Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 4

message: I was not aware of this project when I first started converting over tables to templates.  So, I want to make sure that any work I have done, or will create is compatible.  Therefore, I have a few suggestions/questions:
* Templates should have the basin name, or "worldwide" in the name.
* All tables should be templates.  This makes bolding of the hurricane name possible in the referenced page, if the storm/season set a record.  It also makes updating and confirmation of records easier.
* I created , but it should be moved to something like 
* As discussed by Jdorje, the Atlantic hurricane records should probably be merged with the Atlantic basin information on the tl|List of notable tropical cyclones moved to a new page titled List of notable Atlantic hurricanes, or similar.
* I created  which should be named .
* I was also working on a template that would say something like "Record Setting [season/hurricane/typhoon]" "This [season/hurricane/typhoon] holds [number] records. See the [page link]".  This would provide a quick link to the page that has records.
* Appreciate any comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism. 
* Add my name to the project, if it is warranted.
--Mcmillen76 18:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I've uploaded a vast number of tracking charts.  See  for a complete list.  All Atlantic and EPac storms that have articles should now have tracking charts to go with them.  I also uploaded charts for Atlantic cat5's that didn't have articles (these are included in the season articles, though I don't rule out the possibility for writing articles for these storms).  Also (as an exercise) I uploaded tracks for all the named 2005 storms.  I don't have much for wpac, nindian, or southern storms yet though; these are harder since the JTWC "best-track" data doesn't include storm names (only numbers).  It is now well within the realm of possibility for me to upload a storm track for every known Atlantic hurricane (1851-present) to be included in their season pages...although with the controversy caused by including the 2005 tracks I don't plan to do this any time soon.  One thing that could be done to help here is to help set up redirects from the "canonical" name I have used for linking storms from their tracks on wikipedia commons (like Hurricane Hugo (1989) or 1900 Galveston hurricane) to the actual articles. Jdorje 19:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem is the naming of numbered storms like Tropical Cyclone 05B.  If I treat this as an unnamed storm it should be :Image:1999 05B tropical cyclone track.png.  As a named storm it would be :Image:05B 1999 track.png. Jdorje 20:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, interesting problem there. The 5B will probably be sufficent, but that's just me. Not sure what to say about the storm tracks. Not every year before 1950 mentions every storm. Hurricanehink 20:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storm tracks 

message: The current setup for southern hemisphere seasons is confusing and hard to follow because it sometimes seperates individual storms into different sections when it enters a new basin. I propose abolishing the major basin headings and replacing it with a season summary/activity section that goes something like this: "This season, 4 cyclones formed in the south Pacific, 9 formed in the southeast indian ocean, and 14 formed in the southwest Indian Ocean. One of the south Pacific cyclones crossed into the SE Indian Ocean, and 3 of the SE Indian cyclones crossed into the SW Indian."
Under the current system, if a cyclone crosses into a different basin, it gets a new heading. Thus, if Cyclone Alice gets crosses into the SW Indian, it would get renamed to Cyclone Bob and get a new heading elsewhere in the article. It would not go into the Cyclone Alice section. Under my proposal, it would simply get the heading Cyclone Alice-Bob, and the Bob part of Alice would go under the same heading. The headings would be in the same order that all storms in the Southern Hemisphere formed. In the 2004-05 season article, some of the headings for systems in one basin are empty just because all the info on that system is under a different heading because it entered a new basin. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't remember reading your original post before.  Anyway, I agree with you, the current layout by region is terrible and will make little sense to anyone.  To find a storm I have to look through the entire table of contents to see where it is, since it is not ordered in any way that makes sense to me.  Your proposed layout sounds much better, but I agree it should be discussed on the current season article (which has a number of active editors). — jdorje (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: After doing the 1492-1889 for the Atlantic, all of the North Indian, and much of the Western Pacific, I made a promise to myself that I would not do the Southern Hemisphere, so I cannot help you there. Based on what I see, you seem to be alone. Considering no one else has helped you, you do not have to continue, but it would be nice for Wikipedia. Hurricanehink 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it is good just to create dozens of new stub articles.  Go through systematically and fill out the articles completely before moving on to the next one. Jdorje 20:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Storm05, why do you insist on creating stub articles that you then leave for the rest of us to fill out or delete?  Why do you refuse to discuss creation of new articles before you create them?  1977-78_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season is currently the worst, but every new southern hemisphere article you have created is a stub.  We don't need more stubs.  We need more content. Jdorje 20:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agreed. You really need to calm down on the article creating, and actually listen to what we say. Why do you want help from us when you can't listen to the constructive critism we give to you? Hurricanehink 20:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: ....So don't. No one has a gun to your head, and if you can't find good information, then you don't need to worry about it. It is better to work on bettering existing articles than making new, short ones. Hurricanehink 04:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Hemisphere Seasons 

message: I am personally sick of the vandals, so why not list them all here. This applies to any basin or article that is continually vandalized by one person. Hurricanehink 01:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to say anything about these guys, but make sure you don't confuse vandals with idiots.  There was some guy who kept changing the "29 direct, 36 indirect" deaths on Hurricane Andrew to "65"...but that's not vandalism, it's just failure to understand our system.  The entry was changed to "65 (29 direct; 36 indirect)" and I hope there will be no more problems. Jdorje 07:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 65 is fine in the article, but not the infobox. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known Vandals 

message: I grow increasingly frustrated by the overuse and interchanging of knots and nautical miles with real units.  When writing an article, the first priority is to keep the same units for everything.  If you use nautical miles, you have to use them (and knots) everywhere.  But knots and NM are bad since nobody knows what they are.  Use mph and km/h instead. Jdorje 18:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I see you changed quite a few, and I can see why you're frustrated. I just took it right from the JTWC or NHC report, figuring the exact versions are better (I see I was wrong). I'll try and remember that for the future. I don't think I use knots (I hope I don't, I hate them). I know, you're not directing your comment towards me, but I'm letting you know what I do and what I will do for the future. Hurricanehink 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there is the issue of exactness.  Most info is given in knots so converting it loses information.  A related problem is with inHg in older hurricanes.  In 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, I gave the original inHg pressure values, with mbar/hpa as followups, whereas normally I don't think it's important to include inHg.  With knots it's an even bigger problem since they all get rounded off to units of 5, so sometimes the mph and km/h will not match for hurricanes.  So if you do give knots you have to be consistent and give knots/nm as the primary measurement everywhere through the article - and even more importantly, you have to make sure to give the miles (mph) and km (km/h) measurements alongside each value. Jdorje 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess what's more important is to include mph and km/h conversions always, no matter what the primary form is. Jdorje 21:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Hopefully other Wicanepidians will follow this (what? we hurricane wikipedians need a name). Hurricanehink 22:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knots and nautical miles 

message: I already commented on the Discussion page for List of Atlantic hurricane seasons but I think this really needs examination.It's misleading to say (as even the 1492-1524 article does) that any season that happened before the June-1st-to-November-30th definition was decided "officially" began and ended on those dates.Some different terminology should be used to make clear that retrospective standards are being employed.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely.  I already considered using a template for the rote-introduction paragraph, and suggested in talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season that the rote-introduction paragraph does not make for a good introduction. Jdorje 07:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prehistoric officialness

message: Check out :Category:Tropical cyclones by region.  Some user created the Mexico sub-category, and I decided this should be a whole collection of categories.  However at this time it's quite empty.  I hope to create a sub-category for each U.S. state and one for every other nation...for Atlantic hurricanes anyway.  This can replace the "history" categories in each hurricane's article.  Unlike the by-strength, by-basin, and by-season categories however, this category is not as precise: each hurricane may have more than one category, or none at all (though maybe a new category "hurricanes not making landfall" is appropriate here). Jdorje 19:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't have to make landfall to affect an area, and IMO, extratropical counts if it is damaging there. What about storms that reach into inland states and are damaging there, will they be included? (Of course, we need to be realistic, don't include states like North Dakota and Montana where tropical cyclones will likely never reach - they'd be blocked by a ridge or front coming out of Canada if they tried to go that far in that direction). CrazyC83 19:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One blanket category should cover that I think, like :Category:Inland United States hurricanes.  As for landfall, I agree...Hazel should go into :Category:Hurricanes in Canada, obviously.  About extratropical I'm not sure. Jdorje 19:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many storms will go into multiple locations, for example Hazel would also go into the lists for Grenada, Haiti, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York... CrazyC83 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  For the Caribbean however, I find it hard to tell how to break things up.  Currently I'm just changing any "XXX history" entries to "XXX hurricanes", which I then make as a new category that's a subset of "XXX history".  However there are so many Caribbean islands/countries that this might give way too many categories.  Instead we could categorize them as Cuba/DR/Haiti/Jamaica/PR/Leeward/Windward/Bahamas...but a few islands (like Grenada?) may still not fit into any of these categories. Jdorje 02:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go for the safe side and include a separate category for each island nation. After all, some storms were small enough that they only affected 1 or 2 of them (i.e. Ivan and Emily in Grenada). CrazyC83 06:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tropical cyclones by region 

message: Do the lowest pressures also need a conversion to inches of mercury? NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely.  Doesn't everyone use millibars or hPa these days?  But since the row title takes up 2 lines, it won't expand the table at all to include it - particularly for older hurricanes, where the inHg measurement is the "original" one. Jdorje 10:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|infobox hurricane}}/Lowest pressure 

message: Should we broaden out some to make this part of a larger project covering all weather events and details? After all, many of us have worked on other non-tropical sites too...(I'm currently debating on whether the current snow/ice storm, with 500,000 without power and one dead so far, warrants an article) CrazyC83 05:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this wikiproject should remain distinct; most of the guidelines here would not apply to other weather events.  However a WikiProject:Meteorology (or Weather and Climate?  What's the difference?) could be a good "parent" project. Jdorje 06:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subproject of a new WikiProject Weather and Climate? 

message: Everybody's arguing about the category color changes, but they are doing it all over the place.  I've seen separate discussions at , User:AySz88/Sandbox#New_hurricane_color_palatte, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics, and they all repeat the same arguments.  To actually reach any kind of consensus this discussion needs to be unified, either here or at Template_talk:Storm colour cat5. Jdorje 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the discussion is going on at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category colors 

message: I believe the chain of command should go, from top choice to last resort, like this:
*Satellite photos
*Action shots
*Damage photos
*Pre-storm photos (a la Indianola Hurricane of 1886)
*Tracks
*Rainfall charts
*No pic
Thoughts and opinions? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, though I'd make one tweak. I personally think Visible satellite photos should be first, followed by Infrared satellite shots. I think Visibles give a truer perspective of the storm. Hurricanehink 01:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think no pic should be preferred to using the track pic.  The track pic should go in the storm history section to accompany the text there.  An having no pic leaves the nopic category intact so somebody will look for a real picture. Jdorje 01:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Hink on the Visibles. They're my favorite. Jdorje, the nopic would still be in place for all storms prior to 1851 and plenty afterwards, so let's not fret about it falling by the wayside. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That brings up something that was brought up on the Dennis FAC: The track pic (or any other pic) shouldn't be left-adjusted and starting a section at the same time. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  And where should it go and how should it be aligned? Jdorje 03:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, I don't know why. It is a style issue which I'm trying to find in the Manuals of Stlye. However, I read somewhere that a picture needs to be right-aligned if it is starting a section, unless there is an infobox or another image that would cause problems with text flow. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wait, how is this related again? And the problem with being left adjusted is the heading right? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, this is related to this because Jdorje brought up the location of the track picture above. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, whether it's related or not I'd like an answer ;-).  There are hundreds of storm articles with storm tracks and almost all of them come at the beginning of the "Storm history" section, left-aligned.  I don't see what could possibly be wrong with this, but it would be a pain to fix (unless we just change  to be right-aligned by default, which would have its own problems). Jdorje 22:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptable Infobox Pics 

message: Since many older storms have too little information to warrant their own articles, yet the overall length of the season pages are too long in most cases, what about splitting them off to a Storms page, i.e. Storms of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, with the information - and infoboxes - for the storms that do not have their own article. (If a section gets too long there, it can quickly take its own article) Storms with their own articles should only have a link there, no information. (Should not be done for 2005 and future seasons as articles are all planned - even the least-notable storms from 2005 I've been able to make more than stubs for) CrazyC83 17:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For 2005 I believe a simple table listing all the hurricanes with links to the individual articles should replace the entire storms section. Jdorje 18:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What is a hurricane season but the sum of its storms? Removing them would be like writing about the World Series without entries for the individual games. People just need to learn how to follow summary style. If a storm has its own article, you don't need to put very much in the season article. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's exactly what the "Season summary" section already does!  (Well, right now it's a bit incomplete since nobody cares about it much, but it already gives all of the actual important information about each storm.) Jdorje 18:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But for most seasons, there would be so little stuff left. I would agree to having each storm having their own article before this, because at least the storm links are right there, though for the record I am still against that. Hurricanehink 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agreed. Jdorje, in most season summeries, only notable storms are mentioned. The storms section describes them all. Without it, we would be devoid of info on a lot of storms. And Cyrius hits the nail on the head. A table just simply won't cut it. And I'm against creating articles for every storm for any season. The main article is and should remain king, the subpages secondary. -- Hurricane Eric§ archive -- my dropsonde 05:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearing the overloaded "Storms" sections of season pages 

message: Some user has been adding  to tc meteorology articles.  The original scope of the wikiproject, however, was just to cover historical data about tcs.  Should these articles be removed from the wikiproject or should the scope be expanded? Jdorje 21:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Annular hurricane and 1-2-3 rule; there may have been others.  See :Category:Tropical cyclone meteorology. Jdorje 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: I've noticed that Spanish wikipedia has very few information about this important assignment, can I help translating these articles into Spanish. Would it help? I need an answer juan andrés 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to ask, just go ahead and start! I can't help, as I can't speak a word of Spanish (bar Este usuario no entiende espanol :P :P) but the more languages the better. -- Sarsaparilla39 23:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At Talk:List of notable Atlantic hurricanes there is a discussion over the most notable Atlantic hurricanes of all time.  If you're translating articles, you might want to start with those. Jdorje 23:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of tc articles in the spanish wikipedia  

message: Every article has an intro.  For storm articles, this introduction should always mention certain things:
*A mention of the storm's name, in bold: "Hurricane Wilma was a hurricane."
*A link to tropical cyclone (possibly piped through the text "hurricane", "typhoon", "tropical depression", etc.): "Hurricane Wilma was a hurricane."
*A full mention and link to the season: "Hurricane Wilma was a hurricane of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season."
*A mention of the storm's month (in most cases exact dates are not required I'd say, though in some situations it can be appropriate): "Hurricane Wilma was a hurricane during October of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season."
*A brief mention of where the hurricane went: "The storm formed in the western Caribbean, sweeping over the Yucatan Peninsula before crossing Florida and heading out into the open Atlantic."
*A brief mention of areas affected: "The Mexican state of Quintana Roo and the U.S. state of Florida both received very heavy damage."
*A brief summary of damages and deaths: "At least 62 deaths have been reported, and damages is estimated at $18-22 billion dollars (2005 US dollars)."
*A brief mention of any meteorological records set. "Wilma became the most intense Atlantic hurricane on record when its pressure dropped to 882 mbar (hPa)."
All of the above are things I would consider manditory for a B-class article.  Of course there are other things that can be mentioned:
* A link to the basin; i.e., Atlantic hurricane (IMO this should be somewhere in the article; maybe it should be added to the infobox).
* Storm "numbers": "Hurricane Wilma was the twenty-first named storm, twelfth hurricane, and sixth major hurricane of the season."
Overall introduction should be kept brief. Jdorje 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of that and can live with the others. I also agree that the intro should be brief. That's why I support the current intro for the season articles. I think that you should start with a basic sentence and then give the most notable fact about it. Example: "Hurricane Wilma was an intense Category 5 hurricane that heavily damaged Mexico and southern Florida. Wilma is the most intense Atlantic hurricane on record with a minimum pressure of 882 millibars..." -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by season articles?  IMO the problem with the current format is that it is too wordy because the first sentence (or two) gives the official bounds which are not particularly notable. Jdorje 06:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bounds of the season are notable. They're something that the reader should keep in mind when reading records and stuff. The current intro is a nessisary evil Jdorje. We're still an encyclopedia, no matter what kind. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 04:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bounds of the season are notable, and worth mentioning in the article.  They are not necessary for a two-paragraph overview of the season.  Jdorje 04:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article intros 

message: I made this for tornado outbreak pages, but I think it can apply here when a tornado outbreak occurs within a hurricane. This list should keep track of all the tornadoes and when they occur. It could be included in a sub-section "List of tornadoes" (or, in a large outbreak, as a sub-page to a storm). It should be a section introduced for the 2006 season.
F#             	Location       	County         	Time (UTC)     	Path length (miles)	Damage                                                                      	
{state/country}	{state/country}	{state/country}	{state/country}	{state/country}    	{state/country}                                                             	{state/country}
F1             	Anytown        	Unknown        	0000           	5 miles (8 km)     	Several barns were destroyed and one home was damaged. No injuries reported.	
As verified by 	As verified by 	As verified by 	As verified by 	As verified by     	As verified by                                                              	As verified by
If a tornado outbreak inside a hurricane gets a separate page, it should be named Hurricane (name) Tornado Outbreak. I wouldn't worry about doing it for past storms, but for future storms, it is an idea I came up with.
CrazyC83 03:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. Never hurts to be organized. Hurricanehink 03:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it was more of an afterthought for here - I was trying to reorganize recent tornado outbreaks and realized with the number of tornadoes reported in recent hurricanes, it wouldn't hurt to bring it over here too. It would include any part of the storm, including the extratropical phase or areas of inland states. The Fujita scale background color is basically the same color scheme as the Saffir-Simpson scale, with F0 = storm. The "List of tornadoes" sub-section will be in the "Impact" section, after the regional impacts. If there were only a few isolated tornadoes, I wouldn't worry about adding it. CrazyC83 03:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Make sure you include source links for any info you find!  Lots of storms have no references for their "total damages". Jdorje 19:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For direct deaths, the source is always the Tropical Cyclone Report. Often I'm able to get the state but not the county so they will go down as "unknown". CrazyC83 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've managed to get the lists for Charley, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis and Isabel, and the numbers sometimes go over the NHC figures (i.e. Isabel at 53, not 50). I don't think I'll be able to compile lists from before then (at least to the current levels of detail) because of the fact that information becomes more prevalent with recent storms. However, if I find the information, I will include it. CrazyC83 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Note, even if the source is the TCR there should still be a reference.  It needs to be obvious where every bit of data comes from so future writers can verify it.  Also, I'd say differentiating death tolls by country is more important than by state...a lot of Caribbean hurricanes affected many countries and could use tables.  Hink's been adding these, and I've added a few...but our tables look very different than yours.  Why do you prefer that weird blue/yellow color scheme? Jdorje 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future storm addition: Tornado list 

message: I have made sections on my user page for the tornado outbreak charts for storms that indeed had a confirmed outbreak (Cindy, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Wilma and Emily pending TCR). In most cases, they would be sections of the existing article (except Katrina, which will definitely have its own subarticle, and possibly Rita which will be discussed further). CrazyC83 18:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tornado project update: March 5th

message: One thing I notice many season articles do not follow is the principle of increasing detail.  The amount of detail given on a particular storm in the intro should be less than what is given in that storm's section; often the intro has more detail on the important storms than those storm sections have.  Also, more detail should be given on more notable storms, regardless of the presence of other articles.  Just because a hurricane has a separate article does not mean it deserves less mention in the season article.  The season article needs to stand on its own - with other articles providing only supplementary information.
For older articles, this means we need to remember to balance the article.  For new articles, it is a problem because the level of detail will just grow and grow.  Eventually you have the decision of cutting information out and losing it, or splitting data off into a separate article.  But the principle of balance means you can't just cut from one storm to shorten the article a bit - all storms sections should be kept balanced in length so you may need to cut equally from all storms.  The format currently in use for the 2005 season (with a separate List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms articles solves this by allowing information to be moved back and forth, but there are other ways we could solve it too.
Jdorje 05:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Jdorje, we need to excercise a greater level of discretion on what is said. There are some facts (like the name of a Hurricane Hunter pilot) that just don't need to be said. Those are the facts that I try to cut from the longer sections, like Bonnie in 2004AHS. The different sections can have different, but not disproportional lengths. We don't need a set length for all sections, that's instruction creep. We get an attachment to these menial facts and demand that they stay, but that causes the length problem, therefore cut the menial facts. And that doesn't mean cut the entire storms section, that was one ridiculous proposition that made me upset. It sounded very smart-alec to me. The storms section is the heart of the article. For a reason I have yet to understand, you guys saw a need to give 2005AHS a heart transplant. That's why your first paragraph has been my policy ever since I came to the hurricane pages back in the glory days. The restrictions on length should be much looser than your personal preference. Your length restrictions are too strict. We shouldn't even get nearvous until 80 KB and start cutting stuff at 100 KB. 40 KB is WAY too strict. There needs to be more information on the current season pages than that (on the same page and not on subpages, Jdorje). Cutting or moving all that information does more harm than good. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I know, length insn't an issue in FAs. The only reason why there is a recommended size of 32 KB is that some old browsers choke with pages that are longer than that, but otherwise, it is usually not an issue in FA nominations. For example, Attack on Pearl Harbor is 52 KB long, and Race is a whopping 127 KB. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level of detail in season articles 

message: I added a new template,  that is similar to , along with its own category .  The category is somewhat unpopulated at this point. — jdorje (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tcexpand 

message: Storm pics are working pretty good. I only wanted to advice this: 
Please do not put storm pics for old seasons (before 1950). altough this has not happened I'm warning because it will be very hard finding images for older seasons juan andrés 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The storm tracks exist separately from satellite images.  Eric has some (partially founded) concerns about adding pictures to articles unnecessarily, but in any case whether we add storm paths is a separate issue from whether to add satellite images.  However, before 1890 (or perhaps 1893) the quality of the best-track data deteriorates and it is probably not worthwhile to add storm tracks. — jdorje (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the first satellite image was taken on April 1, 1960. The earliest satellite image of a hurricane that I've seen is of Hurricane Carla in 1961 (and it sucked, by the way). I've heard reports that one exists of Hurricane Donna in 1960, but I haven't seen it. So you're not going to find any satellite images of storms before 1960. I've also seen radar images of storms back to Hurricane Alice on New Years Day, 1955. Beyond that, you're going to be looking at aerial photos from Hurricane Hunters, damage photos, action shots (during the storm), or nothing at all. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Storm pics templates

message: As I just stated on its talk page, when I was alone in making 2004 Pacific hurricane season, I only wrote about the notable storms. Since the precedent has been set in others to mention ALL, someone really needs to flesh this article out. --Golbez 21:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been going through the atlantic seasons (currently 1950-2004) and making sure all the storms match up with what's in the best-track (s:Atlantic hurricane best track), and in the proper order (the only one that was missing was a 1981 storm, though several were out of order).  Somebody should do this for the other basins too.  Talk:Accumulated_Cyclone_Energy/EPac_by_year gives a complete list of EPac storms (sometime soon I will make up a similar list, but containing tables for max wind speed, formation, dissipation, etc., for all storms). — jdorje (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 EP needs love 

message: As the portal has a space for new articles, I think that we should only create one new article per week so we won't run out of new articles for the portal. We could perhaps "release" the new article every Monday (or whenever) so that there is one new article for the portal each week. Since it is extremely likely certain that there will be bad/notable hurricanes and typhoons and tropical cyclones in the future, by judiciously conserving our new articles, we won't run out of candidates. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "selected articles" on the portal are for good articles, not for new articles.  However the idea of having one article per week to focus on improving is a good one IMO. — jdorje (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. We should have an Tropical Cyclone Article Improvement Drive of the week. Hurricanehink 03:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit more aprehensive about that. It sounds a little too restrictive. There are pretty strong pros and cons. So I'm not sure if I'm "fer it or agin it". I'll have to think on it a bit. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 07:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I disagree, I don't really think there are particularly strong pros or cons.  Pros: it will help focus our efforts on one article, potentially leading to faster work since we communnicate about things more.  Cons: potentially overlapping work if more than one person works on an article at the same time.  It's not like everyone is forced to work on that article though.  We've already been doing this to some degree; as HurricaneHink's been going through the retired Atlantic storms one by one, I've been following and making my own improvements. — jdorje (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was the "Did you know..." Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles 

message: Several TC project members have also been very helpful in contributing to tornado events. There does seem to be some confusion, however, in regard to wind speeds. In hurricanes, the direct wind speeds are an integral part of the process in measurement (data collection) and determining strength and category (differentiation). With tornadoes, this just isn't possible, wind speeds are not directly used because they aren't known and aren't measured directly. The Fujita scale is what is used to differentiate tornado intensity and it utilizes damage, it estimates wind speeds correlated to damage but these speeds are not exact, are open to great effect from inordinate variables, and are not calibrated by actual testing. 
Wind speeds have been added to infoboxes and event article boxes, as well as used inproperly in the manuscript of some articles, and should immediately be removed (or modified in the manuscript of articles) and it understoood that it is pseudoscientific and unecyclopedic.
It's totally unjustified and not something that should be perpetuated by Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Ask a NWS meteorologist if they really can say that those exact speeds are known and they would say no. NSSL, SPC, researchers, Fujita, Grazulis, etc. would tell you the same and it is very well reflected in the literature. Given that *some* NWS offices do unfortunately post this information, here are a couple of authoritative online sources in support of my position:
http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/mesoscale/tornado.htm
"The F-scale is to be used with great caution. Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors."
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#f-scale1
"Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the original F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors. Also, the process of rating the damage itself is largely a judgment call -- quite inconsistent and arbitrary (Doswell and Burgess, 1988). Even meteorologists and engineers highly experienced in damage survey techniques often came up with different F-scale ratings for the same damage."
"So if the original F-scale winds are just guesses, why are they so specific? Excellent question. Those winds were arbitrarily attached to the damage scale based on 12-step mathematical interpolation between the hurricane criteria of the Beaufort wind scale, and the threshold for Mach 1 (738 mph). Though the F-scale actually peaks at F12 (Mach 1), only F1 through F5 are used in practice, with F0 attached for tornadoes of winds weaker than hurricane force. Again, F-scale wind-to-damage relationships are untested, unknown and purely hypothetical. They have never been proven and may not represent real tornadoes. F-scale winds should not be taken literally."
Evolauxia 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring it up on the discussion pages of those particular articles and then change them. This problem shouldn't be a hard one to fix. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have but it seems to be a pervasive problem of sorts and I'm guessing part of that is due to the influence of wind speeds for tropical cyclones, so I'm covering the bases. It's also applicable to the tornado tables that will go into some hurricane articles. Evolauxia 08:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wind speeds in hurricanes vs. tornadoes 

message: I've copyedited most of the post-1950 AHS articles (up to 1990 at this point), and I have some notes that we should keep in mind when doing future writing (of past seasons).
* Don't use the term "storm strength".  "Storm" is too generic to be used as a shortening of "tropical storm".  Instead say "It reached tropical storm strength" or better yet "It became a tropical storm".
* Make sure to include units for damages.  We always need to include the damage-at-the-time figure, and should also include an inflated amount next to it (which can be updated periodically).  I prefer a format like "caused $500 in damages ($2000 in 2005 USD)" but other forms are possible too.  The same should probably apply to the infoboxes (as is done with hurricanes - we should make it standard to list uninflated and inflated damages, in order) as well.
* Don't be too precise with damage amounts; there's no need to say "caused about $32.574 million in damages", since it's just an estimate anyway.  No way should more than 3 significant digits ($32.6 million) be used, and usually 2 is sufficient I'd say ($33 million).
* Give references.  Right now nothing in the season articles is referenced.  The MWS is listed as an external link and presumably this is where most information comes from.  But from now on when adding info we should give a reference.  You can just use the simple inline reference format, and we'll convert it to <ref>/<reference> later.
* Remember to make the length of each storm's summary proportional to that storm's importance.  In a bunch of the seasons of the 1980s and 1990s, the important storms are the ones with the least detail since the author knew these storms had their own articles and just gave a short summary.  But each article needs to stand on its own and be internally consistent, so the most notable storms are the ones that should have the most information.
* I'm not always sure what words should be hyphenated and what shouldn't.  For instance northeast is in some places written as north-east, which is simply wrong.  But should it be "upper-level low" or "upper level low" - I tend to think this one should be hyphenated.  What about "low-pressure system" - this is usually just written as "low pressure system" and I haven't changed it.  This is a minor issue, but it would help to be consistent in our writing.
* Don't insert confusing links.  tropical storm and tropical depression and hurricane should not be linked since those are just redirects back to the monster article tropical cyclone.  Category 3 hurricane could be linked since that goes to SSS which a straightforward explanation of what the term means.  subtropical and extratropical (or subtropical storm/extratropical storm) should be linked since those articles explain what the terms mean.  Another common example is linking to "Yucatan peninsula" - Yucatan is a state, so what should be linked here is Yucatan peninsula.
* Don't use "mid-Atlantic" to mean the middle of the Atlantic.  Mid-Atlantic is part of the United States.  Use "central Atlantic" instead.
More to come. — jdorje (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just say I'm sorry for some of that. I basically wrote all of the 1950-1978 storm summaries. I felt by writing only a little bit about an important storm, it would draw people into the storm article. I guess that was wrong, oh well. You're exactly right about references (again sorry!), and eventually someone should do that. Hopefully we'll be able to use these simple guidelines when writing in the future. Hurricanehink 01:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on AHS writing 

message: Naming lists for Atlantic hurricanes go back to 1950, but not a single one of them gives a source.  This makes it hard to verify any changes.  For instance some anon came through and made this and this edit.  Are these correct?  I have no way to know, so I just added  to the whole section of the AHS article.  However whoever wrote these originally surely does have a source for them.  So where are the online sources? — jdorje (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got your note. Maybe we should look to see if one person added all of them. If so, he/she/it/they might have where they got it, and would be able to resolve the whole situation. Worst comes to worst, we could just ask NHC. Hurricanehink 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AHS naming lists 

message: So last night while browsing the NHC web site I stumbled on the motherlode: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html.  This has a whole host of useful data.  Perhaps the most useful single entry is the easy hurdat file, which provides the whole thing in HTML format, including anchors - this can be used to link directly to hurdat sources.  Also quite interesting is the US hurricane list, giving every hurricane to affect the united states - perhaps most interesting here is the gaps; it seems that 1915-1979 has not fully been re-analyzed.  Next, the data-by-year provides some very interesting data although it's inconsistent; the most detailed years seem to be the oldest ones (which were most recently added), for instance 1851 lists all measurements on which the best-track is based as well as the NHC comments. — jdorje (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantic hurricane best track 

message: Shouldn't we use the template for the individual storms on the 2005 page on all the other seasons? I don't see why we havn't.Icelandic Hurricane 01:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're asking. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about the button bar, it is in use for others. If you're talking about the table of contents, that was only because of the massive number of storms. Hurricanehink 14:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The thing where you put the Storm's pic and track on the main season aricle, next the each individual storm. Icelandic Hurricane 00:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Well, here might not be the best place to ask, mainly because Eric and I both voted no and Jdorje abstained. Just kidding, but I still don't see the need. One thing we could do instead of that is ensuring every summary of every storm lists the longevitity and peak. Hurricanehink 00:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: Made a copyedit pass on Great Havana Hurricane of 1846, listed on the portal page to do list . Should list be updated? DavidH 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Yea, we should probably discuss a new list here, given that not too many people worry about the portal. Here's my thoughts:
*Requests: Subtropical Ridge, Typhoon Karen (1962) (was retired), 1875 Indianola Hurricane, Typhoon Nina (1975),Fishspinner
*Copyedit: Typhoon Maemi, Hurricane Gaston (2004)
*Wikify: None, probably
*Merge: See here
*Cleanup: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita
*Expand: Indianola Hurricane of 1886, Hurricane Edna, Hurricane Connie, Hurricane Diane, Hurricane Ione, Hurricane Janet, Hurricane Carla, Hurricane Flora, Hurricane Cleo, Hurricane Dora, Hurricane Hilda, Hurricane Inez, Hurricane Camille, Hurricane Celia Hurricane Alicia, Hurricane Gilbert, Hurricane Joan-Miriam, Hurricane Anita, Hurricane Diana, Hurricane Roxanne, Hurricane Mitch, Hurricane Keith, Hurricane Iris
*Stubs: Same as listed
*Needs Sources: Hurricane Audrey, Hurricane Hattie, Hurricane Hilda, Hurricane Agnes, Hurricane Allen
*Update: 2005 Atlantic hurricane season
Obviously, not all will be listed. I know needs sources isn't a task, but it should be. For the expand section, I put every retired Atlantic hurricane that it is pretty bad. A current goal for the project is having every Retired Atlantic hurricane article to be at least B class, and those above are pretty bad in need of a complete makeover. We should pick 5 off the expand list for now. I vote Janet, Carla, Camille (which just needs impact), Gilbert, and Mitch. Hurricanehink 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Gilbert, Camille and Mitch should become featured eventually, as they are almost household names due to their impact/intensity, so those should get top priority. After that, I would say Iris and Dora, but those aren't really as important as the other three. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about the "household name". I personaly think Camille should be first. Hurricanehink 03:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracking to do 

message: Would Wikipedia have any use for a list of every tropical cyclone name ever used? I made a list of exactly this over the last few weeks, and I believe it could be benificial. This is what I have done so far. Hurricanehink 16:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure there's already an article that lists this.  But yours looks better. — jdorje (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The existing article only lists the basin's names, but I thought it would make more sense to list when every name was actually used. Hurricanehink 18:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is pretty good and I can see that a lot of work went into it, but (there's always a but, isn't there?) it would need some more work to actually be an article. For example, it lumps Delores and Dolores together, but keeps Kirsten and Kristen apart; it links Michelle but not Mitch; it mentions Kendra as a TD but not Dolores (1970) and so on. On the plus side, it would be usuful in finishing disambiguation pages. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I'm only human. Nice catch, and I got those you mentioned. Though it is mostly tables, what would be required to have this be a real article? Hurricanehink 00:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I brought up the renaming over at the List of tropical cyclone names talk page. While we're talking here, should we put the List_of_tropical_cyclone_names_used_in_more_than_one_basin up for deletion or for merging? Like you said, the list I created sort of supersedes that page. Hurricanehink 01:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be merged, once your article is up and running. — jdorje (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what more should I do to get it up and running? Hurricanehink 20:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of tropical cyclone names 

message: OK, the totals are conflicting for each page, it seems. Starting now, I propose one inflation calculator is used to avoid different numbers. The one I have been using, located http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ , seems to be less than others, but is, IMO, more realistic. We should have one uniform calculator so the numbers remain consistant. Does this sound fair? Hurricanehink 15:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem is the NHC often has their own post-inflation list.  We don't want to disagree with that one. — jdorje (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, whoops. Well, I fixed Bonnie using the costliest without inflation list, but most other ones aren't on the list. How should we fix that discrepancy? Should we use the U.S. Department of Commerce Implicit Price Deflator for Construction, which is what the NHC uses? Hurricanehink 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if we can use a calculator that gives us the same numbers as the NHC, that would be good. — jdorje (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, that's actually really hard. Any idea of where to start looking? I tried googling the source of where the NHC gets it, but the first ~100 pages aren't that helpful. Hurricanehink 17:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh.  Like I said, it is a problem.  Not sure what to do about it.  We don't want our articles showing one thing when the NHC's costliest-hurricanes list says something else.  But we also don't want different articles to conflict with each other. — jdorje (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, you are 100% right. I emailed them to see what they use, so hopefully I'll find out soon. Hurricanehink 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflated costs 

message: Based on the table in List of retired Atlantic hurricanes I'm reviving this discussion.  In that article we run up against the problem head-on: to have consistent damage comparisons we need to use a consistent inflator.  But using the inflation calculator above (probably the CPI) gives, for instance, $36.4 billion for Andrew in 2004, whereas the NHC (supposedly with the GDP deflator gives $43.7 billion.  Replacing Andrew's $44B with a $36B value in the Andrew article is a terrible idea.  Listing $36B for Andrew in the retiree list while the Andrew article continues to say $44B is a terrible idea.  And using the GDP value for Andrew while the CPI value is used for (say) Fifi is a terrible idea.  Thus, we have rather a large problem.
The idea solution, seemingly, would be to use the GDP deflator for our calculations.  But like Hink said this is hard.  After a surprisingly large amount of searching I hit upon this site, which allows you to use different methods to estimate inflation.  However, this doesn't go past 2004, and even worse none of the methods used seems to agree with what the NHC has (the site does have very good explanations of the different methods, however).  So the search goes on.
Perhaps we should wonder whether using the GDP deflator is even a good idea, however.  Doing so bases inflation on the rate of growth of the U.S. economy - which may be a good way to inflate U.S. hurricane damages, but is surely not a good way to inflate damages from other countries!  However, using anything but the GDP deflator takes us back to the problem in the first paragraph.  Using a global GDP inflator (which basically "adjusts for wealth") might be possible but would "seem to" inflate damages from third-world countries tremendously (whether this is justified is another question).
In conclusion, I see no solution to this problem.
— jdorje (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, you are 100% right. I emailed them to see what they use, so hopefully I'll find out soon. Hurricanehink 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Money conversion

message: Well, we have the History of hurricanes in the Caribbean, List of California hurricanes, Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1900-1960 and Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1961-present, and now Catastrophic Texas Hurricanes since 1900. This could be an interesting project; having a list of the most important hurricanes for each state. Some states might be hard (like Delaware or Rhode Island), so that could be blanketed if necessary. Here's what would be needed. 
*List of Hawaii hurricanes- To make it an article it would have to describe the 4 major ones (Iniki, Iwa, Estelle, and Dot), as well as describing why it doesn't hurricanes very often.
*List of Arizona hurricanes- This would be similar to California's, but would be shorter. Must-haves are Norma (1970), Kathleen (1972), Joanne (1976), Octave (1983), and Nora (1997). It should describe how often it gets the remnants of tropical cyclones despite none actually entering the state. 
*List of Louisiana hurricanes- Last Island Hurricane, Cheniere Caminanda Hurricane, Hilda, Betsy, Carmen, Juan (1985), Andrew, Lili, and Katrina
*List of Mississippi Hurricanes- Camille, Elena, Georges, possibly Katrina's effects in Mississippi
*List of Alabama hurricanes- Frederic, Ivan, Danny (?)
*List of Georgia hurricanes- 1893 Sea Islands Hurricane, David, Alberto
*List of South Carolina hurricanes- Gracie, Hugo, Klaus
*List of North Carolina hurricanes- Hazel, Diana, Fran, Floyd
*List of New Jersey hurricanes- Under construction
*List of New England hurricane- Just started. May need a bit of help.
Not sure about New England. Any thoughts? Hurricanehink 17:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These could form good "top end lists" for each Hurricanes in Somewhere  categories. Perhaps we could also do countries... like List of Bahamas hurricanes. Finally, we should probably all call them List of PLACENAME hurricanes so all names have a consistent pattern. Also, if a list gets too long, we can split them up like with Florida. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I was thinking that eventually about splitting it up. Good idea about the top-level categories, though it could be hard for Europe or the Canary Islands. Hurricanehink 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure I can dig up some stuff about Arizona tropical storms, as I'm from there... I've been focusing primarily on Nora and I'm surprised by the lack of information, so it might be hard. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll do New Jersey's. Hurricanehink 22:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa whoa whoa! Time out. Now why is this a good idea? Only three, maybe four states need articles like this: Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and maybe Louisiana. The other states don't have an extensive enough hurricane history to warrent an article, especially not New Jersey. You want me to do Alaska while were at it? This is ridiculous. New Jersey? Come on. They've probably had like two hurricanes in the past 150 years. You've got to be kidding me. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, for New Jersey it is quite the contrary. I plan on using the California hurricanes as a guideline, which includes many storms' remnants. Though two have made landfall in the state in fairly recent history, numerous have passed through the state, and I intend to list them and, briefly, their effects. Remember, this isn't a list of Catastrophic NJ hurricanes, this is a list of every NJ cane. Hurricanehink 23:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  For Arizona, there is significant information that can't really go elsewhere. For example, I can't add that the state is affected by a tropical storm or its remnants every 4 years or so in Tropical cyclone or in Arizona, as it isn't information that necessarily belongs there. However, a state sub-article can be the correct place to add it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we just make catagories instead of an article and create redirects, like with North Carolina? -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's wrong with having it. What about notable storms that don't have articles, yet could use more mentioning in the list of ... page? The categories are there as a guide, while the list of page gives a summary to it. Hurricanehink 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Are these pages for systems that struck the area, or affected it? Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say both. A hurricane can remain offshore yet cause a lot of damage. Hurricanehink 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only states that deserve similar articles to the two on Florida that I wrote are (excluding Florida): Texas, Louisiana, and North Carolina. No other states have had enough catastrophic hurricanes to warrent such an article. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Good job with that article! Hurricanehink 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The way I did it is that every storm goes in the table (as the effects are pretty much the same: flooding), and notable storms get mentioned at the bottom. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works well for Arizona, but the effects can range greatly in NJ. Strong winds, surf, erosion, waves, or rainfall is possible. Would the table still work for NJ? Another problem with NJ is the length of the table. Believe it or not, a lot of storms have passed through the state, of which nearly all made landfall further south. Hurricanehink 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I put them into tables, but I'm not sure that's better. Any suggestions, anyone? Hurricanehink 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, the table is way to big. I think I'm going to put it back to the way it was. Hurricanehink 22:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the page is done. Now, I need some help with the picture placement. See the talk page for details. Hurricanehink 02:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the NJ format is undecided too ;) I am in the same boat. The table can get big and bulky... I think I'm going to have the California hurricane page setup for mine. Hurricanehink 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's also why I made NJ hurricanes. Storms here are pretty rare. Hurricanehink 22:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Hurricanes in each state? 

message: Well, I've been adding a bit to that article, and I found an interesting fact: tropical storms strike Arizona on average every 5 years, and only about 6% of Pacific hurricanes hit the U.S. So, do you think the article is ready for WP:DYK? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job with that article! Hurricanehink 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Arizona hurricanes]] 

message: I need some advice for this. Excluding the table, should I continue giving the Date, Year- Summary formula for every storm? Or should every storm be in a table, with notable NJ hurricanes at the bottom? The 1944 storm has a lot of information that could be expanded upon, and it might look weird being with the rest of the storms. However, a table for every storm might be too long, especially with brief notes of its effects in it. What should be done? Hurricanehink 19:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I did it is that every storm goes in the table (as the effects are pretty much the same: flooding), and notable storms get mentioned at the bottom. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works well for Arizona, but the effects can range greatly in NJ. Strong winds, surf, erosion, waves, or rainfall is possible. Would the table still work for NJ? Another problem with NJ is the length of the table. Believe it or not, a lot of storms have passed through the state, of which nearly all made landfall further south. Hurricanehink 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I put them into tables, but I'm not sure that's better. Any suggestions, anyone? Hurricanehink 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, the table is way to big. I think I'm going to put it back to the way it was. Hurricanehink 22:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the page is done. Now, I need some help with the picture placement. See the talk page for details. Hurricanehink 02:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of New Jersey hurricanes]] 

message: Would it look/be better for the New England article with the table it has now, or a setup similar to List of California hurricanes? I can't decide. And plus, if the table looks best, then I'm not sure which format is best; the one on it now or the one on List of New Jersey hurricanes. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the NJ format is undecided too ;) I am in the same boat. The table can get big and bulky... I think I'm going to have the California hurricane page setup for mine. Hurricanehink 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of New England hurricanes]]

message: The only reason I created the List of California hurricanes article was because hurricanes hitting there are unusual. It would be silly to create a list of all Florida tropical cyclones because tropical cyclones hit there all the time. Even the sad 1983 season managed to have one. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's also why I made NJ hurricanes. Storms here are pretty rare. Hurricanehink 22:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Why are there no storm pics templates on the Pacific typhoons and most of the Pacific hurricane season articles?, surely someone had uploaded some storm paths by now. Storm05 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it is because not every season has every storm. If that happened, then I would fully support it. I really don't know, though. Hurricanehink 21:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that the best-track data for wpac, nindian, and spac is terrible.  The UNISYS tracks are made from a HURDAT-formatted file that the unisys people must have assembled from the advisory data (it is based on the advisory data not the best-track); this is what I've been using so far but this is obviously not good.  JTWC has one-file-per-storm best-track data; I've started working on using this but it takes a lot of work.  An additional problem is that there's no re-analysis for these basins that I know of, so for instance Nancy is still listed in the best-track as having 215 mph winds. — jdorje (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pacific typhoons

message: I was looking over a featured article included as part of this WikiProject and noted that it possibly isn't up to the standard of today's FA status. Should it be put up for delisted, I have a feeling it might succeed. Does anyone want to have a look at it and comment? -- CHANLORD [T]/[C]  00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point. That should be on the todo list. Hurricanehink 00:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Dude, are you kidding me? The Galveston article is far and away the best article on the project. It has plenty of references (28 to be exact) and is better written than any of the other hurricane articles will ever be. IMO, it should be the model for future hurricane articles. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I don't see what is wrong with the article. Hurricanehink 01:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of inline references it the problem.  Over the last week or so a couple editors have been working to improve this - I haven't looked in on it lately. — jdorje (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cyclone Tracy]]

message: I have suggestions and comments about the following....
* The pacific typhoon seasons and pacific hurricane season articles must have track map in infoboxes, storm pic things (I dont know what are they actually called), button bars at the bottom , all of the storms listed, the entire overview of the season must be written (see 2005 Atlantic hurricane season or 1997 Pacific hurricane season for example, it also must have a season summary), have storm paths for the tropical depressions (inc. Atlantic) and have the retirement names section at the bottom if necessary. 
** A long time ago I uploaded every season track map the NHC had.  If we want more track maps for older seasons we will have to make them ourselves i think. — jdorje (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions and Comments 

message: At what point to we switch over from 2005 USD to 2006 USD for units of damage? — jdorje (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That site used doesn't have it set for 2006 yet, so I'd stick to 2005 figures for past storms (of course, current storms in 2006 will have it at current figures). CrazyC83 05:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could use the GDP deflator, but that would be too much work, especially if our site gives a different result. Hurricanehink 13:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 

message: Every article mentions "wind speed" in very many places.  Infoboxes say that a storm has "XXX mph sustained" winds.  But we don't clarify what exactly this means, and this is leading to problems.  The NHC and (I think) JTWC use 1-minute sustained winds.  However the WMO and other organizations - particularly the Australians - use 10-minute sustained winds.  The two are not interchangeable and can't be converted with any certainty, a huge problem.  A related problem is that the Australians have their own cyclone rating system that also goes 1-5 but has no relation to the SSS; Cyclone Tracy is actually a Category 4 on the Australian system meaning we don't know how strong it was on the SSS (probably a 3 I'd guess). All of this is discussed, in an obnoxiously long and repetitive way, at Talk:Cyclone Larry and its archives, but what I'm concerned about (and isn't discussed there) is how we should handle this in general for southern hemisphere storms.  It seems to me we need to change the infoboxes to clarify whether wind speeds are 1-minute sustained or 10-minute sustained, and go through every spac article to see what needs to be fixed.  It will be very tedious. — jdorje (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wind speed inconsistency 

message: Here's the first sentence from Hurricane Gloria, which just went to FAC and will likely become featured:
:Hurricane Gloria was a powerful Cape Verde-type hurricane that formed during the 1985 Atlantic hurricane season that prowled the Atlantic Ocean from September 16 to September 28.
Now here's the first sentence from Hurricane Rita:
:Hurricane Rita is the fourth-most-intense Atlantic hurricane ever recorded and the most intense tropical cyclone observed in the Gulf of Mexico.
OK? Now, finally, the first sentence from Hurricane Wilma:
:Hurricane Wilma was the twenty-first named storm, thirteenth hurricane, sixth major hurricane, and fourth Category 5 of the record-breaking 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.
Which of these gives the least amount of relevant information? I would say they work in order. The first one gives the time - 1985, September; the strength, "powerful"; and the location, though it maybe could mention the eastern seaboard. However, that's handled in the next sentence.
The second one does not give a time, but it does give a reason for notability - most intense hurricane ever in the gulf.
The third one gives nothing but the time. It was in 2005, it was a category 5, it was the 21st named storm. So? Almost all of the 2005 hurricane articles are done in this fashion, and yes, while this IS useful when we first make the article, it desperately needs to be replaced with something useful. Move this trivia down to storm history, and replace it with, say:
:Hurricane Wilma was a powerful hurricane that formed during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, becoming the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic Basin. 
Or something like that. Almost anything is better than the bland and boring "21st storm, 13th hurricane," etc. Do you see my point? We need to go through all the hurricane articles and make sure that the first sentence is compelling, and not just a numbers race. I tried with Hurricane Katrina, but there are many others that suffer from this problem. --Golbez 23:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely agreed.  We should write up some criteria for lead sections to add to the main wikiproject page.  Another criteria is the inclusion of links and certain information about each storm, as I listed in the #Article_intros section above.  Also, this is a problem that season articles suffer from too, as every AHS article begins with the exact same intro that does not give any notable information about the season. — jdorje (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I brought this up on Rita (see my attempt to say what Golbez says here []). I rewrote that several times to get away from "storm x and hurricane y and major hurricane z of the season." I also just posted a comment on the season article discussion page about how that first sentence needs a different approach too. What I would hope editors and contributors realize is that we don't need special TC article guidelines, we need good writing, which probably doesn't mean starting each article based on a formula that emphasizes obscure data (of the kind only TC geeks could love). DavidH 05:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My analysis: Dennis and Floyd are the worst ones. Iniki is great. Galveston is marginal, needs to mention why we have an article on it. Tracy is great, Tracy is exactly what I want Galveston to say. Okeechobee is nice too. --Golbez 06:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to work on the first sentence 

message: Hurricane Dennis was the fourth named storm, second hurricane, and first major hurricane of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.
Hurricane Iniki (Hawaiian for Enid[3]) was the most powerful hurricane to strike the state of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Islands in recorded history. 
Hurricane Floyd was the sixth named storm, fourth hurricane, and third major hurricane in the 1999 Atlantic hurricane season. 
The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 made landfall on the city of Galveston, Texas, on September 8, 1900.
Cyclone Tracy was a tropical cyclone that devastated Darwin, Australia, from December 24 to December 25, 1974.
The Okeechobee Hurricane or Hurricane San Felipe Segundo was a deadly hurricane that struck the Leeward Islands, Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, and Florida in September of the 1928 Atlantic hurricane season.
— jdorje (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My analysis: Dennis and Floyd are the worst ones. Iniki is great. Galveston is marginal, needs to mention why we have an article on it. Tracy is great, Tracy is exactly what I want Galveston to say. Okeechobee is nice too. --Golbez 06:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA examples

message: There are a few recent seasons with storm infoboxes, which contain peak winds, pressure, and dates. That information should be right in the storm section, so I propose that they be removed in favor for a meteorological statistics section at the bottom. 
In addition, as seen on the talk page for the 2003 season, I propose having a damage table for each storm also on each page. Claudette, for example, would list each area it affected, followed by damage, damage (2005 USD), deaths, and indirect deaths. What do you think of these 2 propositions? Hurricanehink 16:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on Talk:2003 Atlantic hurricane season I agree with the idea.  This is basically inspired by Madeline's work on 1997 Pacific hurricane season, which has been incorporated into various list articles like List of retired Atlantic hurricanes.  But in addition to the textual storms list I think we should provide table forms of the meteorological and impact statistics. — jdorje (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storm boxes and Damage table 

message: I have started a WikiProject on Disaster management.  The thought is that we will maintain articles on the response, policy, and general management of hazards.  It is a huge task!  Please join us! --Drdan 13:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disaster management WikiProject 

message: I think the titles of tropical cyclones should only have its date if there is more then one.  I think the most recent use of the said name shouldn't have a date on it's title, while it's predecessors should (i.e. Hurricane Floyd (1993), then the most recent Hurricane Floyd).  When the name is reused (unless the name is retired) then the date should be put in the title (i.e. when Hurricane Epsilon is reused again, then 2005's should have it's titel renamed to Hurricane Epsilon (2005)) — HurricaneDevon @ 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Current practice (which is explained on the project page, but has never been discussed particularly) is that the most notorious storm may take the main name.  However for 2005 we have a lot of articles for storms that are not notorious at all (like Zeta, Epsilon, Lee), and I don't particularly think these should take the main name.  One could perhaps cite counter-examples however, such as Hurricane Alice or Hurricane Ethel (neither of which were unique; Alice wasn't even the most notorious storm of that name of 1954!!!). — jdorje (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the qualifier should be on most storms as a rule, Lee needs the qualifier as there were 3 WestPac storms, including a typhoon (I guess that is more notable than the Atlantic one). One thing which might be worth changing with these rules is an active storm gets the main name (if we go ahead with the all article thing), and once the storm is finished decide if it should stay at the main name or not; if it has a high chance of retirement I guess. --Nilfanion 20:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, I'm mostly for consistency. The date is more helpful than not. A consensus that all TC titles should be "Name (year)" would makes maintaining and creating new articles as simple as possible. For the average person searching Wikipedia, it wouldn't hurt -- they aren't going to know if a more complex guideline is being followed, it would just seem inconsistent and possibly random. DavidH 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think that is more sensible - put a notice up on Katrina's page suggesting it. That way the 'outside' community will say-- Nilfanion 22:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, no. There's no need for retired storms to have a qualifier (although having Hurricane Katrina (2005) as a redirect can't hurt), and the same holds for highly-notable storms. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, it is arbitrary - but retired storm gets own article works; and can you really see the masses preferring Hurricane Katrina (2005) to Hurricane Katrina? It may be more consistent for ALL storms to get qualifiers, but hopelessly unworkable. We would only need to qualify last years Katrina, if the concept of retirement didnt exist. Nilfanion 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles for tropical cyclones 

message: On Talk:Hurricane mitigation there is a two-person discussion about whether Hurricane mitigation and Hurricane preparedness should be merged.  I invite anyone to give comments there. — jdorje (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane preparedness/mitigation