Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 6

message: The  now holds the article quality class.  We can (and should) embed other "meta-data" about articles into this template!  But what is needed to be known for each article?  Maybe we should start with a date on which the quality class was last visited and who assigned it, like .  Or maybe that's not ambitious enough, and we should embed a whole set of explanation text: .  Or maybe both, of course. Jdorje 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, too bad no one ever responded to this. This is a good idea that couldn't hurt to be implemented. Hurricanehink 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could be done. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 11:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enhanced hurricane template 

message: I have gone through the 2004 and 2005 timeline articles, changing them to reflect TCRs instead of advisories. Should every single thing in the timelines be ref'd to the TCRs? And the 2005 graphical timeline, should we copy that across to the other seasons too? Nilfanion 13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just link the whole thing to the TCR page? You know, the page where they have the links to each storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline articles 

message: I have expanded the stub article on U.S. Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Climatology, and expanded its scope to one that is worldwide, god help me.  Rainfall has never been covered well in tropical cyclone season/individual storm summaries...the U.S. data was mined from NCDC personally.  Many "wikilinks" have been added to associated storm/season articles, and I added some typhoon pictures that don't appear to be on here from the western Pacific (some missing from 2002-2004!)  Inline links have been added...not sure how to do the endnote thing quite yet.  I'm slowly going back through the Monthly Global Tropical Cyclone Articles done by Gary Padgett since 1997 and adding related rainfall information.  Does anyone know if an archive of the old Weekly Tropical Cyclone Summaries by Jack Beven (and me as guest author in Jan-Feb 1994) from 1992-1997 still exists on the web, or in anyone's inbox?  User Talk:thegreatdr 21:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Nice job! No idea about the tropical cyclone summaries. Hurricanehink 21:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do these work, Doc? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tropical Cyclone Rainfall

message: Well, Wikipedia:Version 0.5, the test run for WP:1.0, is getting started, and we need a few reviewers for the nominations page. As our WikiProject has been the one that has assessed the most articles, we have the most experience, so we should help them out.</spam> 
More importantly, as there will be a deadline for the static version (undetermined yet, but the publishing date is expected to be late this year), we need to get the high-importance articles to at least  status soon. That includes, IMO, Tropical cyclone (which is listed on Vital articles), and at least, Hurricane Katrina. IMO, Hurricane Ivan, Cyclone Tracy, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Floyd and Hurricane Wilma can make it in too, but we need to get them polished up. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would all other A and FA articles be included? Hurricanehink 21:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For 1.0, likely. For 0.5, still not decided. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More [[WP:1.0]] 

message: Just curious, do you think we should send a message to all tropical cyclone users about the proper formatting for an article? If we explain clearly how to better existing articles, maybe people would know more of what to do. Simply having it on the Wikiproject page might not have enough of an audience. I was thinking something like this. Some things might be debatable, like the dissipation box on the infobox, so feel free to tweak it.
:Dear Tropical cyclone editor,
:As a member of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, you are receiving this message to describe how you can better tropical cyclone articles. There are hundreds of tropical cyclone articles, though many of them are poorly organized and lacking in information. Using the existing featured articles as a guide line, here is the basic format for the ideal tropical cyclone article.
:# Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (mph in non-metric countries, km/h in metric countries), with the other unit in parenthesis. The lowest pressure should be in mbars. Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there. 
:# Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
:# Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexable, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be around 3. Storm histories can be longer than three paragraphs, though they should be less than five. Anything more becomes excessive. Remember, all storm impacts, preparations, and records can go elsewhere. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history. 
:# Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm. 
:# Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals. 
:# Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
:# Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included. 
:# Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the  formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense. 
:Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask. 
Should we send something like this to all of the TC editors? It appears not everyone knows the proper formatting, and a reminder couldn't hurt. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea. There are some things i didn't know before and now I'm using those guidelines with Typhoon Chanchu (2006). Send them! Icelandic Hurricane #12 01:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One thing, though: For more impacting hurricanes, [the lead section] should be 3 [paragraphs] or more. I'm not sure that having more than three paragraphs in any lead section is a good idea. What do others think? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I wasn't really thinking, but four paragraphs would be a little much. I made the change. Also, something that should be discussed is the area of impact. I was thinking that it would be every country it effected, unless it effected multiple parts of the country. This could allow for U.S. states, Mexican provinces, and Canadian provinces to still be separate. What if, for example, a hurricane hits Nova Scotia then Newfoundland? Or a hurricane hit the Yucatan Peninsula then the Mexican mainland? This could allow for some more leeway. Otherwise, what are some items that should be discussed? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that would be all right, IMO, unless the information for a particular country is detailed enough for us to write about several provinces for that country. Mexican states, U.S. states and Canadian provinces should be merged back to the country if there's not enough info to merit them being separated, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How Impact is split up should depend on how much information there really is. If there is sufficient information to split off US/Mexican states or Canadian provinces from the country - and the other regions within that country are not very short, split them off. An example of how I see this should work is on Hurricane Ivan, there is enough info for Florida, there really should be enough for Alabama, but the other states should be merged together - either directly to "rest of United States" or to regional areas like "Mid-Atlantic States" or "New England". Also, if a number of Caribbean islands are affected and there is only minor impact in a number of them an amalgamated country section is justified. Preparations and aftermath should follow the same rules as impact, but they should generally be shorter and hence less subsections should be used.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoops. I was talking about the area of impact in the infobox. Sorry, was pretty tired when I wrote that. Now that you brought the impact section into the mix, should the area of impact section simply be every sub section in the impact section? Otherwise, completely agreed about the impact section. Only split them up if there's enough info. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although we can combine areas in the Impact section if they are related (i.e. South Florida and Cuba with Hurricane Rita, "Inland" for general inland effects of future storms). Avoid combining areas in the infobox unless it affects most or all of the areas in those regions. CrazyC83 17:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I hadn't thought of that. Otherwise, is the message fine to send out? Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if Rita with S FL/Cuba and FL panhandle sections is sensible - respecting political boundaries and using FL and Cuba would make more sense, though Cuba needs more info. "Inland States" is a really sensible idea for the US landfalls, perhaps with other countries have a coastal and inland impact split? The message is fine, it will get the articles to the assessment page as probable A-class and we can fine tune when it gets there. I would just emphasise that the storm history should not have subsections as a rule (it really should not be long enough for that).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if there isn't a lot of information in Cuba, but still enough to have mention, there'd be no point to have the split sections. Not a lot of storms have a lot of inland impact, but if there is a lot, Inland States is a good idea, unless it can be split up like Arlene. Completely agreed with the storm history. Ivan might be a rare example of a longer than usual storm history, but there's no need for subsections in the storm history. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the purposes of this message the details for impact are adequate, most editors have a good feel for how to do it right I think; and if they don't it will be OK when it becomes good enough to go to the assessment page. Let's not worry too much here, but deal with them on the relevant pages to that article. Adding a comment saying "subsections in storm history are bad" in the message will address all serious problems- send it out then. Ivan's history is a bit too long but Wilma's is ridiculous, if the message can discourage that format its a good thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I made a mention about how excessive storm histories are bad. You're right. Most people will only follow this as a guide line. Some storms wouldn't work with this format. I'll put it into a template, if that's alright. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: True, the impact section has the damage it caused, but is there really a need to have a storm history that is over 5 paragraphs? Subsections, while somewhat organizing, are not needed. We need to summarize the information, not give it all in one big heap. That is what external links are for, to give more excessive detail that is pointless in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article formatting 

message: Please add Hurricane Mitch to your watchlists (Click here to do that) as it will be appearing on the main page as the featured article on May 28 and vandalism is expected. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How come the 2005 AHS isn't on the upcoming main page FA? Isn't it an FA? Or have they just not decided exactly when? Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul654 is the featured article director; he decides what article is featured when. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh. I see. Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Raul switched out Mitch for 2005AHS, which will be featured June 1. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Mitch on main page soon 

message: What happened to User:E. Brown ?, because had made no edits since April 2006 nor responded to our recent article creations. And theres nothing on his user page of the reasoning of absence (wikibreak, blocked, banned, quit?). Storm05 17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought he was on vacation, but I'm not entirely sure. He has been unusually quiet, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 17:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same with User:Weatherman90, besides 4 edits on May 15, he hasn't made any edits since may 4. Icelandic Hurricane #12 19:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably asleep waiting for the season to really start...or busy with work or something... CrazyC83 18:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sometimes wish I could go into hibernation during the winter then wake back up for hurricane season...then I remember that I'd be missing the cold and the snow and then the spring storm season...and figure it best that I just stay up...Dr Denim 23:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where in the world is User:E.Brown?

message: Someone please archive a lot of this article. I tried, but I'm not sure what should stay and what should go. When the article size is at a good size, feel free to delete this. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean this talkpage? I've just archived 50 sections. I checked what has been dead for about a month and archived it. If anyone wants to bring up an archived discussion, simply copy and paste it here. -- RattleMan 01:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, good job. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: *Extratropical
*Subtropical
*Meso-scale
*Polar low
I just don't see the need for a navigational template here.
: I don't see the harm in having one either, and it worked to take out some fluff out of Tropical cyclone, so I'd say it should stay. I don't know what others think, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the reasons I created the template was to cut the see also section down to a more reasonable size. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Cyclones

message: I provided camille a little love. I'll take alook at the recommendations from the peer review and apply them soon, esp  the  template}}, and more copyediting as needed, though the rest of the article doesn't look like it needs much. TimL 01:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: camille

message: I have sent Dvorak technique for peer review. TimL 04:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dvorak to Peer Review

message: Take a look at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/camille/report.html
Is it ok to cut and paste this into a Wikipedia article? Does public domain apply here? (I'm thinking along the lines of how public domain applies to works of the US Gov't. ) The reason I ask is because this has been pasted word for word into Hurricane Camille (though commented out). Thanks. TimL 00:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. It's not a work of the federal government, and if used, it should be referenced, not copied outright. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my fault. I was the one that copied and pasted. But I commented out most of it because I have been rewriting the paragraphs one by one. When I have rewritten the paragraph, I let it be seen without having to press the edit button. I thought it was ok if the original work was not seen, so I'd show it when it wasn't exactly the same. Isn't that fine. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 00:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any re-writing going on. Can you expand on that? TimL 00:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first 4 or 5 paragraphs were rewritten to some degree. I was hoping someone could do a more noticable rewrite, as I don't have the best writing skills. So I think the first 4 of 5 paragraphs can be restored. Right? Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure. I'm glad to help here though. This is a great source for the Aftermath sectrion but need not be the only source. We have a good number of sources to draw from in the article. I'll work on an aftermath rough draft over the next couple of days based on these sources.  TimL 00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutting and pasting from other sites 

message: If no one has any objections, I am going to nominate the articles I mentioned above (see More on WP:1.0).  I doubt JTWC or NHC are going to make it in their stub-to-start class states, so I decided against them.  I think the storm articles mentioned are good ones to include, also included should be the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season.  From what I have read, I believe we can improve the articles after they are nominated and accepted.  Runningonbrains 06:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. However, I won't be able to pass them, as it would be a conflict of interest of the size of Super Typhoon Tip. Good luck, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations]] 

message: I went a little bit overboard over the past day, extending the table on my user page to show the quality of all Atlantic storm/season articles. I think it summarises the state of our articles pretty well - I wonder if it might be more sensible in project space and not my user space though, its a useful summary for us all I think; particularly in conjunction with the table Hink made (for the newsletter).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article statistics 

message: First off, I'm sorry if this has been mentioned.  Personally I wouldn't prefer to go through five archived pages to check.  Now, how does a storm become 'notable'?  For example, I noticed that in Talk:Hurricane Faith, Jdorje says that the article shouldn't be based on trivia but based on impact.  So the question is, should articles like Hurricane Faith be created?  Is it notable because of trivia? -Tcwd | Talk 15:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Faith is notable due to its track. It lasted further north than any other tropical cyclone. Unfortunately, notable is subjective, and Jdorje doesn't find long lasting storms notable (like Ginger). In my book, an article can only be created if there's enough information. Look at Matthew. It caused only $300,000 in damage, yet because there was enough information I created it, and it's now B class. For older storms, notable=information (basically), but newer storms don't have that problem. Every 2005 storm has an article, and there's no problem with that. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I don't want to see is an argument on the lines of "this storm is notable so it should have an article". It gets a mention in the season article, if thats all there is to say about it, an article just isn't justified (though the redirect is useful). With 2005 storms there is so much more info available (the TCR + advisories at minimum). Faith is spectacularly info poor - I can't even find the TCRs for 1966 online (though I might not be looking in the right place). I am all for Faith having an article, but it should have that impact stuff sourced.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems that if the section in the season report seems to long relative to the others then the storm has at least become notable enough to someone to find enough information to make it the length of an article...whatever that length may be...anywho...btw...did you check the NCDC for reports?...can't remember if they keep tabs on those on their website or not...I also have a website somewhere that has a bunch of old newspaper articles...if I find it I'll post it on that page..Dr Denim 18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: It was mentioned I should drop a note on this page, so I am.  =)  Most of you know about the GIBBS (geostationary) imagery that currently runs back to 1983.  Plans are by early next year that it will be expanding back to 1979...very good news.  For those unwilling to wait, there is already polar orbiting imagery back to 1978 online through NCDC in their section on CLASS.  Someone down at the LCH office made a DVD of the Atlantic seasons back through the 1970s already...which can be ordered through either NCDC or by mailing a set of DVD-burnable disks to LCH.  Thegreatdr 18:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! That's great news! I hope that will help fill in some empty spaces. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 11:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite imagery 

message: I think we should move the articles of the older storms (which are mostly old articles predating the current philosophy) from "Storm name" to "Storm name (season)", with the exception of retirees of course. The one problem storm for this is Hurricane Alice; If we were to follow Zeta's technique we get Hurricane Alice (1954). Both of these names have the problem that the first Alice of 1954 is actually more notable (55 deaths). I do not think Alice2 is worthy of the main article, especially as its not that unique now with Zeta having occured. Perhaps both Alice and Zeta should be moved to Alice (1954-55) and Zeta (2005-06)?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if it was the only use of the name? If it was only used once, there's no real need for the year disambiguation. The reason 2005 had it is because there's a chance the names could be reused in the future. Those names in the past on old lists are done with. If the old names were to be chosen as a replacement name, then they could be renamed, but there's no real point. On the other hand, because there were multiple Alices, the year disambiguator should be there. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I forget how volatile the naming lists were originally. Even if they weren't retired many names were only used once, though I feel too many of the old storms have the main name, I think I'll change any which need disambiguation. We need to decide what is correct for Alice though, that storm should not have the main name. Another question shouldn't Hurricane Emily be the disambig page given the non-retirement of the 2005 storm?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alice should be Hurricane Alice (1954), as it formed in 1954. There's a very low chance that the other Alice will get an article, as there's next to no information on it. However, if that were to happen, then changes could be made. Yes, Emily should be the disambiguation page, I think. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Move Emily to a disambiguation page, leave Zeta as is, leave Alice 2 as is unless we get more info on Alice 1 (so the year of formation is the year inside the parentheses), leave the articles for older named storms as is iff that occasion was the only usage of that name. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds right. Good luck with the disambigs. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to be harder than I first thought. The reason why: how many TC's were called Emily?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article naming 

message: There's a discussion at the assessment talk page about the next FAC, but I'm posting notice of it here because it is more visible in this page. We're discussing whether Hurricane John or Hurricane Katrina should be next. Of course, Katrina is expected to be a difficult nomination, so that's why we need all the eyes we can get if we decide to nominate it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Orrrrrrr, we could just do both --Nilfanion (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next FAC 

message: A few users and myself have been discussing the possibility of expanding the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject elsewhere, namely to the Simple English Wikipedia. We've contacted a few users whose writing is a little too simplistic for here, but would be perfect for the Simple English Wikipedia. The Simple Wikipedia has an article on the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the 1963 season, and a stub about Katrina. I propose we create a secondary Wikiproject to get some attention over there. Working there is completely voluntary... don't worry, we're not kicking you out. If you go over there, we'd stay in contact, and help a little if necessary. Just be sure that you can use simple wording, short sentences, and no spelling errors. Does this sound like a good idea? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not... ages ago I wrote the brief article on tropical cyclones in that wiki. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh. I might be able to do that. I like writing newsy stuff. I see Golbez already has an account there, too. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 11:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: We should decide once and for all what to do with them. Now, some older seasons, like the 1946 Atlantic hurricane season are getting them, and there's no point. If there's one or two storms, there's still no point. If someone was at the one article and they wanted to go to the other, there's the back button and the season link right there in the article. There's no point in going back and deleting all of them, but I think we should have a cut off date. I vote for 1950, and any before will be deleted (really, there's not that many pre-1950 articles). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally hate them for all seasons, but if we must have them, then only use them for highly notable, busy seasons like 2004 or 2005. If we much have a cutoff date, then use 1950, when storms were named. The button bar is 100% useless without a standard lettering system. --Golbez 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I hate them as well. If it were up to me, we'd only have them for seasons with 4 or more articles; 1955, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before 1950, the following seasons have button bars, either currently on the page or the button bar has been removed; 1946, 1933, 1914 (God knows why), and 1887. There's no need for them, as none of them have any storm articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure if I would go quite so far as to hate hate them, but they only have much point where there is a lot of storm articles (2005). They have no utility in the other basins, so I'm inclined to wonder why bother at all? That way we can be consistent across all articles. Certainly this expansion is pointless post-95 only please (at most).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about 1985? There's 6 storms there, and could conceivably have a purpose. Other than that, though, post 1995 only sounds good. That's about the only area where there could be more storm articles due to enough information, so button bars for these seasons only sounds good. Most other seasons, with the exceptions I listed above with 4 articles, don't really need them. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One minor fix should be done to them, I noticed it a LOT with 2005 AHS when I was doing the major work on improving the minor storms. The "I" storm, in particular, should be wrapped by nbsp's and possibly the other letters too. Compare how easy it is to select 2005's Irene to 2004's Ivan and you will see why...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, very good point. Definitely for the I storm, and probably for J and K as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've personally thought that there is no point in a button bar for seasons that don't have articles (or even a section!) on every storm. So, if a pre-requisite is adopted, it should be having all storms before the bar. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. a bit of help here, s'il vous plait... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that. 2004 shouldn't be too hard, as it seems like some users are itching to do all articles for that. I am personally ready for 2003, as, in case it is needed, I am ready to do Erika, Grace, Henri, and Nicholas. Kate should be easy (could have impact section) and Mindy shouldn't be bad (definite impact), leaving Danny and Peter as the only ones left, which should be very easy. 2002 will be a bit harder, as there's only 3 storms for 14 storms. However, most were landfalling, so Bertha, Edouard, Fay, Hanna, and Kyle should be fairly easy. The rest might be a little hard. 2001 has a lot of fish storms, but Chantal, Danny, and Karen shouldn't be bad due to their impact. The rest will be a little hard. For 2000, I am prepared to write articles for Debby, Helene, Leslie, and Michael, if needed, but the rest will be a little hard due to non-impact. 1999 will be easy to finish, as Harvey had an impact and Katrina effected nations a year after Mitch. All that's left is Arlene, Cindy, and Emily. 1998 has a lot of fish storms, possibly making it hard to have articles for every storm. Charley and Hermine will be the only relatively easy ones. IMO that's the absolute furthest for all storm article seasons. However, we shouldn't do all storms for the sake of the button bars. We should only do it when we agree we should. I'll try and help out with Katrina. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're gonna do that, can I revive Tropical Storm Charley (1998) and expand it? I'm sure more can be found, and I don't think it should've been merged in the first place. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I think it looks pretty bad. Please, calm down or stop with the article creating. If you want to make a new article, make a genuine effort to make it look good. Try and use the tips for a good article. Add inline references. Most of all, use good spelling and grammar. We need more good articles, be it making new good ones or improving existing articles to a better quality. Adding more non-referenced, poorly-written, and short articles is completely detrimental to our progress, as someone will have to go back and rewrite it. If you can't make a good new article, then work on an existing article. Any storm since 1995 has plenty more information out there, so you could pick just one at random. I'll list the ones that need to be bettered. Erin, Marilyn, Opal, Roxanne, Bertha, Josephine, Bonnie, Charley (1998), Earl, Frances (1998), Irene, Gordon, Gabrielle, Iris, Gustav, Isidore, Lili, Fabian, Isabel, Juan, Frances (2004), Gaston, or Jeanne. If none of them sound good, there plenty others out there. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I remember that a long time ago I said that buttonbars are useless for seasons before 1960. The reason? Because there is no too much information about the storms and therefore no articles. Well, that's my comment. juan andrés 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, too. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind actually. I think I'll work on them in my sandbox a little more (You, whoever you are, can help :) ). íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 16:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, we don't need more articles. The whole point of the issue is to get rid of the button bars, not to add articles so we can keep them. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Button Bars 

message: We're probably one of the WikiProject farther along on the push to 1.0, and since I'm involved with that project too, I added the next request from them to WikiProjects; importance rankings. Right now, I added my personal importance assessment to the articles listed on the WikiProject table, and I'd like for others to go over them. Comments? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work with that all around. No real comments except for everyone to keep working hard. Hurricanehink 11:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Should these be added to the  template too? — jdorje (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I imagine we can... there's a ton of discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects, and I've begun to take our template's extra features to other WikiProjects... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the importance rankings is a bit subjective. IMO, Floyd is of high importance, especially to people the Mid-Atlantic/Carolinas. How do we determine what is more or less important? Hurricanehink 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You guys might be interested at the list at User:Mathbot/WP1.0, as it is a listing of our entire assessment so far. As to the importance question: what I would think is that Tropical cyclone is a  article, while all retired hurricanes are at least  articles, with  to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Storms not retired are  articles, unless there's a particular reason they're important. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It had a bug, it should now include it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong link too. The new link is Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tropical cyclone articles by quality. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've adjusted  and created cats for Top, High, Mid and Low importance articles. I also made :Category:No-Class importance hurricane articles for the disambigs, templates etc (though I suspect it need splitting) and :Category:Unassessed importance hurricane articles is where the rest of the articles are.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things to do (apart from assessment) is to determine what we want to do with the non-assessed articles; should they have multiple importance classes? Also the Cat structure needs revising, I just copy/pasted into the quality Cat for now.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the importance classes should go like this. Top class should only be Tropical cyclone, as no others are of extreme importance. For seasonal articles, if there are 19 or more storms, it's high class. 14 to 19 is mid (unless the season was exceptional, like 1961 which had 7 major hurricanes with 11 storms). Below 14 is low. For storm articles, they should be based primarily on impact. High class should be storms that caused over $10 billion in damage (2006 USD) or over 100 deaths. Mid-class should be storms that caused between $500 million to $10 billion in damage (2006 USD) or 30 to 100 deaths, or had an important record (John or Tip). Low class should be anything under $500 million or 0-30 deaths, or a storm that had an article due to information, not notability (like 2005 Fishes). As for non-storm or seasonal articles, it should be based on how often the term is used. Saffir-Simpson would be high, Eye would be high, other lesser things would be Mid or low, etc. I think the importance classes are fine as they are. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats about what I was thinking, but best to check. I noticed that Mathbot is picking up importance, so we should try and get that metadata included now. I modified the hurricane template to allow it but I may have got the cats wrong. Can someone double check them? Then we only have to do all the categorisation...--Nilfanion (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything looks good. Should we start the madness? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to, as I've played around with the category scheme so it can be picked up by Mathbot now. I personally think that all the retired storms are at least a Mid-Class, by default... Titoxd(?!?) 21:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets argue it on a case-by-case basis, on the articles talk. Here's a question though. Is Hurricane Katrina Top-Class? I think it could count as such given its extreme importance as more than a mere tropical cyclone.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Well, you could talk about Katrina's on the Katrina article (case-by-case, as you said). So does it mean that most storms will be low or medium class? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the Perfect storm should be a mid class, not low. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 23:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. The damage was mostly caused by the precursor extratropical storm, while the actual hurricane did next to nothing. On the other hand, there's not going to be an article on the extratropical storm. I suppose it should be mid-importance. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think 1950 would be fairly important for Atlantic. It was the first time names had been used for the Atlantic Ocean, and had the most number of major hurricanes in an Atlantic history. Not all earlier seasons would be low class, either. 1914 should be mid, simply for being the least active season ever. 1893, 1887, or 1886 are all fairly important, as well. Your crierion sounds good, though is a little undefined. Sure, if it is any superlative (most active, most hurricanes), then it's mid, but what if it's not? Why is 1994 or 1990, for example, mid? How much weight should the season's storms have? For storms, we have over $500 million or 30+ deaths. What should be the criteria for seasons? It shouldn't be a damage or death thing, as 1992 would be mid or high despite having only one notable storm. What about this? If a season has two or more storms that were retired, caused over 50 deaths, or caused more than $800 million in damage, then it's mid. It doesn't have to be exactly like that, but it's an example. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I say no season since 1950 should be Low-class is imagine if we just had the Mid or higher articles, it would seem wrong to have 92, 93, 95 but not 94 for example. Importance rates the articles importance to us, not the signifcance of the subject there is a subtle difference IMO. I think it is as important for us to have 1983 Atlantic hurricane season as it is to have Hurricane Juan. As to the older seasons, you are probably right, but those are ones where the stub level quality will be a hinderance to deciding how important the season actually is. I think we should default to Mid for recent and Low for older (though being very flexible on both seems right), note 2005AHS is high, which I think is fair and I think the other "most active" seasons should be high too.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I guess I mis-intrepreted you, and I suppose that works. 1950 to 2006 are mid at the minimum. I wish, though, that there were more categories. Mid is a very wide area. There's a huge difference in importance for the 1962 season for the 1985 season, for example. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Top-Class is right now used for articles which fit either WP:CORE, WP:VA, or articles which we believe MUST be in an encyclopedia for it to be complete. It can be expanded a bit further, but Katrina is arguably a Top-Class article. Titoxd(?!?) 07:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Katrina would have that defintion (must-have). Support high class for Katrina. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: High for Katrina? I'd say it is a Top-Class article (certainly the only individual storm to be such), being the flagship article of the project that put us in the eye of the media... CrazyC83 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, yea, I meant top for Katrina. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now bumped Katrina to . Titoxd(?!?) 07:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Very good idea. Though it isn't part of the rest of the scheme, it would work well for storms like Alberto. Alberto is a good article for a current storm, but it is bound to change a lot. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see such made before Tropical Storm Beryl forms... CrazyC83 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's not part of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, how would we go about doing something like that? Hurricanehink (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You would just need to create  and the corresponding category. I'm just not sure if it would screw up the bot. Titoxd(?!?) 23:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, if we do raise Katrina to Top-Class we probably should raise some of its subarticles Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans to High for example.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but that's probably the one that would be high, except for potentially one of the more important aftermath ones. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] 

message: I recommended that a new class be created for current events (i.e. the 2006 season page, current storms) that come and go very fast. It could be called the "Current-class". Any thoughts? CrazyC83 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good idea. Though it isn't part of the rest of the scheme, it would work well for storms like Alberto. Alberto is a good article for a current storm, but it is bound to change a lot. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see such made before Tropical Storm Beryl forms... CrazyC83 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's not part of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, how would we go about doing something like that? Hurricanehink (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You would just need to create  and the corresponding category. I'm just not sure if it would screw up the bot. Titoxd(?!?) 23:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New class suggestion

message: I've done all the initial categorisations now, odds are I got several a bit wrong but I just wanted to depopulate the unassessed class. Now the intial quality reviewer should also assign the importance. There are a few articles I noted that shouldn't exist - Gallery of 1900 Galveston Hurricane images is the most obvious as it has been fully transwikied to commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, if we do raise Katrina to Top-Class we probably should raise some of its subarticles Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans to High for example.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but that's probably the one that would be high, except for potentially one of the more important aftermath ones. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All done

message: I've read and re-read the assesment scale and I still don't see how the Wilma article would be qualified as Start and not B class. Are you all using a different set of criteria? TimL 14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion should be on the Wilma page. This is how I see it. The assessment scale is weighed, so more notable and damaging storms will need more to be a B class than other storms. It also needs a lot of information. With that information, though, you need a lot of organization, too. One more thing. A class is only given if it is relatively close to FA class. The same logic should be applied for B class to GA class. Using the GA class criteria, storm articles need to have American units and Metric units, a fair use rationale for all fair use pictures, and inline sourcing. Wilma is missing a lot of this. That's why it's start class. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment Scale