions? Ask on my talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 08:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: 2005 AHS

Having the headings there helps editing a LOT. It is a pain in the ass to have to scroll down the confusing sameness of the editing page looking for the little thing you want to edit.

"Plus it makes the ToC really ugly." Uh, no it doesn't. The TOC looked just fine to me. What was ugly about it?

"But I still think there should be a separate section that covers just the destruction the season has caused." I agree, but the way it is right doesn't accomplish that in the least. A subpage called something like 'Impact, Recovery and Legacy' should be created with extensive detail on ALL three of those topics plus any others deemed nessisary. Then, in the same article, the specific damages of the five major storms (Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan and Wilma, excluding Emily for now) should be described in detail. Just moving the storms section won't help.

"As for the economic impact section...I don't entirely like this section myself." Merge it with the rest of the article and shorten it. That's how I see it.

• Storms section: Reinstate the storm headings and return some of the flavor that it had before the split. It also needs some reorganizing. You know, with the pictures and stuff.
• Records section: This Humpty Dumpty REALLY needs to get put back together again. This section was shattered and scattered over the various subpages. We need to have a shortened version of the one we had before the split on the main page.
• Images: Not for every storm. For several, but not for all. We need more damage photos (we have like, one or two) and less satellite photos.

That about covers it. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 06:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: No one has ownership of articles, and no one particular way of presenting an article is correct. Consensus is always the most important thing, however here there is no clear-cut one. An RFC should be put underway, leave the page as such until more opinions on it can be assessed. Until then, if anyone changes anything, it will be blatantly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. NSLE _(T+C) 06:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

NSLE, we're just trying to find a middle ground here. We're not planning on making any big changes right now.

Jdorje, you seem to be overobsessing on the length. The ~38KB thing is a recomendation, it isn't policy. Restrictions on length shouldn't be near as tight as you suggest in my opinion. You can't write a good article on a subject as extensive as this and have it be less than 40KB long, you just can't do it. 70-80 KB is about reasonable to me. I also think that many records broken or tied should be mentioned in the main article. Most of them are pretty notable. Just exclude that stupid table with all those tedious earliest-formation records.

"and the "other records" section (which should not exist at all IMO, since nobody can even say what it means)." I agree.

• Images: I'm not saying add more. I'm saying remove and replace. Remove the sat photos of the depressions as a start and stick in 1 or 2 more damage photos in there. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Button Bars

How I can do that thing (the abbreviation)? Like {{2005 Atlantic hurricane season}}

These bars indicate the intensity of the hurricane but I think you're right in some way because with all those infoboxes and storm pics make the button bars useless and obsolete. But I think they look nice juan andrés 04:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you guys were discussing this again; I've though about it and moved towards the center a little bit and I wanted to ask your opinion. I think the usefulness of the bars depends on whether we have tons of individual articles (i.e. 7ish+ individual articles, or one for each storm); it makes navigation much easier with many articles, but not much with fewer. I have to admit, as it is now, there's not that much use in bars (other than possibly 2005) - but they really don't do any harm, and should be kept even if only a little useful (much like {{Viacom}}).

Is there anything wrong with my line of reasoning? --AySz88^-^ 04:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with the bars is (1) the colors are too much and (2) unless you know what each entry means already the bar is not likely to be useful to you. A format like {{ToC2005Atlantichurricaneseason}} is more likely to be useful to the average reader (yet still too colorful I'd say). Jdorje 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. Ginny Pic

The picture is from nasa.gov. earth.nasa.gov Storm05 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Dab

Should we get rid of all "the scope of this article is..." and the dablinks from the top of all Pacific hurricane season articles then? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• The dab links at the top were created by another user during the second attempt to get the 1997 season featured. I just copied it for the 2002 season. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the scope paragraph from all of the season articles I knew had it. The dablinks are dead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Subtropical storm

Got it. Hurricanehink 03:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Energy

Will you please check your discussion page on your energy calculations? I don't want to write what I said there again.Icelandic Hurricane 21:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Article

I've fixed the Hurricane Kyle (2002) article and added more info as well. And I've made a list of names that will replace the names retired from the 2005 and 2006 atlantic hurricane season naming lists. Storm05 20:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't Be Condescending

Don'd be so condescending. If you spent a month or more working your ass off researching and writing an article and then I came to you and said basically, "Wow, this sucks", how would you feel? Pretty frickin' bad, I'll wager. I've seen you do this on multiple occations. You need to have more appreciation for the hard work of others. List what needs to be done, don't insult another person's work, even if it really isn't very good. They spent the time and energy to make this information available to you, you didn't. And, yes, mediocre is an insulting word when describing someone's work. Please be mindful of that. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Cease the personal attacks and incivility, Eric. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 00:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't know what the above was about. If you were offended, I apologize. I don't see how my above post could possibly be percieved as a personal attack. "Mediocre" just sounded a little harsh to me. I was basically just warning you to watch what you say or how you phrase things, because it can really come back and bite you in the butt. I'm speaking from personal experience, by the way. And you seem to have gotten the message, so I'll shut up now. ;) -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Todo

Long time no see my friend. What's next on my list? I was planning to do a redo of Agnes, which is pretty good, but I want to add more. Not sure about Hugo. I personally like going from scratch, and finding things on my own. I'll get there eventually, but storms like Georges, Gloria, and Fran, which currently have little, should get done before B class articles that just need some organization. Also, I now prefer to do storms in the last 20 years first, then work backwards. Maybe you should ask around, like on the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season talk page. Good to see you around, and talk to you later. Hurricanehink 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, would you be willing to work as a team to create storm paths for tropical depressions? It isn't a necessity, though it would be nice. If you are interested, can you send me an example of what your program requires to produce track map data? This might occur in the (unlikely) event a tropical depression gets an article. Let me know. Hurricanehink 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, depressions are doable. Could you possibly upload the following and see what turns up? I tried converting it for Tropical Depression Ten from 2004.

64015 09/07/2004 M=0 15 SNBR=1326 NOT NAMED   XING=0                          L
64020 09/07*0000000   0    0*0000000   0    0*3150397  25 1009*3170393  25 1009*
64025 09/08*3200387  25 1010*3230381  25 1011*3280371  25 1012*3380360  25 1012*
64030 09/09*3530350  30 1012*3620343  30 1013L3650336  30 1013L3600334  30 1014*
64035 09/10L3570323  30 1014L3550310  25 1015L3530295  20 101600000000   0    0*
64040 TD

Hopefully that is correct. Not sure what to say about the WPAC/Indian/Southern Hemisphere, but hopefully somewhere that exists. Typically, 115 knots is a Category 4, due to lack of rounding, it is 132/3 mph. A Cat 4 is over 131, so rounding to 135 is no biggie. If that is causing a rounding error in your program, you should fill in 115 as 120. By the map, a Cat. 4 is a Cat. 4, so if a different number gives the correct answer, that works. About Andrew, not sure. Maybe make the point before landfall as a Category 5? Something should be done, but what? Maybe you should ask around, get others' opinions on that and other technical problems. Keep up the great work. Hurricanehink 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that turned out nicely! If I keep doing this, would you be fine with it being in the articles? Hurricanehink 12:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

True about it never getting updated... If we're doing Atlantic depressions, should we do all of them, or only those with a section in a seasonal article? If we are doing them, it shouldn't go back too far, only 1987 IMO due to lack of TD information before then. Good idea having a separate TD file page, just in case there are mistakes in our work. Peronsonally, I feel TD's have been underestimated, and are basically minimal Tropical Storms without the necessary winds. Hopefully a track map and some information will change people's minds. Hurricanehink 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, and I'll convert 2003's next. Do you know where we should put the depressions yet? Hurricanehink 17:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. A lot of the seasonal articles from 1950 through 1990 have pretty low quality, but decent content. You're right. All they really need is some fairly minor fixes. Personally, I would help, but college auditions for music school, choir, jazz band, etc. means my life is getting to be too busy for serious Wikipedia commitment. Good luck, though with the re-writing. Hopefully it's not too bad. Hurricanehink 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yea, nice work with the storm tracks! Hurricanehink 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you possibly do me a favor? Could you drop by the Talk:1987 Atlantic hurricane season page give your opinion in the arguement HurricaneCraze32 and I are having. You'll see it when you get there. Hurricanehink 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hurricanehink 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea with that. Hurricanehink 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's STD 22 from 2005.

64045 10/08/2005 M=0 22 SNBR=1327 NOT NAMED   XING=0                          L
64050 10/08*0000000   0    0S2610574  30 1009S2770585  30 1008S2880601  30 1009*
64055 10/09S2930620  25 1009S2930633  25 1009S2950645  25 1009S3000652  25 1009*
64060 10/10S3070660  25 1009L3160675  30 1009L3250689  30 1009L3350700  30 1008*
64065 10/11L3430710  30 1008L3550717  30 1008E3670718  30 1008E3780717  30 1008*
64070 10/12E3850719  30 1009E3880724  30 1010E3890730  35 1011E3870735  40 1011*
64075 10/13E3830735  40 1010E3770735  40 1010E3720730  40 1008E3780730  40 1006*
64080 10/14E3800734  40 1006E3760738  40 1005E3860738  35 1005E3960738  30 1005*
64085 TD

Hurricanehink 16:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Damage from Hurricane Dennis

When I looked at the damage for Hurricane Dennis, it said $4-6 billion in damage. I know that there has been $2.23 billion of damage in the US. It said that therre was at least that much damage in the Caribbean. But there was no source. Lionheart Omega 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Damaging Atlantic Hurricanes

I was thick that maybe we could make a graph like the one for the one the Most damaging US Hurricanes, but have it cover damages all over the Atlantic. Can you tell me your thoughts? Lionheart Omega 03:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I just found on Worldbook.com that Fifi caused $900 million in damage. Do you think it is refering to 1974 dollars or 2005 dollars?Lionheart Omega 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Looked on the same page in World Book and went to Andrew. It said it caused an estimated $20 billion in damage, so Fifi is probably in 1974 dollars at World Book. Using the Inflation Calculator, Westegg.com, it says that is equivalent today to $3.742 billion. Lionheart Omega 11:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Letting you know, I'm going through the Hurricanes to get total damages, and then, if needed adding inflation to it using Westegg.com Inflation calculator. I'm doing this so eventually, the Tropical Cyclones Wikiproject can make a {{Costliest Atlantic hurricanes}} Let me know your thoughts. Lionheart Omega 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It said at the NHC site that it caused $7 billion to the mainland US, and $3 billion to the Caribbean, which includes $1 billion to the US territories in the Atlantic. This adds up to $10 billion. Then, if you use the Westegg.com inflation calculator for this amount of money at 1989 and put the ending year at 2005, you get $15.587 billion. I rounded it to $15.6 billion. I did same for Ivan, and I will round it. Lionheart Omega 03:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Could I have help with Frances and Jeanne. Get to me ASAP, please. Lionheart Omega 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding all the information on damages caused by Frances. It says in the article there was a US total damage of $9 billion. Is the $1 billion from Puerto Rico included. Also, what about damages from the Bahamas? Lionheart Omega 03:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Finally found information on damage in Bahamas from Frances. About $600 million. Look at this source! Lionheart Omega 00:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Loop Current not proper noun?

A Google search seems to reveal that "Loop Current" actually is a proper noun... (http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/loop-current.html, http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/QD6.1/spin.html) Should it be moved back? --AySz88^-^ 04:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

References

Yes, I do prefer the template:ref/template:note form of referencing because AFAIK it allows me to be sure that there is a one-to-one correspondence between an inline citation and its footnote. IMO, the way some people do it with multiple cites to the same footnote is confusing because if you have a choice of several places to return to, its hard to know where each one goes. If you think that the other way is better I'll change it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

re: AWB and cyclones

Your right and I shouldn't target a specific set of articles just to prove a point, I'll stop doing that. That being said I'm not going to limit or curtail my use of AWB only due to specific articles though I'll try to be wary of the edits I do on articles where categories and such are specifically organized. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeta Picture

The picture currently there is from December 30. I know that at that point, it wasn't at maximum strength. Should we find a picture of when it was close to maximum Strength. Say around 9 UTC Jan 3 to around 12 UTC Jan 4. Let me know what you think. Lionheart Omega 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just found thisat NASA what do you think? Lionheart Omega 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)