Thanks Hink, if you find other quotes feel free to add them yourself. I suspect you probably found some good ones for the 2004 storms you were working on.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just got back to my computer after being gone for a week. Thanks for the article info stuff and on TD 11, did Storm05 create it after I made my subpage or long before? I don't plan to publish TD articles, maybe some sorta notable storms w/o current articles...if Eric will let me. →Cyclone1→23:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) Once again, I'm sorry it took a while for me to reply. I seem to share an IP adress with every vandal on Wikpedia and I get blocked. A lot. Anyway, Should I re-make the 11 article? I made it thinking it would just be kind of cool to have on my user page. I can improve the writing/grammar/typos and theres still a lot of info I can get from the NHC page. It would be kinda weird, though, to have an article on a depression, even if it was devastating. And would it need a broader section on the 1999 page? (like 14 in 1987?) It would make sence. I mean, arguably this depression was the deadliest depression on record when it teamed up with that trough. I can definetly ramp up the quality of this page, easy. And with that Article formatting guide I can lay it out like it should be. Should I make it? →Cyclone1→05:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None taken. There is pretty much zero on this storm. I'm looking for a miracle page right now, but looks grim. Something wierd; I used a random AOL search engine to pull up Tropical Depression Eleven (got thousands of results on Jose 2005) and the fifth result was... my user-subpage. User:Cyclone1/tropical depression 11 (1999)/wikipedia.org. These engines have no respect for privacy. I think it will stay just that, though, a subpage. Oh well, it's not like I'm never going to make anything else. →Cyclone1→12:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Well I give up on 11. NOTHING on it anywhere! Its a subpage. Im' thinking about Leslie (2000) though, it caused $720 million in damages indirectly. Maybe. →Cyclone1→19:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there is more, I just didn't get it all down yet. Hey, on that page that shows the rainfall totals, can I upload those pictures? That rain graphic of Leslie would be perfect. →Cyclone1→00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! Leslie is done. Thanks for all the help. What needs to be improved for it to become an article? Should it become an article? →Cyclone1→04:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think given up on Lesie for the following reasons: Leslie, in truth, was a non damaging storm. Leslie was weak and insignifacant, killed no one and did no damage. It was the trough that did the damage. The trough did all this damage and then later became Leslie. It's a similar situation with the 1991 Halloween Nor'easter. The noreaster did the extensive damage, Henri (what I call the unnamed hurricane) did almost nothing. I don't see why Les should have an article if Henri doesn't. Henri's article is 98% about the noreaster. (which it should be). →Cyclone1→19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, true. I don't know. Lesie, really, does not deserve an article but the precursor flood definatly did. ::thinks hard:: WAIT! How about an article similar to the Northeast U.S. flooding of October 2005, which mentioed, but weren't about Tammy and 22? Something like Florida flood of October 2000 and just include it in the 2000 seasonal article or the Leslie section?→Cyclone1→19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (I personally like the idea)[reply]
Sure. I didn't think of that but you're right about Leslie being directly linked to the flood. Didn't think of that. Yeah, why not, I'll give improving articles a try. The goal for the WPTC is to get all of the TC related articles to FA status, not to get all TC's an article, right? →Cyclone1→19:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, just looking at Roxanne gives me a headache. (no ofense to who created it). Billion dollar storm, practally stub class article. I'm on it. →Cyclone1→19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hink, could you give Ophelia's article a going over? I've added in the warnings info from the TCR, but it feels a bit excessive to me - could you give the article a copyedit? Apart from that I think Ophelia is another article that could go to FAC in the not too distant future...--Nilfanion (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thats what I was thinking anyway. I've only really done the history and preps so far, I suppose this is more a query about whether those sections are OK - 3 paragraphs describing the warnings in intricate detail is a bit excessive isn't it? I hadn't really touched the impact/aftermath yet - thats now.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks Hink, its nice to be reassured that my gut feelings are right. Of the 2005 storms, Ophelia is probably the most useful one for me to learn how to do the model layout (I guess that means leave me to it...) The rest are either too important, too trivial or spanish :(--Nilfanion (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see why Ophelias is a long way off now, it was written at the time... and theres dead links and the rest (ew). Oh well, I ought to start as opposed to hiding (in the newsletter..). I'm now coming to the view that current storms should not get an article unless absolutely necessary (Katrina AFTER its florida landfall for example).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary of the activities of the WikiProject over the past month and upcoming events over the next month. In addition monthly tropical cyclone activity will be summarized.
You have received this as you are a member of the WikiProject, please add your username in the appropriate section on the mailing list. If you do not add your name to that list, the WikiProject will assume you do not wish to receive future versions of The Hurricane Herald.
Storm of the month
Typhoon Chanchu near its peak intensityTyphoon Chanchu was the first typhoon and first super typhoon of the 2006 Pacific typhoon season. Forming on May 9 over the open western Pacific Ocean, Chanchu moved over the Philippines on the 11th. There, it dropped heavy rainfall, causing mudslides, crop damage, and 41 deaths. It moved into the South China Sea, where it rapidly strengthened to a super typhoon on May 14, one of only two super typhoons recorded in the sea. It turned to the north, weakened, and struck the Fujian province of China as a minimal typhoon on the 17th. The typhoon flooded 192 houses, while heavy rainfall caused deadly mudslides. In China, Chanchu caused at least 25 deaths and $480 million in damage (2006 USD). Elsewhere on its path, strong waves from the typhoon sank eleven Vietnamese ships, killing at least 44 people. In Taiwan, heavy rainfall killed two people, while in Japan, severe waves killed one person and injured another.
This isn't the generic barnstar, we just don't have a WPTC star yet…
The May member of the month is TitoXD. The WikiProject awards this to him for his brilliant work in improving articles. TitoXD joined the WikiProject in October just after it had been founded. Since then he has contributed substantially to many articles, for example Hurricane Nora (1997), which is currently a Featured Article Candidate. He is also actively involved in the assessment of articles and so helps to improve many more articles.
Explanation of content
If you have a topic which is not directly related to any specific article but is relevant to the WikiProject bring it up on the Newsletters talk page, and it will probably be included in a future edition of The Hurricane Herald.
These two sections are decided by the community on the newsletter's talk page:
Storm of the month: This is determined by a straw poll on the page. While all storms will be mentioned on the newsletter, the selected storm will be described in more detail.
Member of the month: Nominations are made on the talk page, voting is by secret ballot; read the talk page for details. The winner receives the WikiProject's barnstar (when we make it).
The assessment scale by itself counts of several grades:
FA: reserved for articles that have been identified as featured contentonly.
A: this grade is given to articles that are considered ready for Wikipedia:peer review. The way to get this grade assigned to an article is by asking other cyclone editors at the WikiProject's assessment page.
B: these articles are "halfway there", and have most of the details of a complete article, yet it still has significant gaps in its coverage.
Start: articles that fall in this category have a decent amount of content, yet it is weak in many areas. Be bold and feel free to improve them!
Stub: these articles are mostly placeholders, and may in some cases be useless for the reader. It needs a lot of work to be brought to A-Class level.
The way to use these assessments is by adding a parameter to the WikiProject template on the articles talk page ({{hurricane|class=B}} as an example). This feeds the article into a category which is read and parsed to create an assessment table, summary and log.
I noticed that on the List of New Jersey hurricanes, it said that Maria and Nate from last year together caused a death. And since you wrote the article, I thought I'd ask you; which article should the death be mentioned in? Should it be in both? I hate when things like this come up and need to be sorted out. Luckily, there's a source for the death. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal)12:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are trying the right thing Hink. We know that when one of us goes through an article it will be GA standard (probably higher, but we dispute whether fishies can be higher than GA, lol). They don't exactly add to the workload if they do create a poor article, its just that they will have wasted their time - we will have to spend the same length of time on it as if it hadn't existed. I think persuading them that improving a retired storm from Start to B is far far more valuable than making a start on a minor storm is the only way forward. That would be the most productive thing for them to do IMO. However, if they insist on wanting to make new articles, I have an idea: The list of storms by region series. That requires a lot of leg work to get all the details, but isn't that hard to do well. We have the NJ and Cali articles to point them at too - and its not that hard to ref those up properly. What do you think of that?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, yeah it does seem a little harsh Hink, but simple could do with help. The risk is though their spelling isn't that great they might end up using too complicated words for simple anyway... so it would get them out of our hair but not actually help there at all. Unless they let go of ownership I don't know how to get anywhere though on here. They could all be potentially valuable contributors if we could persuade them to focus on something. A possibility is encourage them into helping with specific tasks - eg better pictures.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, thats bout right. To be honest spelling/grammar is minor IMO - yes they should be able to do it right but fixing it is easy enough, if they produced decent articles full of spelling mistakes that's not too much work on our part to fix them (of course its annoying, encourage spell checker). Sure try giving them a link to simple. A possiblity is to find one thing they are good at. One thing which springs to mind is satellite imagery. Theres the Earth Observatory, NRL and the MODIS raw site I found the other month - its all PD so we are safe there. They could chase down a lot of images for the non-Atlantic storms for instance. Another possibility is to improve seasonal articles, many of the older ones are poor. If we tell them make 1960-2000 AHS as good as 2004 AHS they will have done something useful. Sure point them at simple - if they spend a significant time there its less for us to clean up...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm setting myself up for something nastier than sat pics atm - the disambig pages- getting them all properly done. I can see them helping greatly on simple, simple:Hurricane Katrina is all that exists. And yes list of European canes will be done eventually - it won't exactly be long will it?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hink, you were the one who wrote the original WPac articles for the most part weren't you? Question here - did you make the PAGASA naming accurate to reflect what was actually named? I'm getting there on getting a list of names to work out the disambigs. So far I know the Northern Hemisphere back to 1945 (except for PAGASA issues) and the southern hemisphere back to '84 with the Australians back to 60 something. I'd like to know it all before I can start editing though :(--Nilfanion (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, I've just got to go back to the primary sources again (tedium yay!). Still it is essential that it is done and we have a list of all named cyclones for setting up the disambigs correctly.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<-- (grumbles) Typical duplicate effort isn't it? However, my list contains all... plus North Indian (all 8 of them) and a lot of the southern hemisphere (back to '84 I'm confident on, maybe earlier).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hink, do you want me to add to your table? I've finally found the best track data for both the Aussies and the SWIO with names.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Cross posted from Nilfanion's talk-
I've just stumbled over his (okay, not really :P), and while I totally agree about Storm05, Hurricanecraze32, Cyclone1 and Icelandic Hurricane (IH's still okay-ish, I guess), and that perhaps we should suggest they help us "expand" to Simple, I think you guys really shouldn't target all who make new articles.
In the past two months I've made Hurricane Dot (1959), Typhoon Dot (1985) and Typhoon Joan (1970), all which received DYK mentions and are just shy of B-class because of lack of impact information (as is perhaps to be expected). I'm also working on a draft of Super Typhoon Kate from 1970. I'd like to think my work is a notch higher than the editors I've mentioned, please don't group me with them? NSLE(T+C) at 01:02 UTC (2006-06-06)
I guess... :P However, we could use some new content at Wikinews, especially as new storms are going to start coming more frequently now. So, instead of expanding to Simple, we should expand there? Titoxd(?!?)22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "evil" comment was tongue-in-cheek. However, some of the content at Wikinews needs to be written in short, simple sentences, and they can always use Word (or OpenOffice, for that matter). I personally think it would be a good choice to expand to both. Titoxd(?!?)23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, although it isn't "a lot of time", really. I got a bit frustrated because I got beaten to updating the Alberto page, so I went to write an article at Wikinews with some of the data, and it was on the front page within a few minutes, and is going to be printed here later today. It didn't take more than a ten minutes, as most of the fact-checking is done here anyways :P. I also spend some time in the Spanish Wikipedia, although I really don't want to translate 2005 Atlantic hurricane season by myself... Titoxd(?!?)00:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok I'll re word it. I dont know about Simple English Wikipedia. Its just too far from the Wikipedia I fell in love with. And how often do I really make article changing edits anyway? I actually have a good vocabulary, grammar and sentence structure when I'm talking. I just never really thought I needed to type like that, too. I never tried that hard before because I didn't think it was that important. Now that I realize it, I can improve my writing. →Cyclone1→21:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll think about it. If I do decide to, it'll be a while before I get started. I'll admit, I kind of like being a background editor. I don't really feel any sort of need to be a major part of anything, but thanks for your concern. I really appreiciate it. →Cyclone1→21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. Also, about the Simple English thing, I think I'll pass; my writing may not be the best, but I love a good challenge, and I think this is a place and topic where your limits can be tested and expanded. So, sorry, but maybe in the future. I hope you enjoy the barnstar! íslenska hurikein #12(samtal)21:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hink means that here, whatever you're trying to do has mostly been done, and right now you're left with storms that shouldn't really have an article to do. Hence, it may be a better idea to help the WPTC expand into the Simple English Wikipedia. NSLE(T+C) at 01:07 UTC (2006-06-06)
I'm only trying to be a help.Do you mind of the following:
1) Adding storms to the 2005AHS at Simple English
2) Do I have to rejoin?
3) Can i open a sub-WPTC there instead?
4) Checking Iris for me.HurricaneCraze3222:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently busy with other stuff (RL). Could you help me with the draft of Kate? I'm concerned that I may miss the 5-day DYK window, as I normally move my drafts into mainspace rather than recreating them. NSLE(T+C) at 02:11 UTC (2006-06-06)
First off Hurricanehink, thanks for welcoming me. Its nice to get such a good reception. Now. I had a comment and question for you. The comment is about the Talk section on Tropical Storm Delta. Tell be what you think about my comments, which are at the bottom. Secondly, my question is that the enviromental damage of Hurricane Katrina (Which I heard was worse than Exxon Valdez) capable of sterilizing the lake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionheart Omega (talk • contribs)
The damage is pecent is amount is countries's damage from a Tropical Cyclone divided by the GDP of the Country. For example Cuba's GDP is $33.9 billion. The damage from Dennis was at least $1.4 billion, leading to a percentage damage of 4.1%. The damage in cuba from Willma was at least $700 million, leading to a percentage of about 2%. In the article talking about damage in the Canary Islands from Delta never said if it was all total damage, or total insured dam,ge, leading to the possibility of almost three quarters of a billion dollars in damage to the area. I am curious though, why couldn't any one here at wikipedia find inforation on monetary damages in Norway from Maria. One last note, about 1 month ago, in Maria's article it was talking about a person there who died indirectly from Maria after being in a comatose state. What happened that this was removed. --Lionheart Omega21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found this on the article of Biloxi. This is about Katrina. "Over 400 persons remain unidentified countywide so that number may increase." Does this mean there are 400 unidenified bodies,or 400 missing. --Lionheart Omega21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page, you wrote to write a date when the storm dissipates in Section 1. What if the storm dissipates and regenerates, do I write two dissipation dates? User:Fishhead11:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hink, I could just do it myself, but this is a source you should know about if you don't already. This link to FEMA's site contains a list of all FEMA declarations - with by year or by state selections. All FEMA disaster declarations have some details listed there, but some are much more expansive than others (Katrina's are MASSIVE of course). Some have photo galleries, these are for Allison in Pennsylvania and Louisiana. Specifically that photo you added to the article is available at much higher res and in full color. Hope that helps :P--Nilfanion (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I figured as much Hink, though I wish there were more pics... I mean 2000+ for Katrina! It wouldn't be too much to ask for a measly 1 on Rita would it? I found an interesting book on the Great Storm of 1703, there was some evidence which hints at a tropical origin for the storm, but it struck Britain in December - soo only Storm05 would say it was a hurricane IMO. It was Rita - Wilma equivalent in wealth-normalization terms.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the Great Storm of 1703 was in fact a Hurricane, it would be the only known Hurricane to Britain while tropical, meaning another hurricane won't hit Britain for a while, baring Hurricane Kirk this year going "where no storm has gone before"--Lionheart Omega22:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think in terms of the effect on British society it compared to Katrina - though it is forgotten now and it was deadly as the 1900 Galveston 'cane. In terms of wealth normalization the answer is yes (probably), the storms of '87 and '91 were more like 1 to 2 billion. Course, Storm05 would say a polar low over the north pole was a hurricane... and while it MAY have been tropical in origin it was certainly extratropical over Britain...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on Patsy in my sandbox, and I think it's ready for an article. I know more can be done, such as expansion of the intro and storm history, plus a track map. I think a little more impact can be found. Shall I make an article now? Also on my sandbox is Hermine; I think it needs a little more work before it has its own article. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal)18:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just heard on CNN at least one person has drowned because of Alberto, but it is not said on their site. Where do I get this info.--Lionheart Omega02:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking get rid of the N/A's, it will look worse with the many columns. I think it might be worth replacing (TD) with * and have a footnote. I've got the naming data for WPac back to 45, PAGASA 63-88 and recently (I don't know for the early 90s), the complete listing for SW Indian and Australian and back to 84 in the SPac. I'll start feeding it into the table over this week.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the Alice entry to give the full worldwide view (the two 73-74 storms are different). However seeing it like that raises another question what is best - to show the Southern Hemisphere storms by the season they in (1973-74) or the calendar year they formed in (one is 1973 the other 1974)?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that makes most sense (and 2 1954 Atlantic Alices). I'll go through it letter by letter over the course of this week. Also I think the storm name should link to the disambig page when it exists and non-article storms should link to the season article.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done A, get a sense as to how bad its going to be? There's one minor niggle as well, the names aren't in fully alphabetical order.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all but done now on the sections I've covered so far. However I know it isn't comphrensive yet, I cannot find pre-84 Fiji names. Still, its much closer than it was before. Next time I add stuff to your sandbox, it will be all I have so its OK to publish then IMO. Then its just the disambigs...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea for DYK? I was thinking "DYK ...n tropical cyclones worldwide have been named XXX, making XXX the most frequently used name?"--Nilfanion (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got all the records correct, it would be helpful if you double check though (different pair of eyes and all that). On the disambig stuff my plan is first get the full list of names (that ~100K monster), then get all the disambigs correct to reflect that. Its a massive tedious job, but when it is done it will ensure they are correct. The disambigs do have some purpose to them, as a source for info like this in storm articles for example.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hink, an Australian Fifi in 1983. Where's the source for that one? FWIW on the redlinks I've put many of the Cyclone articles to the with year qualifier until I've clarified whether they were retired or not. --Nilfanion (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, yeah I noticed that one, the Fiji section is why I know I don't have all the Fijian storms. I'm a little concerned with the WMO document though it doesn't seem to correlate with the extant storms in the Australian best track (I'll link it up in a little bit). That makes me wonder if there's any random retirements going on.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grrr I've had time to try and figure out that 1983 Fifi now. The Aus best track (the zip download is on the new list if you want to trawl through it yourself) lists storms "198108 ERROL", "198109 ABIGAIL" and then "198110 GRAHAM" (all were in 1982). According to list of historic tropical cyclone names, Fifi came in between Errol and Graham so that gives a timeframe for Fifi - early 1982 (not 1983). There are several disagreements between that WMO document and the BoM track, which make me distrust that WMO document as a source for the exact dates of the storms (in fact all I see it as useful for are the names of retirees and the fact that naming began in Fiji's area before 1984). The 1982 unisys archives gives the JTWC data (#10 is Errol, #14 Abigail and #17 is Graham). From this any of #11, #12 or #13 could be Fifi. However the absence of Fifi from that BoM source is disconcerting (it would help if I could remember what webpage I found the link to the zip on, might have an explanation). I'm not sure what to do about Fifi now, there are indications it occurred in 1982 but no positive evidence (as far as the BoM is concerned it could have been a non-tropical storm). What do you think? I'm stumped.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you Hink. Basically the only basins which are straightforward are the East Pacific and North Atlantic - the NHC is both the RSMC and a very good source. Everywhere else the JTWC is a good source but is unofficial and the non-NOAA RSMCs are poor sources compared to the JTWC, which leads to all sorts of problems. I think the best solution for that page is for me to plug through the disambigs and once I have done that scream for help (maybe a whinge in the editorial of one of the newsletters). I'll let you know when I finish it.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today on June 13, 2006, I've found a close-up satellite image showing a group of clouds which strongly resembles a tropical wave. It is located in the western pacific basin. Do you think this could be a tropical wave? Because I'm not sure. Also I found the link on http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/tc_home.html. the system is called, 95W.INVEST. Alastor Moody June 13, 2006 (UTC)
Then what about the one in the Eastern pacific which is called 94E.INVEST? What do you think it must be? But his one certainly dosen't resemble a tropical low. Alastor Moody June 13, 2006 (UTC)
When you said it could be the leftovers of a tropical wave, do you think it is going to have any influences on the Pacific ocean or its basin. Well my guess is that it may soon dissipate into nothing. What is your guess? Alastor Moody 02:08, June 13 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know which thread to hijack, so I'll pick this one. :P I found a lot of info about rainfall in Cuba here, from the Cuban Institute of Meteorology. It's in Spanish, but some of the rainfall tables don't need foreign language to interpret, and it's based from the RA IV meeting at San Juan this year... Titoxd(?!?)01:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh I like. Mind you I think thats the wrong way around, its probably the Cuban summary and season report to the WMO not the Cuban version of the summmary of the WMO meeting.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hate km and km/h more than you do, its just we know full well it will be required at FAC and unlike the other minor tweaks it actually takes a bit of effort, why not fix it beforehand? I'll look it over (I really ought to get back to real work on Ophelia as opposed to the minor edits).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like miles same as you, read metrication in the UK if you can be bothered. The difference is that US policy is to go metric eventually while UK policy is to go metric "soon". BTW, congrats on the (latest) award.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Storm History from the report including the better storm track. My changes came from using edit history for 2003. The Naming part is written on my own. (Linked to 1985's Kate).HurricaneCraze3221:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah.Sources:
History-Report
Impact- Moved 1 paragraph from history to it
Changes In Post Season Analysis: 2003 season edit history
Re, what sort of thing I'd do at the project, check your email, I mailed you something... not sure if you got it. Chacor12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That system still bothers me since it had convection near the center and was handled as a gale in the TPC tropical weather discussion. It could, probably should, be a subtropical storm. Thegreatdr20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, could you keep an eye on the Katrina FAC and the article? I'm going to be real busy in real life for a while, and won't be able to dedicate much editing time to Wikipedia, so I need someone who can keep it rolling along. Could you do me that favor? Titoxd(?!?)06:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hink, I went hunting through the MODIS archive after a good juicy hint on the UK Met Office site. What do you think of this system? More to the point what do you think some other members of the Wikiproject would think :P--Nilfanion (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, heres the link to the Met Office page, heres another one in the Black Sea. The interesting thing about that storm near Africa is that there is nothing in the way of clouds the day before and after in that area; it came and went in less than 2 days. IMO it looks better than a certain other storm. On the Huroncane, I'll think about what works tomorrow, it is very interesting but not definitively tropical after all. You are right that it shouldn't get out, though I think you have too much faith, they would make Unnamed February Hurricane (2002), it looks like a TC it can't possibly be anything else right? As for a new article, I'm tempted to make up a Hurricane Pam article in userspace reporting the exercise as if it was the real thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if they are quite that bad Hink, they would accept it not being named (probably), besides the real mistake is "its got an eye it must be a hurricane". From reading the Met Office description I suspect it didn't even have a closed circulation or gale-force winds. I think a userspace article on Pam describing it as a real event would be interesting; I think I might get it going...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Now that Patsy and Hermine have been published, I decided to work on other hurricanes. Besides Hanna, how do they look? I think they're able to be published or are very near. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal)21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me so long to reply. I have AOL and I get blocked alot. Didn't you say you were going to make an article for Leslie? No need to apologize or anything, I did give up. I understand, I konw your a better writer than me. Tell me when its done.→Cyclone1→16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found this saying how DDG 98 became a temporary headquarters. Problem is, it has been a long time since I added new inforation to Wikipedia (what I have done recently is add small reference boxes for Hurricanes under the Hurricane Seasons of 2001, and part of 2000). Could you tell me how to do it please.--Lionheart Omega02:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am only new to Wikipedia, so I am still uncertain about certain things. I don't know how to upload a picture for the infobox. The "Upload File" page says you cannot upload images found on websites or on an image search engine, so where else can I find a pic for an article. And also, I don't know what you mean by 'inline sourcing'. (RaNdOm2608:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks.Though i am not happy about it.I only did it to stopped being bugged about it. Plus i made my own newsletter:Here.Still-i cant find anything else for Kate, and i'm reviving Erika-thanks to the new damage total.HurricaneCraze3218:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth.1) Dont forget i am only 15. 2)English is my worst subject. 3) I can spell very well, i just type too fast and i make mistakes.HurricaneCraze3223:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given every bit of info-i have inline sources for everything. 2) I remove the guidelines (already have them). 3) Reading what the guidelines says:
Storm History (Guidelines:3+ paragraphs about formation, peak intensity and dissipation) I have all of that in 5 paragraphs.
Impact: (Guidelines:1st paragraph:Rainfall and Meteorological Statisitics,2nd paragraph:Actual Damage and effects and final paragraph: Damage Total and Death Totals) Para1:Wave Height and Meteor.Stats Para2:Rainfall and a little impact Para3:Damage and other effects.
Aftermath: I put lack of retirement on there instead of Aftermath cause Erika lacks that.Lack of Retirement is a sub-paragraph in Impact (Making impact a total of 4 paragraphs).
Records: I added what you said and deleted the middle two.I'm keeping the bottom one because it is said in the report- so i believe its necessary.
Warnings and Watches:All 14 islands are listed for the eight warnings/watches in association with Erika and when they happened plus a source for it.
Hi Hurricanehink,
Sorry to bother you, but I've updated the captions on the edits to make it perfectly clear which version you support. Please update your vote and state which version you support. Please use the naming located under the main caption in bold, large text. Thanks, --Fir000209:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
FA
A
GA
