Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 13

message: Recently, List of notable tropical cyclones was moved to List of tropical cyclones. The same was done for List of notable Atlantic hurricanes, which was moved to List of Atlantic hurricanes. Personally, I don't think either are a good idea. "Notable" is completely subjective, and by including it in the title it leads to an ill-defined page scope. Omitting the word changes it completely, as it is certainly not a list of every tropical cyclone, nor should it be. Therefore, I propose changing it to become a page of records. This is where it gets interesting. 
There is already a page at List of tropical cyclone records, and so the useful information on List of notable tropical cyclones should be merged there. Yes, I am proposing getting rid of the List of notable tropical cyclones page, which has had thousands of edits. The thing is, it's gotten pretty messy, while the List of tropical cyclone records is much neater and better defined. 
There is no need to do the same for the Atlantic, however. A while back, there was some talk of revamping the List of Atlantic hurricane seasons page, as it is currently a glorified disambiguation page. The article would still remain as a list of seasons page, but it would also include some of the more important records, like most intense, deadliest, etc. However, its main job is to link each season. Another proposal was to give a sentence of information about each season, like how each storm gets a mention in the List of XXX hurricane pages. There are several options, and it doesn't have to be done at once. List of Atlantic hurricane seasons could be moved to List of Atlantic hurricane records, in the mean time. However, I just wanted to bring this up and talk about it. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of notable tropical cyclones]], [[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons]], and other pages - a plan 

message: Template:Saffir-Simpson small, when used in an article, displays a compact version of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. There is no particular reason I see for there not being analogues for other basins. These could potentially be useful in past seasons, rather than having a lengthy scale on the side like active ones do. Hence, the following:
JTWC typhoon scale: Pacific typhoon seasons 1959-99
JTWC Typhoon Scale	JTWC Typhoon Scale	JTWC Typhoon Scale	JTWC Typhoon Scale	JTWC Typhoon Scale	JTWC Typhoon Scale	JTWC Typhoon Scale
TD                	TS                	TY                	STY               	                  	                  	
JMA Typhoon Scale: Pacific typhoon seasons 2000-present
JMA Typhoon Scale	JMA Typhoon Scale	JMA Typhoon Scale	JMA Typhoon Scale	JMA Typhoon Scale	JMA Typhoon Scale	JMA Typhoon Scale
TD               	TS               	STS              	TY               	                 	                 	
Tropical Cyclone Severity Levels: Australian region tropical cyclones
Tropical Cyclone Severity Categories	Tropical Cyclone Severity Categories	Tropical Cyclone Severity Categories	Tropical Cyclone Severity Categories	Tropical Cyclone Severity Categories	Tropical Cyclone Severity Categories	Tropical Cyclone Severity Categories
1                                   	2                                   	3                                   	4                                   	5                                   	                                    	
Meteo-France Scale: South-west Indian Ocean tropical cyclone seasons
SW Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	SW Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	SW Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	SW Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	SW Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	SW Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	SW Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale
TD                                    	MTS                                   	ITS                                   	TC                                    	ITC                                   	VITC                                  	
IMD Scale: North Indian Ocean tropical cyclone seasons
N Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	N Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	N Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	N Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	N Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	N Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale	N Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclone Scale
DD                                   	CS                                   	SCS                                  	VSCS                                 	SCS                                  	                                     	
Here is SSHS for comparison
I made the scales by taking whatever was in Saffir-Simpson small and adjusting the text to fit a new basin. The names are basically "Basin name"+"Tropical Cyclone Scale", although the BOM actually does call its scale "Tropical Cyclone Severity Categories", so I used that name.
The colours I chose are basically scope increases of previously used ones. If there was a level in one basin with the same name as one in another, and one already had a colour, I used the same colour for the new mini-scale. Using this scheme, colours do not match up with wind speeds (like SSHS vs. Australia) The NI colours were ones I saw used previously for a scale in one of the NIO season articles.
There is also the issue of appropriateness. I am not sure how long each current RSMC/namer has been forecasting its basin, so the analogues may be improper because a previous RSMC/namer may not have necessarity used the same scale.
Also, if we do actually make templates for these, we should probably consider the results of the Typhoon colour discussion. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a pretty good idea, although the JTWC uses SSHS and wouldn't need a separate analogue (Category 4 would have to be divided into TY and STY, as well). --Coredesat 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this look?Mitch32contribs 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks okay, but again, I'm not entirely sure we need it. --Coredesat 21:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analogues to [[:template:Saffir-Simpson small|Saffir-Simpson small]] for other basins 

message: Inspired by Dean and its remarkable similarity, I took a look at Hurricane Janet and started filling it out and sourcing things.  The information in the MWR alone was enough to make the article tremendously better.  In passing I found some references to what I hereby call the Tampico flood of 1955...which is rather remarkable and probably deserves some comment by others.  Anyone interested should take a look at Talk:Hurricane_Janet about it. — jdorje (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tampico flood of 1955 

message: Currently, the template with the data powering the automagic inflation calculations in our infoboxes  is based upon consumer price index data. However, NOAA uses the implicit price deflator for construction (see NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-5). I'm looking to see if I can find IPD data, apparently from the DOC. Assuming I find it should I transfer the template to use that? Our figures should correlate better with the NHC ones then (we do have a bit of variation).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the best long term solution here - some input would be appreciated. However, I have finally updated the automagic to use 2007 figures. (Sorry for the loooooooow activity of late ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation calculations 

message: Over the last couple days I noticed a number of places claiming central pressures for certain storms were "estimates".  One such place was fixed here.  Another is in 1932_Bahamas_Hurricane.  Using this term is in most cases flat-out wrong and in all cases misleading.  Most places it was used in (in the retired storms list) involves not actual estimates but rather the lowest *recorded* pressure, with the understanding that that pressure doesn't come from the storm's peak strength; calling this an estimate is simply incorrect.  Actual examples of estimated pressure include Hurricane Wilma and Hurricane Rita where the NHC made an educated guess as to what the minimum pressure actually was.  I replaced the "(estimated)" in the retired storms list with ≤ which may also be misleading since it could apply to a very large number of storms (1935 Labor Day Hurricane, for instance, should also have a ≤ by the same logic).  In the case of the Bahamas storm the value is unsourced so I don't know where the "estimated" term comes from.  However in general, it's important to realize that MOST if not all modern-day pressures are estimated, even for the Atlantic, and certainly for other basins (*cough* dvorak *cough*). — jdorje (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good point you bring up; modern storms are more "estimated" than the older storms. Having the  ≤ works well for this purpose, as if we find a lower value (always possible, there are tons of archives that we haven't used), it can always be added without dispute. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question is: What does the source say? If its like Rita then may be an estimate, but it is an estimate of the peak so = not ≤ should be used. If the source does not say "this is the peak", then we shouldn't treat it as such. Ultimately all peak pressures are estimates, whether they are based on Dvorak, dropsonde, recon or ground measurements; so saying it is an estimate is superfluous.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, yes.  All pressures are either estimated or measured directly, and rarely (never?) is the peak pressure measured directly.  But by that logic one might apply the ≤ to many older storms that were measured regularly by hurricane - for instance Camille had a 905 mbar recorded, but who's to say that pressure was the peak?  Compare to Rita where an 897 mbar was recorded but meteorologists estimated the peak was itself around 895 (IIRC).  Even so I'd reserve the ≤ for cases where the data is incomplete; if the source (MWR/TCR) claims a particular peak pressure there's no need for us to go questioning it. — jdorje (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the use of "estimated" and the estimated minimum pressure should only be for older storms when it is sourced, but unofficial when there is no reliable official number available (i.e. no pressure readings or an unrealistic pressure reading taken when much weaker). CrazyC83 15:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Estimated" central pressures 

message: ===Capitalization===
Should the "hurricane"/"cyclone"/"tropical cyclone" be capitalized?  I was always of the opinion that it should not.  However we do have conflicting standards.
* Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane are capitalized.  This seems to be the old standard for the Atlantic.
* 1999 Orissa cyclone and 2000 Sri Lanka cyclone are not capitalizated.  This seems to be a standard for the North Indian basin (see this discussion).
* The track maps use uncapitalized names by default.  This is mostly representative of me thinking such things shouldn't be capitalized.
— jdorje (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind if we shifted toward a set standard - Year Location cyclone seems to work well for unnamed storms. That would mean moving Galveston Hurricane of 1900 to 1900 Galveston hurricane, which I am in full support. The primary reason I would like the switch is for categorization purposes - currently the Galveston hurricane shows up in G, while the 1928 Okeechobee shows up with the other numbered ones. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue doesn't really affect category sorting - unnamed storms are in most cases manually sorted by *, and this has to be done manually for both of the current standards.  See here where I just fixed the galveston sorting. — jdorje (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It also depends on the sources we have, IMO. If a source gives the hurricane a proper name (e.g. "The 1900 Galveston Hurricane"), then I say we go by the source. Otherwise, we go by the default "YYYY Location storm" titles we use. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, how does that logic apply to the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane?  Most sources call it the "Lake Okeechobee Hurricane".  However I don't in principle have a problem with what you say, or even with having either way be acceptable. — jdorje (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could move that one to Lake Okeechobee Hurricane, if there are sources calling the article that way. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Oy.  I think it is referenced more as Lake Okeechobee hurricane than Okeechobee hurricane.  I like the idea of using names, even if unofficial, for storms before 1950, as long as the appropriate reference is cited.  Why not, let's start the article names with the year.  Thegreatdr 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Seeing as this was never discussed, I agree it should always go by Year-Location-cyclone for the unnamed ones, as we have done. All NIO articles that are named should be Cyclone XX. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions: unnamed/numbered hurricanes 

message: Should the "hurricane"/"cyclone"/"tropical cyclone" be capitalized?  I was always of the opinion that it should not.  However we do have conflicting standards.
* Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane are capitalized.  This seems to be the old standard for the Atlantic.
* 1999 Orissa cyclone and 2000 Sri Lanka cyclone are not capitalizated.  This seems to be a standard for the North Indian basin (see this discussion).
* The track maps use uncapitalized names by default.  This is mostly representative of me thinking such things shouldn't be capitalized.
— jdorje (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind if we shifted toward a set standard - Year Location cyclone seems to work well for unnamed storms. That would mean moving Galveston Hurricane of 1900 to 1900 Galveston hurricane, which I am in full support. The primary reason I would like the switch is for categorization purposes - currently the Galveston hurricane shows up in G, while the 1928 Okeechobee shows up with the other numbered ones. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue doesn't really affect category sorting - unnamed storms are in most cases manually sorted by *, and this has to be done manually for both of the current standards.  See here where I just fixed the galveston sorting. — jdorje (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It also depends on the sources we have, IMO. If a source gives the hurricane a proper name (e.g. "The 1900 Galveston Hurricane"), then I say we go by the source. Otherwise, we go by the default "YYYY Location storm" titles we use. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, how does that logic apply to the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane?  Most sources call it the "Lake Okeechobee Hurricane".  However I don't in principle have a problem with what you say, or even with having either way be acceptable. — jdorje (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could move that one to Lake Okeechobee Hurricane, if there are sources calling the article that way. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Oy.  I think it is referenced more as Lake Okeechobee hurricane than Okeechobee hurricane.  I like the idea of using names, even if unofficial, for storms before 1950, as long as the appropriate reference is cited.  Why not, let's start the article names with the year.  Thegreatdr 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: In the north indian, some storms go by the number while others go by location.  There have been discussions on each storm about which it should be.  Is this something that should be standardized or decided case-by-case? — jdorje (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as this was never discussed, I agree it should always go by Year-Location-cyclone for the unnamed ones, as we have done. All NIO articles that are named should be Cyclone XX. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers versus locations

message: Hi. Apparently User:Alastor Moody left a goodbye message on talkpage. User:Chacor left a retirement message on both userpage and talkpage. What should be done, if anything, to the list of participants pages? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had an idea once to create an inactive members section, which I liked.  How about using six months of inactivity as the standard?  If they left a good bye or became a retiree, then they should be considered former members of the project, as was done in their cases.  Thegreatdr 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh dear... 

message: I updated the WikiProject assessment charts, which I originally posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 9. Here they are: 
Image:WPTC assessment summary.png|Total assessments
Image:WPTC assessment FA.png|FAs v. total articles
Image:WPTC assessment A.png|As v. total articles
Image:WPTC assessment GA.png|GAs v. total articles
Image:WPTC assessment B.png|Bs v. total articles
Image:WPTC assessment Start.png|Starts v. total articles
Image:WPTC assessment Stub.png|Stubs v. total articles
Image:WPTC assessment unassessed.png|Unassessed v. total articles
Some comments about trends in the last six months:
# FA production has completely stalled. We had a four-month stretch in which no article or list gained featured status.
# GA production also slowed down. We are making a GA in the time it would take us to make two just a year ago.
# The number of GA-Class articles is closely approaching the number of B-Class articles. If an additional ten pages are sent to WP:GAC, we should be able to have more GAs than B's in less than a month.
# The number of Start-Class articles leveled off for a bit, and now is increasing again, albeit slightly.
# The number of Stub-Class articles is constant. It hasn't moved away from the 150-160 range since June 2006.
Overall, some new FACs shouldn't hurt, nor should GACs. Also, reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessments should be a good thing. How can that page be modified to encourage participation? How can we recruit more users/reviewers? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good assessment as always. Your last comment seems to be the biggest issue. We lost some key members, and thus our production had dropped quite a it. One idea is to harness the activity on the talk pages, which is admittedly dwindling as the seasons are slowing. Perhaps one solution would be to send a notice to our members. Though a lot may be inactive, if we ask them in the right way, maybe we can get them editing and writing. After all, we have 91 "members" in the WPTC, of which maybe 5 to 10 are editing right now. Something is not right.... Hurricanehink (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:USRD recently did a cleanup of participants saying to either update their status, or they will be removed. Think we should do the same?Mitch32contribs 11:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tied into the GAC for wind shear right now.  My editing has dropped off due to work and home considerations, and embracing of a new, more tolerant, way of dealing with other editors.  I think I'm past the 6th step of the 12 in my recovery.  =)  Once I'm done with that GAC, let me know which article you all think needs the biggest improvement.  Do we still have a collaboration of the fortnight/month?  Thegreatdr 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that thing never really got off the ground. I'm working on Hurricane Charley right now, and I'll be done with a major copyedit by hopefully tonight. A fact check and an expansion of the aftermath section would be really helpful... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More assessments 

message: During Dean and Felix, there was considerable debate due to the lack of a real standard regarding how to treat storms likely to be retired. In the past (up to 2005), it was up to us to make a guess using past precedent and move the page to the main article when we thought it was warranted. (It backfired for Emily, which we had to move back). In 2006, with the Pacific typhoons, we just left them with (2006) until they were officially retired or the retirement case was officially made. That seems to be how we treated Dean and Felix, but with no real Atlantic precedent for such.
Should we adopt an official standard? My opinion is that we follow the current precedent: All storms, no matter how bad, should have (year) added to them until either they are officially retired or (at least) the retirement case is made. However, the main article should point to that page as a redirect if so desired (especially for obvious cases like Katrina). Subarticles, if any, should not require a year modifier though. CrazyC83 16:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  Thegreatdr 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That also creates a policy that works well in all basins, since the retirement criteria can be different. Of course, it will be difficult to deal with if there is another Katrina-like storm, but I think consistency is best. CrazyC83 02:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fair, having (practically) all storms with the year with an optional main page redirect to there (having Dean 07 with Dean redirecting there). Emily is a good reason why we should do that. Perhaps there could be an upper cutoff for the "obvious retirees", something like if first insured estimates are over $10 billion or if deaths are over 500, then it could get the main article. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, agreed, but we should consider the case of the South-West Indian Ocean and North Indian Ocean. The RSMCs in question do not retire names at all - names are used once only. - SpLoT // 04:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, those haven't used and will not need the year dab. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The only fuel behind this discussion is such that we will not debate the same issues again - only on tens of individual articles. - SpLoT // 10:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All this means is we have to have the same discussion on a dozen articles explaining why we have adopted this method. If we got a storm that made Katrina look insignificant, a policy like this would result in: move warring, pointless debates and ultimately page protection. This is because we will always have people who will want to follow rules to the letter and other people who have a rare commodity online "common sense".--Nilfanion (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name treatment re: likely retirees

message: Hi, from time to time I am caring on hurricane articles in the German WP. I made a picture for a better differenciation of strike, direct hit, indirect hit and landfall of a hurricane (see on far right). Did I understand correctly how the NHC is defining those items in its glossary. In my example, r means the radius of maximum winds and the hurricane is striking on all three islands (A, B, and C), while the islands A and B are directly hitten and the island C maybe indirect, depending on the surge or wind strength in that area. Only island B has experienced a landfall. Please corrct me if I made an error. Thanks. --Matthiasb-DE 11:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically that is correct. A = direct hit (not landfall), B = landfall, C = indirect hit/strike. An example for case A was Hurricane Ophelia in 2005 in North Carolina (northwest eyewall hit the Outer Banks but the eye center remained over water). An example for case C was Hurricane Rita in southern Florida and Cuba. (The "impact" area often goes far beyond that diagram as it also includes the areas impacted by tropical storm-force winds, as well as heavy rain, surf or tornadoes beyond the wind radius.) CrazyC83 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question  

message: The style of TC dabs is very different from the MOSDAB and ignores a lot of the guidelines. Furthermore, the usage of hatnotes also goes far far beyond the scope of those guidelines. Please discuss issues relating to the dabs and the use of hatnotes here. As for the other issue that is getting conflated in with this: Are all storms of the same name related to one another? Are all the 19 storms named Alice sufficiently related to each other by virtue of the fact they share the same name, or would we be better off being selective about which of those storms have a connection? IMO, Cyclone Katrina and Hurricane Katrina have as much in common as any arbitrary pairing of tropical cyclones, such as Galveston and Kong-rey (2007).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation and hatnotes 

message: Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
*List of basic Earth science topics
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of List articles 

message: === Article stats ===
Most of our high-priority ATL retired storms are in bad condition. Examples include: Stan (2005), Rita (2005), Wilma (2005), Lili (2002), Isidore (2002), Iris (2001) and Michelle (2001). Those are just the newer storms though.
:The retired ATL storms (1970-1996) are also in bad condition. Some are B-class, but could still use work. Cesar (1996), Fran (1996), Hortense (1996), Opal (1995), Bob (1991), Diana (1990), Gilbert (1988), Elena (1985), Alicia (1983), Frederic (1979) and Agnes (1972) are among the worst.
:From 1950 - 1969: King (1950), Edna, Carol and Hazel (1954), All (4) 1955 retired storms,  Gracie (1959), Donna (1960), Carla (1961), Hattie (1961), Cleo (1964), Dora (1964), Hilda (1964), and Betsy (1965) are the worst.
:Thanks to Hurricanehink, the EPAC is fine with retired.
:WPAC: There are too many articles to account for working.
:NIO: Good condition, could still use work.
:SHEM: Somewhat better than the WPAC, but could use work.
:SATL: Catarina, a possible FA, is still at B-class and could be a very good article if done.
===Now to the point===
We can fix these articles, but we need ideas of how to get a person or group to choose. So far:
#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclone/Adopt-An-Article - With our Article Requests dead, this may not be a bad idea.
#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Necessary articles - This could help people choose what articles are needed for high-priority.
#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Retired storm articles - This would help cleanup and figuring out what's necessary.
So far these are the three I can think of. Let's discuss these ideas and/or come up with more.Mitch32contribs 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is that the project is inactive as of late. The first idea is like our collaboration, which failed due to lack of interest in cooperating (which has always been a problem). The second would be just a list of higher importance articles, which is already on the WPTC main page, although I think that the top importance list should be expanded to include the "necessary articles". However, the third isn't too bad of an idea. One problem is that, to my knowledge, there are no retired storms in the Indian Ocean (north or south), and it excludes unnamed storms, but I suppose it wouldn't be too big of a problem, since the most notable storms would either be on the highest importance list, or at least mid or high importance (although storms without an article that also weren't retired would be left off the list). Additionally, the Australian and WPAC sections would include several storms that were either just removed or retired for an unknown reason. Come to think of it, figuring out what is necessary could go on the retired storm articles (Atlantic, Pacific, and Worldwide). Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Vital articles. This should be expanded, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere section. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's look at our current state. 

message: We can fix these articles, but we need ideas of how to get a person or group to choose. So far:
#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclone/Adopt-An-Article - With our Article Requests dead, this may not be a bad idea.
#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Necessary articles - This could help people choose what articles are needed for high-priority.
#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Retired storm articles - This would help cleanup and figuring out what's necessary.
So far these are the three I can think of. Let's discuss these ideas and/or come up with more.Mitch32contribs 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is that the project is inactive as of late. The first idea is like our collaboration, which failed due to lack of interest in cooperating (which has always been a problem). The second would be just a list of higher importance articles, which is already on the WPTC main page, although I think that the top importance list should be expanded to include the "necessary articles". However, the third isn't too bad of an idea. One problem is that, to my knowledge, there are no retired storms in the Indian Ocean (north or south), and it excludes unnamed storms, but I suppose it wouldn't be too big of a problem, since the most notable storms would either be on the highest importance list, or at least mid or high importance (although storms without an article that also weren't retired would be left off the list). Additionally, the Australian and WPAC sections would include several storms that were either just removed or retired for an unknown reason. Come to think of it, figuring out what is necessary could go on the retired storm articles (Atlantic, Pacific, and Worldwide). Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Vital articles. This should be expanded, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere section. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now to the point

message: Galveston Hurricane of 1900 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR for [[Galveston Hurricane of 1900]] 

message: This came and went without fanfare here, but I'm posting this because there are a lot of articles associated with it  Good kitty (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JMA 2006 annual report 

message: Does the WPTC have a wikipedia ad? Juliancolton (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're listed in the directory of WikiProjects. I don't think any projects have ads, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen wikipedia-ads for several wikiprojects, mainly state or road wikiproject. Juliancolton (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WPTC wikipedia ad

message: Is it worth creating articles on all of the tropical storms that have developed? Juliancolton (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that every single tropical cyclone should get an article on their own, but I believe that every single tropical cyclone on record should appear in some sort of a seasonal article. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what about every storm back to 2000, as you have said? Juliancolton (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, so i should just creat articles on storms that did damage. Juliancolton (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, preferably, work on existing articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. My only problem is I a really not that good at improving articles...I don't think. Juliancolton (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hurricanes

message: I would really appreciate someone from this project looking over the wind shear article and seeing if it's ready for GA.  The previous reviewer has apparently left it for dead...it's been a nominee since early October and in limbo ever since.  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can.  There are pages connected to the GAC statement on the top of the talk page to instruct someone on how to pass an article.  There aren't that many steps.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plea for help regarding wind shear article

message: I think we should try to get all of the storm articles of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to GA, as most of them are. Then, we could get 2005 atlantic hurricane season to a....What do you call those? Juliancolton (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A featured article? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Julian means featured topic? ---CWY2190TC 02:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, a featured topic, that's it. Juliancolton (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that wouldn't be that difficult, as most storms are close, or have achieved already, GA status. However, the ones that lack it (Wilma, Rita, Stan) are not easy to improve. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I know. I can look through them and see what I can do, but I don't know how much that will do. I guess i could nominate them one at a time for the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive but I don't know what that would do either. Juliancolton (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with Wilma, Rita, and Stan is that there is so much information to organize. It should probably be done internally, given our experience with the subject matter. Featured topics take a long time, but this is a doable long-term goal. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a thought here

message: Anyone interested in trying to bring Hurricane Hugo up to FA status?  If so, let me know. Remember (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That will likely require subarticles to get to FA. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Juliancolton (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, here is the plan. 
*References in just about every part, especially the storm section, where there isn't even one.
*2-3 paragraph lede.
*More in-depth history section. 
*More Info
Lets work on those parts for now, and then we go to the minor details. Get to work. :) Juliancolton (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Hugo 

message: Could someone look at List of category 4 Atlantic hurricanes and see if it is B yet. Juliancolton (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, the 'unnamed' hurricanes in the table need years mentioned in the table. --Golbez (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. What about now? Juliancolton (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of category 4 Atlantic hurricanes

message: I think it's time for me to retire from the WPTC and Wikipedia. It's been fun guys, and I've enjoyed it. But, I never edit anymore so, bye! Cyclone1(21:21-13-12-2007), see ya at Storm2k.  —Preceding comment was added at 21:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll miss you :) Juliancolton (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cya man.Mitch32contribs 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Goodbye. Jason Rees (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclone1 retires. 

message: Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAR for Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan

message: At this point in time there are 87 supposed participants in WP:TC. However in a quick review i conducted nearly three quarters of these no longer edit on this project. At least 10 havnt edited a mainspace article in over 9 months. The rest are editing elsewhere on wiki. what do you all think needs doing? do we do a recall almost and see who wants to come back to this project and get some good articles out again? Seddon69 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. I think we should send a message to all of the members to see if they're still interested in the project, and then we could have a place for them to indicate they are still here (perhaps just comment on here). If they don't comment within, say, a month, then they'll be placed on inactive members of the Wikiproject (separate from former members). --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still interested.  The wind shear GA continues to tie up the limited time I have nowadays for the project (at least it's related).  Hopefully it will earn GA sometime soon and I can return to editing more of the TC articles than I have during the past four or five months. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I think we should send a message on the users' talk page, and see if they are still interested. Don't send me one of those, I am as active with the project as I ever was. :) Juliancolton (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been most active on current storms, and recently was doing a lot on the 2007 storms that had yet to have articles. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Refresh

message: # --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Active users

message: Is this article good enough to publish? Juliancolton (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Not in its current condition. It needs an overall copy-edit and expansion.Mitch32contribs 16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: and a track map :) Seddon69 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It has a track map. Mostly it looks fine to me so it should be ready to publish soon. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 20:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do that now. Juliancolton (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hurricane Marco (1996)

message: Project members have been talking on IRC and have come up with the idea for reinstating the newsletter. Here's what we need to figure:
#How many times a year? Nilfanion's original was monthly.
#What do we put in it?
#Who should work on it?
#How should it look? Like the original? Brand new?
Let the discussion start. (I'll put my opinion in at a later time.) Mitch32contribs 21:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Monthly would probably work. I'd like to see storms in the previous month (with one selected storm with an image), articles that got to FA status, selected articles that got to A or GA, articles in the news or DYK'd, and maybe some news pieces (like for January one it could be a summary of the 2007 season, May could have info on the WMO meeting, particularly retirees). IDK, we should work on it, and I wouldn't mind if it looked like the original one. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And lets not forget User of the month. Juliancolton (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I intentionally omitted that. I don't really like that idea. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? That was my goal. Juliancolton (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it creates an unnecessary hierarchy, and it discourages the idea of community work. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could encourage competition amongst the members and increase the amount of work done within the project.  If it is done, it needs to be based on the work done the previous month only.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it could encourage competition, but it didn't really work that way last time. Granted, it could be different this time. I'm not sure, but I'd like to see more output in general before doing a MotM for that reason. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if we do make a Member of the month section, then that, IMO, will get more articles worked on, especially because typically, the member of the month has at least 1 FA, so everybody will have an incentive to do some wrok on articles. Juliancolton (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a bit misconstrued. When we had the MotM last time, it hardly increased the workload. Furthermore, only six users  in the project have brought an article to FA status and taken it through FA. There is still an obvious incentive to work on articles, such as barnstars, placement on lists like these, and userboxes. Primarily, as I've said before, I believe it creates an unnecessary hierarchy. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with Hink on this point. - SpLoT // 05:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And it dosn't matter if it discourages community work. The community hates me as a user! Juliancolton (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstating the Newsletter 

message: If there is anyone able to review this FAC article it would be much appreciated. Seddon69 (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should change the rolling ref list to a plain ref list. This has been a debatable issue for many FACs. Juliancolton (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1988 Atlantic hurricane season|1988 Atlantic hurricane season FAC]] 

message: This article, after a bit of expansion since May, has been resubmitted as a GA nominee.  Any opinions and suggestions will be appreciated.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much empty space in the lede. Juliancolton (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Effects of tropical cyclones]] GAC

message: Now, why is Felix still start? It looks like at least B and maybe...MAYBE GA. Juliancolton (talk) (Happy New Year!) 23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NHC TC Report hasn't been released yet. Although I don't have any particular reason to expect drastic changes, it is still necessary to make a "complete" article for a recent system, as the NHC has further details on impact, stats, etc, that we currently don't know. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan to improve it to FA when that comes out. Is that an achievable goal?  Juliancolton (talk) (Happy New Year!) 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is achievable, if you put effort into it. Until the report comes out, might I suggest expanding project stubs. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THe list of stubs are mostly seasons. I am not good at them. Juliancolton (talk) (Happy New Year!) 14:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seasons only require a paragraph on each storm, to start with.  It's a good thing to raise a stub to a start.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hurricane Felix

message: Just a little news update for project members. The NHC added a new set of articles for their archives, which is contained in this new link. There are 40 sets, some of which including satellite images, preliminary reports, and local storm reports, and which is formatted like the 1991-1995 and 1958-early 1960s periods. For your convenience, I've labeled each one. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHC update (1968-1970) 

message: I propose creating categories, at least for the Atlantic and Pacific, that identifies a storm by basin and strength? Categories would be :Category:Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, :Category:Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes, ... :Category:Atlantic tropical depressions, as well as its Pacific hurricane counterparts. The categories themselves can link to both :Category:Category 5 tropical cyclones and :Category: Atlantic hurricanes. Any objections? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, it would significantly help in the navigation of, and general browsing of storms. I also have no discrepancies about a depression category as there are few main articles about tropical depression depressions. Seddon69 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, they have been created for TS through Cat. 5 for Atlantic and EPAC. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering :Category:Tropical depressions, should Atlantic named storms that cross into the eastern Pacific but stay depressions there be included in that category? It is entirely correct to say that Hurricane Anita is an eastern Pacific tropical cyclone, although it doesn't happen to be a named one. Should systems like that be included in the tropical depressions category? (We do not have and do not need a :Category:Atlantic tropical depressions). Yesterday, I added Hurricane Debby (1988) to that category, and I thought it would be good to ask for input before removing it/adding other systems. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now, there are only four articles on tropical depressions (as peak intensity), which should be kept in :Category:Tropical depressions. Having a hurricane in a tropical depression might be confusing, so what about putting it in the generic :Category:Pacific hurricanes? That is largely populated with dabs (which I'm discussing below), and seems appropriate. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As long as you already split the main storm articles up, it's best to split these off as well. — jdorje (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think would be the best way to do so? I was imagining at first to simply change the category from Atlantic hurricanes to Atlantic hurricane disambiguation, but unfortunately the  template automatically links to :Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for change in categories 

message: It was proposed some months back to merge this article into the eye article.  I renamed it to the term used within severe weather circles, BWER, which allowed me to include it into the severe weather project, as well as include references to a couple "landphoon" cases (without using the term) over the United States.  It no longer has the stub (due to its expansion) or citation tags (due to the inclusion of references), though more references are needed for the pre-existing portion which have been tagged with fact.  Let me know if this is a suitable alternative, and if so, we need to eliminate the merge tag from the TC project on its talk page.  To whomever started the article, if you can remember where a few of your references were from, it would be appreciated if you included them within the article.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, that's a good alternative. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mid-Level eye article becomes Bounded weak echo region

message: This seems to be a problem, for any article I have looked at with NCDC references, the name of the reference is always wrong. For example, from Hurricane Isabel: 
. It says report for Vermont, but the page comes up as a storm report for Arkansas. All of the NCDC references in Hurricane Isabel are wrong, as well as many other articles. How do we fix this? Juliancolton (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not fixable. NCDC is always adding new reports to their list. For the correct reports, one will have to go through the archive to find them, which is really not that difficult. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NCDC references

message: Hi, I am translating 2007 Pacific typhoon season into the German WP. I'd like to ask for the track maps since it seems that only the first four storms do have one. Without having the ability to work them out for myself, is here anyone to help with that? --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the best track is available yet for the season. I believe track maps could be created, using operational data, but given it is already January, and the best track will probably be out in a few months, it might be best to wait until the best track comes out. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: JMA best track data is now available Here for 2007
Jason Rees (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track maps 

message: Hey, I was planning on creating a hurricane article for either the WPAC or the South west Indian ocean, but I can't find any storm archives. Any idea where I can find those? Thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Typhoon archives

message: I propose creating a statistics page for the project. I think it'd be neat to have, and it could separate data by basin, by types of articles, and it could include a little statistic by the WP:USRD called WikiWork. I don't think it'd be too controversial, so any comments? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea.  As it is now, someone runs the stats and posts them on this page every several months, Titoxd if I remember correctly.  It would be nice to have a page for them.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I took a stab at it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see stats of the non-individual storm articles separated out to see how steady/unsteady their improvement has been over time.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I'll add that when we get closer to the end of the month. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I usually ran those every quarter or so. It shouldn't be hard to do... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Um, what's that WikiWork stuff? I mean, that's not really a good thing, it removes FAs from the equation... so really improving articles actually lowers the score? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it does. WikiWork counts FA's as 0, so a project full of FA's would have a perfect WikiWork. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see, it's the amount of work left. I thought it was the amount of work done. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Statistics]] 

message: Wikiproject Tropical cyclones has hit 1000 articles! Big congrats to Hurricanehink, who published Cyclone Elita and when I checked WikiWork stats this evening, I found the 1000 article was made. So, this pretty much shows how we've expanded in over 2 years. Congrats to everyone, especially on our article making spree!Mitch32contribs 23:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1000 articles 

message: ...if we cannot collectively fix the article.  To start with, there are at least 11 fact tags and three different reference types.  I filled out many of the references which had no information whatsoever, removed a few broken links, added a slew of convert templates, and corrected several typos and grammatical errors.  It's hard to believe this is a GA article...I'd have thought the article to be at Start or B class the way it looked when I saw it today.  Help me improve the article enough to avoid judgment day and keep the article GA class.  The article has already dropped in status once, let's avoid a second downgrade.  Thegreatdr (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref formatting is now similar throughout the article.  There are still two fact tags, and other text problems left to fix within the article, but it's in much better shape.  Question is, has the Ivan article been elevated to what we would now consider GA?  I'm not sure.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A week went by with no comments, and only one other person editing the article.  It has been proposed for GA review.  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hurricane Ivan]]: Judgment day coming February 8

message: We recently had a similar article to tornadocane called landphoon removed from wikipedia because the term was not in the glossary of meteorology.  What's interesting is that landphoon had about seven unique sources, while tornadocane has exactly one source using the term.  I'm going to propose the article's removal, for consistency's sake.  For reference, I was the creator of landphoon last August.  This posting is also in BWER, tornadocane, and Severe Weather wikiproject as well as a couple of its contributor's talk pages to get the largest possible response.  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. — jdorje (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tornadocane/Landcane/Landphoon

message: The  was proposed for speedy deletion since it's unused.  Now, I haven't used this template in a long time but it looks to me like it is used but done with subst?  Assuming that's the case I will mark it so; if it's not and it has actually been deprecated then it should in fact be deleted. — jdorje (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Hurricane_season_links]] 

message: I came across the Hurricane Alberto dab page while looking for Tropical Storm Alberto; it's way out of compliance with WP:MOSDAB, in case the Project wants to work on cleaning up all the dab pages. The actual article title should be linked, should be the only thing linked, and other info should be minimal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they're a special type of dab called a Set index article. Hurricane Alberto is similar to USS Enterprise, which was one of the examples provided there. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab pages 

message: I could use some help with this,most specifically,how do I put one of those menu tables in the article?You know,one of those that show the different sections?Also,how do I place an image in the article?ThanksTheNobleSith (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When you put more than four sections in the article, the table of contents will automatically appear.  Juliancolton (Talk) 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There's always the Tutorial or the Manual of Style. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of Jeanne in Florida 

message: It appears many of the old issues with the article have been resolved.  Maybe the third time's the charm?  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Time will tell.TheNobleSith (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your support is heartwarming.  Many changes have been made to the article, wording-wise and reference-wise, per the two reviews it has received within the FAC page.  Thegreatdr (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tropical cyclone has been submitted to FAC 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Tropical Storm Vamei and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tropical Storm Vamei GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: This is my first submission for featured list.  Be gentle, yet constructive.  Thegreatdr (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States submitted for FLC

message: Hey guys. I noticed there's no list of Cape Verde Hurricanes. I suppose there is some debate as to exactly what a Cape Verde Hurricane strictly is (how close must a storm form to the islands to be considered a Cape Verde Hurricane), but I think there should still be such a list.I'll create one tomorrow.TheNobleSith (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's located within List of West Africa hurricanes. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Cape Verde Hurricanes? 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Hurricane Camille and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hurricane Camille GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: Hi. In 1982 Atlantic hurricane season there's mentioned the external link
* ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/pub/storm_archives/atlantic/prelimat/atl1982/
The adressory doesn't seem to exist anymore, maybe it was moved. Might affect some more articles. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a viable link. It's part of their storm wallets. The exact link is on here; under Atlantic, Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico, click on 1958-1994, then within the next area click on 1982. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing links