User talk:Nilfanion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Re: what is the damage figure here?

Why are you asking that...? The data is in there. It's even in dollars to avoid those problems with people that don't live in Mexico juan andrés 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't well written that part, but that doesn't matter now. That's the reason I removed the costs listed from that page and I put those from the report. juan andrés 21:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Arlene

Just so you know, I added some major information to the Arlene article, so that's one less storm you'll do. Hurricanehink 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Grr, I hate when storms do that. I don't know, ask someone else. It was late when I added that in. Hurricanehink 11:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, that works. Copyediting is a little annoying, but it's needed. That's a good goal, getting all 2005 storms to B class, and I repeat, good luck. I know I said I try to stay out of the 2005 season, but when I was referring to that, I meant operationally. Now that the season's over, it's no longer "new", and I'll work on that like just like other seasons. Hurricanehink 19:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. About the pic, you should ask an admin, but I think it's public domain. You have to use the scissors icon and copy and paste the picture if it is in fact PD. If you want, I'll do it. Hurricanehink 21:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

infobox multi

Shortly before I saw the discussion on the wikiproject talk page, I redirect {{infobox hurricane multi}} because the regular infobox has all the features it has (i.e., it shows multiple scales). However I didn't realize there was such emphasis on showing "equivalent of" before the SSHS scale (which I think is wrong since a storm that is a Cat5 on the SSHS *is* a Cat5, it's not "the equivalent" of it). Anyway, there should only be one infobox - but any changes you want to make can be added to the {{infobox hurricane}}. — jdorje (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think calling something "unofficial" is tricky because then we have to decide whether every value is official or unofficial. For instance the NHC gives windspeeds for older storms but doesn't always give an official max SSS category. As for winds, I like having separate fields for the template: "max gusts", "max 1-min winds", and "max 10-min winds". Then these can all be shown (if they are given). — jdorje (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point; in the case where there is no official data we can just add "(estimated)" or simply leave that value out. — jdorje (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You should add a link to your talk page into your signature. Go to "my preferences", then edit the "nickname" field and save. Mine is set to "— [[User:Jdorje|jdorje]] <small>([[User_talk:jdorje|talk]])</small>", but everyone seems to have their own format. Having a link to your talk page makes direct replies simpler. — jdorje (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures and assessments

Well, looking at the image of the Arlene flooding, I cannot determine if it is PD or not, so we should be safe and not claim PD; only US Federal Govt. images are known to be PD, and different states have different copyrights attached to their images. However, we can make a strong fair use case for that image, so you can upload it at reduced resolution, and stating that it is for that same article. Also, tag it with {{fairusereview}} so someone more knowledgeable can look at it later.

For lower grades in the assessement scale, you can just change them if you have done significant work in the article; however, if you're going to push it to GA-Class, you have to nominate it at WP:GAN, and if you want to push it up to A-Class, it has to be requested at the assessment page, as we look at those articles as the ones ready for FAC. As for Impact vs. Aftermath, it is a blurry line; the impact of the storm is due to meteorological conditions immediately after the storm, while the aftermath refers to the longer-term effects of the storm. (At least that's the way I understand it.) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, if you find any great source for Nora, feel free to poke me so I can add it to that article... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Need Help

Lesser Notable But Strong Hurricanes

I could use help getting it edited-badly.If you want to know more,contact me.HurricaneCraze32 20:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Here's a list of storms you shouldn't focus on:

Karl, Kate, Erin, Isaac, Nicole, Erika, Florence, Floyd, Bonnie ('92), Claudette, Marco- Klaus has an article already, Helene, Josephine, Barry, Debby, Harvey, Karl, Clara, Frances, or CarolineHurricaneCraze32 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

GAs

The problem with GAs is that they are a fairly new system still under development. However, I disagree with the idea that FAs can only be given to articles which merit tens of kilobytes of prose; if an article is complete, it is verifiable, it is sourced, and it is well written, it should be given at least consideration for FA status. A split in GA might be necessary if most editors do not agree with that, but it would be horribly repetitive and redundant in my opinion. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Storm Images

LOL, my school work has dropped to about 0. In fact, it's been pretty low all year because I'm a senior. However, it is a very useful link for storm images. Too bad it only goes back to 2000, and it is really time consuming. Oh well. Good luck to you with your school work. By the way, great job with 2005. Irene turned out well, and I am surprised it got to FA. Best of luck finishing the work, and I look forward to your future work. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, you're from Europe, are you? Cool! Luckily you never have to deal with the storms up close and personal. Yea, way too much tedium with the images, though you can probably unleash it on someone else. If anything is ever too much, feel free to ask someone. I'm happy to give you some help. You've progressed well over the last few weeks (months?). Thanks for the kind words, as well. Maybe we could have the Tropical Cyclone Wikipedian of the month? It could appear on the Wikiproject home page. We should recognize the people who have made the project as awesome as it is. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but it's rare, at least. A Brit, are ya? That's cool! :) You're probably right with the non-Atlantic basins, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. For example, I just checked a date at random (February 5, 2002), and found this extratropical/subtropical storm in the South Atlantic. Nowhere else could you get an image like that. Of course, you have to get lucky. Cyclone Vance was hitting Australia on the same day, but, in this image, it is left-biased and you don't get the entire storm, at least as opposed to this image. It has potential, and we'll see where it leads. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice pix! Yea, Katrina is off-centered, but for that image, I think it works. It shows its future path towards Louisiana, and there's no real need to have Florida in the pic (it already passed it). Still, though, the system does have its problems. On Camille, yea, the 901 is unofficial. I seriously doubt it would be downgraded to a Category 4... Maybe (low chance) at landfall but the 905 is probably close to being correct. I really wish the HURDAT people would go faster. They're only at 1930 and they have 70 years left. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Katrina

Great... (insert expletive). I would love to help, but... (tries to come with an excuse), I don't like the 2005 articles. Yea, that's it. Seriously though, I prefer to write new information. I really don't know how to go from B or GA class to FA class. I just know how to go from Start to FA. I'll see what I can do in the coming weeks. We have some time, as I just put Claudette up for FAC. That should be about a week or two before ending (whether it passes or fails). After that, Katrina should be ready... hopefully. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's a start to the Cuba section. The storm dropped over 12 inches of rain in northwestern Cuba. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What exuses???? :) Hey, you signed up for the job, so you gotta finish it. Come to think of it, we shouldn't have to deal with this. There's enough Katrina people around that they should do it. There really should be a Katrina Wikiproject, or Sub-project, just to organize the dearth of information. Those people probably know the storm better than we do (hopefully, but you never know), and probably have the patience to work through the sub-articles. If not, I suppose I'll try and help. Good work so far. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would care. Those sub-sections work. To mix Cuba and Bahamas, you could to Greater Antilles. Caribbean is a little misleading. You could do "Southeast United States" for Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. I'm not sure if there's enough for Canada. If there is, then have fun, but if not, then Canada could be put with other US states. Then, it could be retitled, Other North America. Have fun! Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but it is the off-season. It's not hurricane time, so not too many people care. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested, here's some emergency reports from Florida for Katrina. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Impact should be 2 paragraphs minimum for a relatively major area. Florida and Cuba should probably be combined, as I doubt there's enough info for just a Cuba section. I don't know. Maybe ask on the talk page. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but school is getting a little busy with finals. You do not want to see me without Wikipedia ;) Yea, the feud is a little annoying... I tried telling Hurricanecraze that you don't own articles, but I'm not sure if he is listening. It would be good for an RFA, but I don't care too much to become an admin. It would probably have too much pressure. I just like to edit hurricane articles, really. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Rainfall

Allison (2001)

As it was, little of the rainfall in northern Alabama and northern Mississippi had much to do with Allison. I didn't think any of the rainfall in Tennessee was due to Allison, that's all. Thegreatdr 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Katrina (2005)

Not knowing whether you want the point maximum in the United States or some areal average, I don't know how to answer your Katrina question. I do have an Excel spreadsheet of the rainfall totals, if that is what you would like to see. In real time, HPC does tropical cyclone public advisories for depressions or extratropical remnants of tropical cyclones that still bear a heavy rainfall impact. Go to the tropical section of the HPC web page and dig through the archives to see what I mean. And oh yes, we do care about rainfall impacts outside the United States. We were tasked to provide the rainfall forecast section of the tropical cyclone public advisory, regardless of who issues it, for all lands bordering the eastern Pacific and Atlantic ocean. Hence the addition of the Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology page to wikipedia; this information was gathered during the past year or so while on a quest to find tropical cyclone rainfall totals for the landmasses surrounding the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific basins so we could provide realistic estimates, using climatology as a guide. Thegreatdr 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of gaining access to data from other country's archives to expand the project to cover countries surrounding the Atlantic and eastern Pacific basins (a side project of mine at work.) At the moment, the information I have from other countries is fragmentary since the information available from many areas is merely a 24 hour maximum during a tropical cyclone, not storm total; these are gleaned mainly from the annual WMO hurricane reports and occasional references in TPC tropical cyclone reports. Hurricane Lenny is the only storm where I tackled a storm total graphic outside of U.S. dependencies in the Caribbean since there actually was information available from many of the Lesser Antilles. The Hurricane Ophelia graphic, which included Canadian information, was extended into Canada after I received information from a collegue with Environment Canada. It will likely be some time before we have a systematic collection of gage- based storm total rainfall graphics for locations outside the United States. Thegreatdr 15:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Importance of page

I will try not to take the mid-importance tag badly...I know it needs a bit more work/information from a number of countries outside the United States, which may take quite some time. Just realize this is the ONLY attempt to comprehensively try to cover rainfall information regarding tropical cyclones worldwide that I am aware of anywhere (including the internet and refereed articles in meteorological journals). What does mid-importance actually mean? Thegreatdr 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My absence

Sorry for bailing on you. I just got distracted by other things and then my hard drive crashed last week so it's been kind of crazy lately. I've essentially descided to duck out of the 2005 articles. I'll concede that tradition will not carry on. The users on the 05 pages know where I stand and whether they choose to care or not is their choice, I should have realized that a long time ago. I will try and maintain the traditional format in the older articles. I do have a sort of sentimental attachment to it. Just to let you know, for the forseeable future, I will be less active than I have been in the past. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 02:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1995 Season

I liked your idea for working on the 2005 season so i decided to take 1995 under my hands.Can you give me tips?HurricaneCraze32 23:10, 26 May 2006 (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 flexable, 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. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey! ;) Something like a newsletter sounds like a good idea. That could also feature the member of the month idea we've been talking about, as well as article statistics, a general todo, and a FA todo list (listing storms that should become FA's and what's left to do with them). There could be a storm of the month (which would be voted on and then have a summary). That has a lot of potential. Since it was your idea, you should suggest it. I'd support it. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, new articles could be mentioned there. It's too late for June, but we should get thinking about July before it's too late (sometimes people here procrastinate a bit, myself included). Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. I notice you expanded your todo list back to 2003. Would you want to do all storms for both of those seasons? I would gladly help. As you've already seen, I'm working on 2004, with Alex, Bonnie, and Matthew all redone. If both of us worked on it, it wouldn't take too long to go through Charley, Frances, Gaston, Ivan, and Jeanne. After that, making articles for Danielle, Earl, Hermine, Karl, Lisa, Nicole, and Otto shouldn't be too bad. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure what that was, but OK. That's fine on your position on the anti- all articles. Take your time finishing 2005. Yea, Ophelia is probably going to be a fun one.... right. Just to let you know, I brought up the newsletter idea on the Wikiproject page. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. I have one of those in my mind, and it's amazing how much still needs to be done. Basically, all work now is on Wikiproject: Tropical cyclones Version 2.0. The first version was the rough version of the retired storms, and the yearly databases. That's how I view it, at least. It does seem useful, but not in its current form with just the letters :P J/k. I'm sure you'll get around to filling it in. For the all articles, even 1998 is probably too far back. For all storms, 2003 is probably the limit, though all landfalling storms could go back to around 1998, with all U.S. landfalling storms back further to around 1992, IMO. Yea, the table makes good sense for its purpose. Also, don't forget to include 1952 Groundhog Day Tropical Storm and the 1991 Halloween Nor'easter on the unnamed storms part. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of todo! True, Irene standard articles could probably be made back to then, but they would be a little boring, IMO. Assuming we did go back to 1998 (which would be interesting to do), there would be Alex, Ivan, Jeanne, Karl, Lisa, Nicole, Cindy, Emily, Alberto, Chris, Ernesto, Nadine, Felix, Lorenzo, Noel, Dolly, Josephine, Danny, Kate, Nicholas, Peter, Danielle, Karl (2004), Lisa (2004), Nicole (2004), and Otto would have to be done that did not have impact on land. The rest could have at least some sort of impact section. That is not that bad. That is only 26, of which 8 are back to 2003. 2003 might not be the limit, come to think of it. Ivan, Jeanne, and Karl all could have a records section (4 hurricanes at once). Emily has plenty of bogus discussions, including one forecast of a 100 mph hurricane in the Leeward Islands. Alberto could have a records section (longevity). Nicholas had some impact after the storm dissipated. Peter could have records. 1998 is actually conceivable. That could be a long-term project, but for now we have enough of what needs to be done. We still need to get all 2003 and 2004 articles to B class before we should think about having all articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

True. When I said we, I meant the project. That could work on the Wikipage as a constant reminder of what needs to be done. I tried a numerical version of the data, so the more reminders of how much work there is ahead of us, the better. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Very good idea of yours. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NHC quotes

Yeah, I saw your edit summary in reply. Cheers. "Part deux", the only storm to require that last season... and they didn't even realise it was really probably TS Pilar... heh. NSLE _(T+C) at 17:13 UTC (2006-06-01)

By the way, could you leave your opinion at Talk:Typhoon Chanchu (2006)#Name? Cheers. NSLE _(T+C) at 17:39 UTC (2006-06-01)

Sorry to but in, but I found a quote that describes the entire season. "SO FAR...THE 2005 HURRICANE SEASON SEEMS TO HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN CLIMATOLOGY." This is from Tropical Storm Emily's 8th Discussion, located here. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Unfortunately, 2004 was a little boring in terms of discussions, IIRC. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Reanalysis

I'm not in position to know for sure (nor could I reveal many specifics outside of the storms I've reanalyzed myself), but I know an initial push was made to get through the 1930's in 2004 and 2005. There is a committee that meets on this issue at NHC, mainly during the off season. Many people, including myself, have contributed to the reanalysis in various ways, but are not on the committee, which is fine. My main contribution was the hurricane histories for TX, LA, and VA. Every so rarely I go to the Library of Congress to look up additional information, if it appears that it will be helpful, and a couple years ago I looked into the 1951-1955 time frame cherry picking the best candidates and writing some reports. The TC rainfall climatology isn't shabby either, but it's an unconnected project. Thegreatdr 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ophelia

Before I copyedit it, I'll say a few things that need to be done. The intro should be 2 or more paragraphs. Another picture of the hurricane is needed. Were any people evacuated from the hurricane? The impact section is a little disorganized. The easiest way to have a good impact section is to have the first paragraph cover meteorlogical statistics, with the second covering damage. The whole Katrina thing needs a source, and could probably go in preparations. Also, the George Bush declaration should go in aftermath, along with any other possible aftermath. The Carolina picture doesn't make much sense being in Canada, too. I'll copyedit it later when that's done. No sense in starting when more changes are under way. Good job with it, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea, the three paragraph preparations section is a little long. Two would be fine. Also, metrication is my word! Get your own :P (j/k). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good to know. Yea, the Ophelia type storm is always fun to do. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, that's too bad. I'm encountering this problem with Hurricane Charley. Rather than making upgrades to an old, rocky road, why not just build a new highway? By this metaphor, I mean just redoing the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #1

This looks awesome so far. However, on my talkpage, it appears to break the background I have set for it. Can you, from now on, link me to a specific revision or something? Thanks. -- RattleMan 00:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've put my name on the link section. Could you put a link for the current issue as well? -- RattleMan 00:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had that page on my watchlist, and when I saw you add that div, I tested it by added it to mine (Show preview), and all was fine, no broken page; but I still want it as a link from now on. Thanks for working hard on this project :) -- RattleMan 09:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Interference/Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones 2.0

It seems like there are a few of us that are working hard on reworking the existing storm and seasonal articles. In essense, we're rebuilding the Wikiproject with a new start; more info, better sourcing, and no mistakes this time. However, it seems like there are a few others that are sort of detrimental to our cause. All they want to do is make new articles for the fact of making new articles. I'm for new articles, but based on their previous work they would likely do a poor job with the article, making us redo it and adding more to the work load. What do you think we should do with those other people? Should we let them be, let them make their articles, and have us fix their errors? Or, should we try and convince them to not make new articles nicely, and have them work on existing articles? I'm trying the latter, but it's not working well. They still have a wishlist for storms that don't need articles, and they are still doing a bad job with grammar and spelling, not to mention sourcing and info. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just converted one. Now the question is, do we trust them with the retired hurricane articles? Will they do more harm than good, or will they find a place to work in peace? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. True, it doesn't add much to the workload, but it is a bit of a shame that we will spend as much work as they did. The whole ownership thing is very annoying in this case. I've redone Isabel (1985) and Matthew (2004), yet the author's still think they did a lot of work. ::Sigh:: Hopefully we won't have to go back and fix their mistakes for the retired storms. Looking at Iris, this might be the case. The list of thing is another good idea, but look at the List of New England hurricanes. While it is a good idea, it isn't the best of articles, and would probably require a lot of work from one of us experienced editors to make it good. I just had a very interesting idea. What if we sent them to the Simple English Wikipedia? I know that sounds horrible, but this could solve our problem. They're writing, you have admit, isn't the best, yet it's not very advanced. Provided they learn how to spell (you never know), that would be a great solution! Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to Simple Wikipedia. Am I horrible for suggesting this? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, too complicated for Simple Wikipedia, too basic for regular Wikipedia. What if we told them that they had to use a spell checker, and they could only use simple words? Someone would have to keep checks on them, making sure they're accurate and spelling correctly, but the "interferers" be able to create articles and write not unlike they have been. Yea, their interest in hurricanes is very valuable, but their lack of typing abilities isn't very useful. Better pictures could work, but pictures are hard to do. Most non .gov sites can't be used, while some .gov can't as well. Fair use is hardest of all, so pictures might be an unwise decision. Maybe another task would work. It would have to be something simple, but probably shouldn't be a popular page. I'll keep thinking. Well, should we at least ask them whether they'd be interested in the Simple Wikipedia? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have our first guinea pig. Cyclone 1 is now working on Roxanne. Looking at the writing, it looks perfect for what would be in the Simple English. There's no spelling errors, and the sentences are short and easy to read. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I asked him. I think we should also ask Icelandic Hurricane and Hurricanecraze 32. Their writing is probably too simplistic here, yet would be perfect for there. What do you think? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, satellite images is probably the biggest grunt work of all. I doubt anyone would want to search for satellite archives to find a few images. That's just plain mean of you to suggest it ;) One more thing. Seeing as you are a fan of the List of XXX hurricanes, are you going to ever do a List of Europe hurricanes? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!!! Talk about grunt work. I asked another user if he wanted to help out. Europe won't be too long. You could base if off of the List of Arizona hurricanes. It might be annoying, but it would be neat to see every tropical cyclone that affected Europe. Some of the impacting ones include Debbie (1961- 6 deaths and heavy damage), Charley (heavy damage in U.K.), Arlene (1987, heavy rainfall in Spain), Lili (1996, heavy damage), and Maria (2005, 1 death). It actually could be pretty long. Since 1995, I count 12 that impacted Europe (including Iceland). You could probably also get away with including the Azores and the Canary Islands, seeing as they're British territories. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, my mind said European territories, but my hands typed British. Sorry about that... LOL. That would be a great article, too, but look at the List of New Jersey hurricanes. Only a few had any significant impact. I think a list of all storms impacting Europe would be a very interesting article, though it could be made down the road. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I wrote them, but I am not responsible for the Pagasa names. I just copied and pasted the existing info, but due to laziness and lack of info I stopped at 1990. Good luck with the disambigs. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

<--- This list I've been working on for a few months might be of some use. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea sure, if you want. I'm not sure how you could expand it more, as it is currently already a page wide, but you could probably shorten the columns to 4 or 3 if needed. My page could potentially be very useful someday, once every name is in there. It would solve all disambiguation problems, and would be the only place where you could find such a list. I have Atlantic, EPAC, CPAC, and WPAC (JTWC names) from ~1948-2005. It didn't go earlier because I couldn't find a source on their names, and due to my suspected ADD which prevents me from working on one task for long periods of time. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

New articles

I've just stumbled over his (okay, not really :P), and while I totally agree about Storm05, Hurricanecraze32, Cyclone1 and Icelandic Hurricane (IH's still okay-ish, I guess), and that perhaps we should suggest they help us "expand" to Simple, I think you guys really shouldn't target all who make new articles.

In the past two months I've made Hurricane Dot (1959), Typhoon Dot (1985) and Typhoon Joan (1970), all which received DYK mentions and are just shy of B-class because of lack of impact information (as is perhaps to be expected). I'm also working on a draft of Super Typhoon Kate from 1970. I'd like to think my work is a notch higher than the editors I've mentioned, please don't group me with them? NSLE _(T+C) at 01:02 UTC (2006-06-06)

Tropical Cyclone WikiProject

Yes, I swear that I had already signed up...but I don't participate much in all of the information stuff because a lot of people that do this know more than me and there's not a lot I can contribute until the season starts. But I saw the newsletter thing and then I went to see if I signed up...the main reason I signed up was so that I could get the newsletter. bob rulz 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy smokes. The name of every named cyclone that ever existed? Is that what you're asking? Would this include names that were never used? I know someone who may have the latter, actually. Otherwise, the HURDAT for the Atlantic and Pacific east of the Dateline could probably be run through a simple Perl program to extract the names. The WestPac would be a bit more complex since there are several warning centers that have named tropical cyclones over the past 56 or so years. There is a HURDAT-like file from JTWC as well, and probably similar files from JMA, PAGASA, and Australia. Sounds like a large project, actually. I'd likely have to search the same way you would for most of that information. Give me a couple days and I'll see if I can easily find something relevant. Thegreatdr 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, those amounts are correct for Reunion. The island has a bit of elevation, and systems in the South Indian Ocean and Southwest Pacific don't move very fast. Thegreatdr 19:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Added the missing names for the 1950s and 1960s, renamed the page per the discussion page, and added additional wikilinks to in-house articles. Thegreatdr 20:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: FEMA

Thanks for that link. I always find those individual links when googling storm info, but was never able to find the master site. The photo archive is great, and I uploaded a better damage pic. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That is really weak. What else is unfortunate is that storm summaries only go back to 1998. They have pages back to 1953, so you can say President X declared the state a disaster area, but there's no details. Still, it's a great site for modern storms. Very neat about the 1703 storm. I can't imagine tropical characteristics, though Storm05 would, LOL :) That's crazy how damaging it was. Wealth-normalized, is it the costliest British storm? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, and too bad it's been forgotten. LOL about Storm05. He must also think that Tropical Storm Grace was a Category 5 hurricane at landfall :P Hurricanehink (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My sandbox

Should we just get rid of the many N/A's in it? It might be a pain to add them all in. Also, do you have WPAC naming before 1959? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I replaced TD and CPAC with *'s and ^'s. Could you add the rest of the WPAC names, as I wasn't sure of before 1951. I'll remove the N/A's later on. For southern Hemisphere, I think it should be in the calendar year they formed in. Using this format, the Atlantic Alice in 1954 should have 2 1954 Alices, not the 1955 one, right? Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, and good luck. Yea, I was thinking of adding the disambigs and the links to the articles, but that would take a lot of time. In addition, there's the problem that the Atlantic Ocean and the North Indian Ocean area the only areas where every named storm has a section. Most seasons in other basins only have the notable storms. The disambiguations are easy, though I'm not sure if the seasonal linking (like for the 1998 Alex, it would be 1998) would be worth the trouble. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It will probably be fairly hard, though mainly just tedious work. Good job on A. Whoops about the alphabetical order, but I'm only human. I made the entire list from scratch back during my college auditions, so I was half-asleep while here on Wikipedia. I'm sure there's a few more errors, like lack of linkage to existing articles and (hopefully not) incorrect years. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been doing an awesome job with that. Good luck finding the Fiji names. A question comes to mind. What should it be called when it's time for publishing? It could be List of tropical cyclone names, though it would be confusing with Lists of tropical cyclone names. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice, List of named tropical cyclones works. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to DYK, we'll have to copy and paste it, so that's fine. Your suggestion works. (Insert thumbs up) :) Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did a few minor edits. The records look correct. Just curious, did you mention all of the retired names listed here? One storm (Fifi) was missing from the listing. All in all, though, it looks ready to be published. One more thing, could you put the sites you used for some of the naming in the external links? I know someone is going to freak out that there are no inline sources, but there's no need for that. Good luck with the disambiguations. That will truely be the project from hell! Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This site. It lists all of the retired names in the southern hemisphere. That site will also help with the renaming. Unfortunately, it's as of 2004. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Great... Don't you love it when two sources contradict? You'd think that somewhere, someplace would have the Fiji names. Well, that list should still be mentioned. Maybe the Australians were wrong with Fifi? --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember how I said there were places on the WPTC I didn't like to go near? One was modern seasons, and the other was southern hemisphere seasons. This is the exact reason I don't like southern hemisphere seasons; not enough info and too many contradictions. I have no idea what we should do on this. Maybe that page could be mentioned on the newsletter as something that could be expanded? --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Good luck with the disambiguations. It will be hard, probably, but I suppose it's needed and for the best. Like I said about the 2005 season storms, if you scream for help we'll hear it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Other subpage

I was wondering about that earlier, and I finally figured it out: I think the templates I use on it have an "include this category on any page this template is inserted on". So unless I subst: everything and take it out or something, they will have to stay. Others don't seem to have a problem with it. Thanks! -- RattleMan 22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked over what I had, and realized I didn't really need to have it there; one can check the history of the page if they want to see what I had there. So now, it's just down to 3 things, and there are no categories attached to it. :) -- RattleMan 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Allison

Could you give a look through the Allison article? I just finished giving it a complete makeover (compare to this), and I just wanted an extra pair of eyes. I'm pretty sure I got all of the metric units, so you should be happy about that :P I'm comtemplating putting this up for the next TC FAC after Katrina is done, so the more help the better. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Do you prefer miles, or something else? Yea, the metrication sucks, but it was worth it if I don't have to do it later. Good with Ophelia, too. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Good luck with the changeover. Thanks. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Interesting images

That system isn't that bad! That link is a visible shot to the same storm. It looks very interesting, though nothing to get too excited about. As you mentioned in the Huroncane debate, Polar lows are apparently warm core, which makes the dividing line between PL's and TC's very blurred. However, this thing is likely extratropical given the time of year. Regardless, great find to an interesting image. Maybe this shouldn't get out. If it did, some users who are crazy about making articles would start a 2002 Atlantic Polar Low Season! :P Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Very nice images, and awesome find with the MODIS version of the Black Sea storm. Yea, the Feb storm was certainly interesting, and that's crazy it came and went in 2 days. LOL, it did look better than Vince, though Vince had the benifit of the doubt of being a tropical cyclone. I think you're giving them too much credit. They'd probably name it Hurricane Arthur thinking that the NHC screwed up not naming it, LOL. I left a comment about the Huroncane on the talk page that could work as a solution. A Hurricane Pam article, while interesting, might be better as a part of Katrina. As seen in this FEMA article, it clearly shows a Katrina like scenario for Louisiana a year before the storm struck. That should definetly go in the preparations section, as there were plans for LA. However, an article would be very interesting... Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, ok fine, they might accept that. Good luck with Pam, and let me know when it's finished. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

List of named tropical cyclones

Please tell me that your new article List of named tropical cyclones isn't a copy-and-paste from Hurricanehink's Sandbox. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is, it would be a difficult to fix Cut and paste move. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article, List of named tropical cyclones, was selected for DYK!

On June 30, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of named tropical cyclones, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)