User talk:Jdorje/Archive4

Re: Assessments

Jdorje, A-Class (or WP:GA status) is for almost finished, B-Class is for very extensive articles (like 1947AHS, which I assume is the revert you're referring to). There is a set criteria about what each should encompass, you don't just make up your own. See assessment scale.

PS: Your talk page is over 80KB long, might want to think about archiving some of the old stuff. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 02:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, '47's intro kinda sucks. I removed the redundant section. Just a friendly bit of advice: you seem to be just listing problems with articles and then doing nothing about it. For obvious errors, like grammer, spelling and redundant sections, be proactive and correct them. Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see you doing much of that. For big changes, obviously, you'd want to bring it up on the discussion page and make sure everyone's cosure with it, but there's no need to waste time chewing over obvious stuff. That's just my opinion. :) (archived some old sections on my talk page by the way, thanks!) -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 03:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help. I was off working on other parts of the Wikiproject (mainly expanding and creating articles) but I'm here if there's anything specific that you need help with. I'd be more than happy to contribute. -- Hurricane Eric (working on my signiture right now, it's screwed up right at the moment)

Well I don't think anyone ever thought this would be done overnight, it's going to take some time (a year or so probably for the historical articles and then on-going for the current). What do you mean by "merge all the data into the AHS articles"? The way that sounds is making me a little nervous. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archiveDeaths and Damage 03:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (Warning!: This is a test signiture and has the potential to look stupid) ;)[reply]

(After regaining consciousness) Yikes! That's gonna be a helluva lota work. How many people know about this and are committed to it? Also; "A lot harder is determining the landfall strengths...these are typically not included at all in the basic best-track document." Not if you know what to look for. If the time of landfall is specified, it should be pretty easy to determine the rough landfall intensity. It it's not given anywhere on NOAA, then you look at the geographic coordiants and wait until you hit land, then use the intensity specified for that particular 6-hour period. That's not exact, but I think that's all we're ever gonna get for most of these old storms. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 03:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be impossible to do for most of the historical storms, because the exact landfall intensities went unrecorded in many instances. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 13:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane category sorting

As per this discussion:

Might I suggest, if this is an important issue, that you try creating a template which adds an article to these multiple categories simultaneously in the correct order: this will also aid in making sure the sort key is consistent. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, and it would make it easier to detect missing categories. However it would be tricky since categories are not *entirely* consistent. I will give it some thought. — jdorje (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe someone should take a look at making those categories consistent

. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are as consistent as they can be. But because of different basins (which use different names and classifications) and multi-season articles (older articles cover more than one year) not everything is consistent across all basins and times. It is certainly possible to put the info in the template, but care must be taken when handling all possibilities lest the template become too complex. — jdorje (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Preview

The early preview link in the 1925 Atlantic hurricane season article would not work when I clicked it. Storm05 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math

Could you please help me with my userpage? I'm trying to write some math stuff but it's not coming out how I want it.Icelandic Hurricane 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy again

From Jdorje/Energy

How are we supposed to find out these measurements for hurricanes? I still think this is a great idea. Maybe you could figure the moment magnetude for a lot of hurricanes and actually write it on the article page (don't forget to write the margin factor). This is really great. You should call it the "Dorje Method". Good luck with it!Icelandic Hurricane 14:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image adustments

I noticed that a lot of tropical cyclone maps don't show the whole track. With Cindy, atleast, you have room at the bottom of the image to show more of the system's track. Can you change it?Icelandic Hurricane 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox hurricane season

I moved the template now. The old edits to Template:Infobox hurricane season (only four) were deleted, but are still available through the Special:Undelete interface, so I can undelete them if necessary. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Old AHS formats

I took a look at ({{Hurricane season single}}), ({{Hurricane season decade}}), and ({{Hurricane season 2decade}}), and they all had years/decades wikilinked, so I thought that ({{Hurricane season multi}}) should have it too. If it's wrong to do so, I'll change it back. -- RattleMan 01:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I like it when the table is not stretched to the end of the screen. See this one; the season box is up with the other text, reducing white space, and the table is not stretched to the end of the screen. I like that. What do you think? -- RattleMan 01:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean center the table in the middle of the page, or center the text inside the table (Year/Location/Date/Damage/Notes)? I presume the latter? -- RattleMan 02:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check 1550-1574 Atlantic hurricane seasons now. Is that what you meant? I think that looks nice. -- RattleMan 02:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure thing

sorry mate

)

Disasters by year

Other than 2005 and 2006, we have no disasters by year categories. You have added to the hurricane templates to place all the hurricane articles in disaster by year categories. But since these categories do not exist, this has just placed red, useless categories on all these pages.

If you feel that these categories are needed, I would ask you to complete the job and build these categories out for all the years effected. They really do serve no useful purpose as red categories. - TexasAndroid 18:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All true. Actually I was thinking the whole season categories need to be rethought, as about half (I estimate) of the ~200 categories have only one article in them. This will take some doing however, just because there are so many articles affected. — jdorje (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a month, and nothing changed. I've removed the "Disasters by month" build from the template. I have nothing against these hurricane categories being parented by disaster categories, but if this is going to be done, then the work needs to also be done to build out every one of the disaster categories created by this template. - TexasAndroid 18:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Making changes to the template is trivial. The work will be in filling out all the categories. — jdorje (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"formed"

In my view, a tropical cyclone forms when it first becomes a tropical depression and gets the number from the NHC.

Dissipation is more complicated, since the dates should cover later effects that can cause serious damage. If a storm becomes extratropical far from land and never touches land again (i.e. Irene, Wilma), that date should be the date of dissipation. If a storm is over land up to the end of its lifespan, the date should be the date it either loses its identity (i.e. Dennis) or becomes absorbed by another system (i.e. Rita). If a storm is over water, becomes extratropical then still makes land impact (i.e. Maria, Ophelia), the date of final impact should be the date of dissipation.

Breaks of activity (i.e. when Ivan made that loop) should not be considered as dissipation; those periods should be treated as part of the storm period. CrazyC83 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina

Moved. I had to overwrite an existing page, but it was made out of redirects and edits moved to the old page, so nothing was lost. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Camille Damage Photos

Heres awebsite that has lots of photographs of damage after Hurricane Camille. Storm05 14:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the NOAA photo library, available here and here have many photos about Hurricane Camille. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA Photo Library

If a photo is in the NOAA photo library at http://www.photolib.noaa.gov, is it public domain even if it credits an organization that presumably still have copyright today? For example, this photo of damage from Hurricane Donna and this one from Hurricane Carol are credited to the Red Cross. Are they public domain or not? Similarly, this photo of damage from Hurricane Celia has credit given to the Coast and Geodetic Survey? Since they are from the NOAA photo library, they would be public domain, but since they are credited they would not be? I am not sure what to think. Please help me! Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASR

That's the closest I could find. I know there's a guideline on it, but I don't remember it. I'll have to ask around. NSL E _(T+C) 04:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Season naming lists

Ooh, I'm glad you asked. I really have no idea. Supposedly old names come from farmers almanac, but there's no real way of knowing because they aren't online (to my knowledge). If I find a site with the old names, I'll let you know, but right now we have to trust the anons and other users who put them in. Unless you wanted to remove uncited online information (I'd be fine with that). Hurricanehink 14:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: category

I cant seem to remove the User/hurricane season from the Florida Hurricane Category. Storm05 15:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: wikilinked years

Thanks, I must have missed that change in the MoS when altered date functionality was added. Sorry about that. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: No-class hurricane articles

I ended up categorizing most of the no-class articles, leaving only the portal and RattleMan's sandbox. --Ajm⁸¹ 07:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats a No class hurricane article?E-Series 16:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:No-Class hurricane articles. Doesn't fit into any of the other categories. — jdorje (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikiproject Talk

Yea, I moved that to Archive 1. The section was getting a little long, and there's no real need to have some of the older and resolved stuff on the page, so I archived it. Hurricanehink 22:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making my template

I want to thank you for see my template. But I will edit some hurricane articles. Two templates have see disambiguation (Pagename). ApprenticeFan - 04:40 GMT 02/16/2006

Maybe the templates, Template:Tcotheruses and Template:Othertcuses will redirect to .

ApprenticeFan - 04:51 GMT 02/16/2006

The has a disambiguation article from the mainpage and has also without article from the mainpage.

Example: Hurricane Cindy (2005), disambiguation Hurricane Cindy ApprenticeFan - 04:56 GMT 02/16/2006

Re: Signatures

Thanks for the suggestion, but how do you do that? Hurricanehink 12:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intoduction

Hello my name is User E-Series, my real name is Polka Dottie and these are my friends, so whats your name? E-Series 16:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 AHS records

Hi Jdorje,

I'm not sure If you got my wikipedia e-mail but I'll try this here....

My Name is Cory Pesaturo and I made the "List of records broken by the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season" and I was wondering if you could gather a few people to help me make the page "Official" and clean it up so we can put it on to the Main "2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season" page. THANKS A Bunch I will continue to fix it up as well as more Final Statements from the NHC come in.

Musically and Snowily - Cory Pesaturo "The Snowman"

You should ask on Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season. The biggest thing the article needs is sources. Every record needs to give a source that makes it easy to verify the accuracy of the claim. — jdorje (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Links

Why does everything internally linked appear underlined? Also found Damage for Tropical Storm Delta in a Tenerife News Article. At least $134 million, counting conversion, and at the time. The maximum was $347 million, also counting conversion, which is costlier than Cindy! This might have gone up since the article was wriitten though, since that was also stated in the Article. Lionheart Omega 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why links sometimes appear underlined; I get that too occasionally in firefox but then it goes away shortly. As for delta damage, make sure you include sources, and be careful before trusting a news source too much (remember, media reports put Ophelia's damage at 1.6 billion!). — jdorje (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

Could you please make the post-analysis tracks for Tammy, Stan, and Delta? I would if I could, but I can't.Icelandic Hurricane 15:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Intros

I have been using season summary sections to include {{Saffir-Simpson small}}, sometimes other facts about the numbers of storms, and usually and to say something along the lines of this:

The **** hurricane season's activity was near normal. X named storms formed, of which Y became hurricanes and Z became major hurricanes by reaching Category 3 or higher on the Saffir Simpson Hurricane Scale.

Should I just lump this into the Infobox? Not everyone knows what a "Major Storm" (or "Hurricane") is. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FA

Awesome and good job! TCFA #4! What's next? Should we go all out and try and get Floyd there, or be safer and do something easier like Iniki? Both, IMO, are almost there, so it could go either way. Looking at the list for other possibilities; Ivan and Katrina have too many problems, Labor Day is too short, 2004 and 2005 seasons are too recent and are too far off, Georges is too long and not enough pictures, 1997 Pacific season is OK but I don't think FA yet, List of Pacific Category 5 hurricanes doesn't have enough historical significance yet, and David doesn't have many pictures. Out of all of them, I vote for Floyd. Hurricanehink 12:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll bring it up on the assessments page. Hurricanehink 17:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot about that. Well, I'm sure it won't take too long for #6 for Floyd. Hurricanehink 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Red Links

Most of the time, I check as well to see if it is a simple mis-spelling. When it is not, I either link it to something else or leave it if I think eventually it will have an article. Normally, I don't bother with redirects because I never know what is a common misspelling, though I'll try to remember that in the future. Hurricanehink 23:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Uninflated costs

Yea, it was bugging me as well, especially when the uninflated total was wrong! Yea, I noticed the 4 lines for a couple while doing so, but I wasn't sure what would fix that. I'll do that later on. Hurricanehink 12:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landfalls

It's based on the chart at List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. CrazyC83 18:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Bess (1974) storm track

In case you don't see it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Storm track request list|Storm track request list]], I've asked for a track map of Typhoon Bess (1974). It's Typhoon #26 from that year. Thanks, mate! :D -- Sarsaparilla39 09:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Wilma

It says in the article that Wilma was the most was the Costliest Natural Disaster in Mexican history. What disaster was the Costliest before that? Lionheart Omega 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase about Wilma being the Costliest Natural Disaster in Mexican history was already there.Lionheart Omega 23:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hurricane disambig

I've replied here. I look forward to your response there.--Commander Keane 00:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Track Map request

Could you please make a track map for Super Typhoon Bess (1982)? It's Typhoon #11 on the Unisys page. But the report (Bess's Report) shows more detail, so maybe you should use that as a reference.

Thank you! Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to tell you, Bess's Report shows more detail than Unisys, so would it be okay if you went by the report? Icelandic Hurricane #12 00:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pongsona

I uploaded that image in compliance with UK Met's copyright policy. I have since been told that's not good enough. And although I don't agree with that, I don't make the rules, so remove it if you see fit. It's probably the best image you're going to find for Pongsona though. Don't know why the link's busted. The site's probably just down. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 01:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily's Track

Just a friendly reminder that Emily's track map now needs updating due to the release of the TCR. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 @ 00:35 (UTC)

Tracking Mechanism

Hi, Jdorje. Can you drop by at my Talk page and teach me how to get and use that tracking mechanism of yours, the one you use to create tropical cyclone tracks? That would be highly appreciated. Omni ND 20:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I have an account there, but how do I create a tracking map?Omni ND 22:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New TC Articles

I am noticing that there are new articles being made on relatively minor storms like Tropical Storm Charley in 1998. Do we really need them? Please respond quickly. Lionheart Omega 00:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina's casualties

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Citing a fact-checked blog about whether the Katrina death toll can use the blog as a source, and there haven't been objections as long as the link contains references from where those totals were obtained. You may want to chime in on that one. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordje, if you are the one constantly reverting the death toll and complaining about it, take it to the Hurricane Katrina discussion page and fight it over there. The latest version had 1,422 death toll and then 1,363 (vandalism) in the total in the table (with an unwarranted deletion of evacuee deaths - note, state of LA has just included 199 evacuee deaths, rendering all critiques about including evacuee deaths wrong). The 1,363 figure is from the useless NHC report which some of you are so enamored of.

If you have issues about my blog being used as a source, pls discuss it on the HK discussion page, on my talk page or Tloxd's talk page. This anger and vandalism about this death toll is just getting nutty. Tloxd agrees with my totals and rejects the NHC totals. Let's discuss this as gentlemen without getting all upset about "personal blogs not being reliable sources" bla bla.

Jordje, if you are not the one who reverted the DT back 1,363, tell me who did it. This has to stop.

Note:The DT has just been daringly updated to 1,599, which is sure to drive you and your allies insane. Before you have a heart attack and die over this, pls check out all of my sources and make sure they check out, as Tloxd has done. Only after you have checked out my sources thoroughly, then let us discuss this matter diplomatically.Robert Lindsay 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

Jordje, sorry I accused you of vandalism. However, if you read my most recent article, most of your criticisms are dealt with. For instance, you state that there are no state totals for evacuee deaths in Louisiana. That is not true. If you follow the link to the Louisiana state chart in mypiece, it lists individual state death totals for 199 evacuee deaths.

I am happy you did not revert any of my edits, but there is another guy I think who has been doing that a lot.

You can say "a blog is not an acceptable source" until you are blue in the face, but how does that settle this matter? I assume, then, that you prefer to use the obvious out of date NHC nonsense on grounds that it is an "acceptable source"? What kind of stubborness is behind an irrational desire like that? If you want to link to individual primary source data for each state, then do so. The links are all in the blog, with refs to the titles, dates and authors of the pieces, in case the links go dead.

I suppose having a state death toll that does not match the real total is acceptable, but it is bound to confound some folks. Anyway, the evacuee deaths for Louisiana are now merged into Louisiana totals, so the evacuee totals controversy is basically moot. The 53 evacuee deaths in Texas can be listed as "Texas" if one wishes.

I am sorry I accused you of vandalism; I obviously mistook you for someone else. Someone is vanadalzing the HK story and it is starting to annoy me. You don't seem like the vandal type, so I should not have said that.

You claim that my blog "lacks peer review". But that is nonsense. The peer review is easily done by any of the 100's of millions of Internet users. Any blogger knows that major bloggers have a much harder time getting away with crap than the mainstream journalists you so cherish, because we suffer so much more peer review than those corporate hacks. Briefly, all major bloggers' work is scrutinized by their legions of ideological enemies and errors of fact are quickly unveiled, exposed and shamed. Whereas in the corporate media of "reputable sources" journalists are permitted to and ordered to lie, and their lies are ignored and excused, according to the whims of their big bucks owners.

The blog's peer review is simple. You, Jordje, are the peer reviewer. So is anyone else. The blog's methodology is meticulously laid out and all of the sources are listed in excruciating detail. Fact check them and peer review them to your heart's content.

You say that the evacuees were dying of things like liver disease. You say you found this on my blog. Fine. I assume you refer to the article about Texas evacuees. However, the state of Louisiana now says that 199 evacuees died due to Hurricane Katrina, possibly some of them from these dubious causes you harp on. Ok, so you are now challenging the state of Louisiana's official death toll and claiming it is wrong, that they are counting people who died of natural causes? Is that not a bit presumptuous? As the state of LA has now confirmed that evacuee deaths do occur, isn't it reasonable to leave in 53 Texas evac deaths? Certainly since LA is claiming 23 evac deaths in Tennessee, which had vastly fewer evacuees than Texas?

What I am suggesting is that we bury this whole evac controversy. I admit it had legs before, but now that LA state counts 199 evac deaths, it is clear that evac deaths occurred, so the notion of evac deaths and their possibility is noncontroversial.

What is the TCR?

PS, I am confident if and when the NHC report is updated, that it shall be in general agreement with my report.Robert Lindsay 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Pacific storm track

Hello. Since you uploaded the Atlantic best track data to Wikisource, do you know where to find the best track data for the Eastern Pacific? I started the List of Arizona hurricanes article, and having that would be very helpful, as UNISYS isn't as reliable always, as you well know. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AHS

The source of it was in the Isabel article, which is what I have been working on lately. Do you have to source it if the source is located in that article? Hurricanehink 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the main article summary and intro can be very similar. Ideally, the intro to a TC article tells the storm history, impact, and any important stats. That sounds like a good summary for the season article, personally. So should we source the season article section if the section has its own article? Hurricanehink 01:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, good point about the bad articles. Luckily, most of the articles have a link to the monthly weather review, which tells about most of the important information of the storms. Hurricanehink 02:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operational track data of Larry

Track data from TCWC Brisbane

March 16

0600Z 13.9S 158.4E Tropical Low (developing)
1200Z 13.5S 159.5E Tropical Low (developing)
1800Z 13.3S 159.5E Tropical Low (developing)

Track data from RSMC Nadi

March 16

2100Z 14S 160E Tropical Depression 15F

Track data from TCWC Brisbane

March 17

0000Z 14.2S 160.0E Tropical Low (developing)
0600Z 15.2S 159.5E Tropical Low (developing)
1200Z 15.5S 158.6E Tropical Low (developing)
1800Z 16.6S 157.6E Category 1 cyclone (developing)

March 18

0000Z 17.2S 156.6E Category 2 cyclone (50 kt)
0600Z 17.0S 155.5E Category 2 cyclone (60 kt)
1200Z 17.2S 154.2E Category 3 cyclone (65 kt)
1800Z 17.4S 152.8E Category 3 cyclone (70 kt)

March 19

0000Z 17.7S 151.1E Category 4 cyclone (90 kt)
0600Z 17.6S 149.7E Category 4 cyclone (90 kt)
1200Z 17.5S 148.3E Category 4 cyclone (100 kt)
1800Z 17.5S 147.0E Category 4 cyclone (100 kt)

March 20

0000Z 17.5S 145.3E Category 4 cyclone (weakening overland)

Category numbers are based on Australian scale. Wind speeds are 10-minute averaged. Momoko

I need it in a format that the program accepts. This (from here) is one of the formats (the spacing must be exact). — jdorje (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. 1933

I used the Inflation Calculator to determine damage in (2005 USD) from 1933. Storm05 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

Since you added the speed thing on the List of Notable Atlantic Hurricanes, how fast are we lookin for here? 50mph and up? 55? Just incase I find a storm thats lke 50mph or something. Cyclone1 15:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the speed thing. Someone else added this. It seems to be a rather useless entry to me. But since it's there, I fixed the values. I don't think we need to make the table longer. Unless any new storms displace the old ones, there's no need to make changes to it. — jdorje (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot suggestion

You are quite right that this would be desirable, and I do a lot of date linking, but because of the current disagreements around the whole date delinking/linking scenario I am being rather circumspect with what I do with SmackBot. In theory, the example you quoted 15 refers to the year AD 15, so even on a technical level there are problems. However there are a number of poeple working on imporving the date links, and there is a request with the developers for a better system of implementing date preferences, so all is not lost. Rich Farmbrough 00:35 26 March 2006 (UTC).

2003 season

It's fine that you removed the summary section so it's part of the lead, but be sure to move that picture. The only reason I did that is to base it off the 1998 season, as well as putting that picture in. Hurricanehink 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Except for the huge amount of white space. Hurricanehink 12:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Location lists

It is not incorrect; read serial comma for more information. Both usages are correct, and both are acceptable on Wikipedia. As for the ampersand, I find it more visually appealing than the full word, and it reduces the amount of unnecessary text in the table. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 @ 23:11 (UTC)

More

Yes, sorry. I wasn't able to find data that matched Hurricanehink's, but apparently someone else (was that you?) was able to. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 13:45 (UTC)

Storm tracks

I've searched for a picture for Hurricane Dot (1959), but have failed to find any, so I assume the picture to use for its infobox would be its storm track? Could you generate Dot's track if you haven't already? Best track info for Dot. Also, for converting from 1959 USD to 2006 USD, should I use Storm05's link above (which only allows conversion to 2005 USD)? NSL E _(T+C) at 07:33 UTC (2006-03-30)

image:Dot 1959 track.png — jdorje (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for inflation conversion, that's a problem...storm05's link is okay, but we really need to figure out what the NHC uses and use the same method, otherwise we end up with numbers that conflict with theirs (which we use for sources in some places). — jdorje (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image. I've provisionally used Storm05's link to convert to 2005 USD, but will change it as soon as we can find out what the NHC uses. NSL E _(T+C) at 08:22 UTC (2006-03-30)

1970 Bhola cyclone

You mentioned in Talk:Hurricane_Katrina that the 1970 Bhola cyclone sparked a war between India and Pakistan. However, this is not noted in the article itself. Should it be added? -- RattleMan 07:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane template

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Don't use hiddenStructure? If not, give that a read (and look at some of the screenshots from other templates I've fixed). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1985 AHS problems

I noticed you edited the 1985 AHS article, so I decided to seek you on this question. Please see Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Question_on_1985. I doublechecked all the facts, and it appears both the 1985 AHS and the 2005 AHS had eight landfalling storms. Is there something I'm missing? -- RattleMan 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Track Generator

I cant find the storm track generator Storm05 17:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jdorje/Tracks — jdorje (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been there and still cant find it. Storm05 16:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See "The Project". — jdorje (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went there and the only thing I found was nothing but a summary about the Tropical Cyclone tracker but not the track generator itself. Storm05 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then click on downloads and download it. — jdorje (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cant even find that!Storm05 13:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you'll need subversion and then you can download it with the instructions here. — jdorje (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season Records

First of all THANK YOU So Much Jdorje for the wonderful Help!! Now I just want to check up on a few things

1. Most Tropical Storm Landfalls on the United States (in terms of the United States feeling greater than 34mph from a particular storm) (9) (old record: 1985 with 8) Well as I can see even a few inches above this post the bugs are still being worked out on this one so we'll let this one go for now

2. Tied with 1933 for most combined tropical storm landfalls in the Atlantic Basin for all storms collectively (26) This one you didn't quite get so I'll explain it, It's just all the landfalls by all the storms combined....and I have checked the 1933 map in great detail so.

3. Hurricane Dennis - Strongest storm to make landfall in the United tates before August / and in July (946mb) You say that Hurricane Audrey had the lowest pressure at landfall BUT Audrey's lowest pressure overall was 946mb so HOW could it's landfall be lower than 946mb??

4. Vince – (2nd to Epsilon) Lowest Temp. for a Tropical Storm to Form (24*C) ^{[citation needed]} AND Vince – (2nd to Epsilon) Lowest Temp. for a Hurricane to Form ^{[citation needed]} You said that this record was broken 2 years ago....can I see proff??

Thanks So Much Again and I hope we can figure out these little problems here.

 Musically and Snowily - Cory Pesaturo

1. A landfall means the center of circulation coming ashore. Saying "landfall (in terms of felling TS winds)" is an oxymoron.

2. This record could be right for all I know, but it is extremely hard to verify or disprove. Simply looking at track maps does not show the total number of landfalls; for storms in the Lesser Antilles it could be very hard to find out whether they made landfall on any particular island.

3. Audrey's lowest pressure was the 945 mbar that was measured at landfall. See the best track data, the list of U.S. hurricanes. [1]

4. No, I said records only go back 2 years for it. As I've said before a record is not true until disproven...it has to be proven. So to prove this record you have to find the temperature (I guess that means water temperature???) at which every storm formed.

— jdorje (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing to TCR

You added a ^{[citation needed]} notice to the tit-bit on Franklin's gusts in Bermuda. I just lifted that from the TCR. What is the best way to format sourcing within articles like that? Nilfanion 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now just add an inline link [2]. Later this can be converted to ref/reference form. — jdorje (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Damage table

Umm, I'll take that with good humor I guess. I'm just afraid about if the entire table was colored, and being ugly as a result. That my welcome to wikipedia, lol? Nilfanion 00:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 AHS articles

Hey Jdorje, I'm just writing to let you know that I have started work here User:Nilfanion/2005AHS on a possible update for the list article or the season storm section, based on the existence of articles. This could provide the framework for a list/statistics merge, the ACE table should be in the list article for example. Nilfanion 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am aware you are concerned about the consistency problems 2005 storm articles would cause. In my view that won't be an issue, the criteria 'more useful info than the season' is simple and works. This will stop 'all articles' from going back further than about 2002 at the earliest, as the internet ceases to be much use on the lesser landfalling storms then (fishspinners shouldn't get articles unless the landfalling ones of that season do also - and they should have real impact info). Before that only 'notable' storms will have online info, so this will match up with the old criteria, but changes a contentious 'notability' one (which encourages people to test the limits) to a more concrete 'information' one. Nilfanion 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With that little text there is way too much whitespace. — jdorje (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Jdorje. What I plan to do is get rid of the infoboxes, putting that data in the text and putting the NHC/TPC advisory and TCR links in. Nilfanion 20:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Atlantic hurricane season

I considered the following:

I think the 1997 Pacific hurricane season deserves a peer review to improve it to FA. More info on: Talk:1997 Pacific hurricane season. juan andrés 04:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was the Pacific, not the atlantic basin.

Hurricane Joan

The source for the range of deaths was the NHC report, available here. The range is determined by taking the known deaths, 28 in this case, as the lower limit; the upper limit is determined by taking the known deaths+missing, which gives 46.

What I meant by the discussion was to only include confirmed deaths in the table and infobox, rather than confirmed deaths+missing. Does this clear it up? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree, because that's not the methodology used for all other storms. For other storms if the NHC says 28-46 we go with 28-46. At the very minimum it should be 28+ rather than 28. — jdorje (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed them back per your suuggestion then. Juan Andres' change was basically the same, is, excluding the missing. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hurricane categories

Category 'hurricanes in the US' is a category of subcategories, each subcategory being a category of hurricanes by each state. This category pre-exists my work and I did not not change it other than adding US territories.

Category 'historic hurricanes in the US' is newly added by me as I proposed in the 'historic weather events in the US' and to which no one objected. By creating this new historic hurricane category, I am able to separate out hurricanes from all the other weather events. This makes it easier to find related objects. This category consists of articles on hurricanes (in alphabetical order) plus a few categories on those hurricanes for which individual categories have been created. Thus, it is quite different from the 'hurricanes in the US' category.

I did not propose to make other category changes and so did not do so.

Thanks Hmains 04:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LNBS Help

I am trying to get some help for getting the page ready for publishing. You were 1 of my 4 choices, the other 3 were NSLE, Rattleman and hink. You were very helpful before with other things-would you be willing to help? I'll think of something to give in return. Thanks.HurricaneCraze32 20:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what page you are talking about... — jdorje (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Notable But Strong Hurricanes.There ya go.HurricaneCraze32 19:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layout of storm articles?

Save clogging up the 2005 talk page with a semantic debate. The layout of the minor storms is more just a temporary thing I used to ease the writing; those articles ARE works-in-progress. The forecasting section is primarily an critique of how the NHC did, so the post-season changes belong in it (as they are in Epsilon). I think the problem is that daft label of 'Trivia' - Vince is no better with 'peculiarities'. The stuff in that section belongs in the article IMO, take Alpha's 'trivia' for instance. What I think would work best is a section for records, naming issues (including retirement or its lack of) and the other 'trivia'.

How does this look for a storm article layout (if sections are empty remove, or near empty just contain in larger section)? This would work for all storms whether its Lee or Katrina I think.

Intro
Storm History (no reference to post season changes - eg in Emily simply state it was a cat 5)
Preparations (include warnings stuff)
Impact
Aftermath
Forecasting (This to include after-the-fact changes - As a Top-level section here or between history and preparations; as a subsection of history, or a section containing preparations?)
Other stuff (Name problem? This to contain the stuff which doesn't really belong elsewhere, like Alpha - first exhausted list Greek named storm, Gordon (1994) - Lack of retirement, Katrina - Retirement, most '05 storms - earliest nth storm)
The refs and links.

What do you think?-- Nilfanion 21:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be an "intro" section, but of course every article has a WP:LEAD section - I guess that's what you mean. I like the storm history/preparations/impact/aftermath layout. I don't see a need for a forecasting section; this basically covers trivia (such as how well the NHC did at predicting the hurricane - not needed for an encyclopedia). For most storms any major difference between advisoray and best track data should be mentioned in the storm history; minor differences do not need to be mentioned. Trivia can be embedded into the individual sections - for instance every storm history says that the storm received its name, and it can also add "becoming the nth named storm of the season" here. What might not fit neatly into any of these sections are the really unusual characteristics of storms - including records the storm may set (Hurricane Ginger, Hurricane Wilma), naming issues (Hurricane Alice), really unusual forecasting issues (Hurricane Epsilon) or other very unusual characteristics of the storm (Hurricane Vince). For these things we either need a new section - with a consistent name - or we need to find a way to fold them into the existing sections. — jdorje (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]