User talk:Mitchazenia/Archive7

Edit summaries
Again, you do not need to use your edit summaries to advertise your edit count. It can be disruptive, and at the very best it's annoying and unnecessary. Please avoid it. – Chacor 15:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Things
First, the HKO images are likely not usable, unless they say part of the U.S. gov (not likely) or they say they are in the public domain. Otherwise, you can't use it. About Erika, you hadn't edited that article for months before I started working on it. I am currently finding a lot of sources that I am in the process of working into the article. That's why that tag is there, to avoid edit conflicting. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? "Here is my work so far". On what? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You need sources in general. You can't rely solely on the HKO report. Where is the source for the damage total? The source you gave said if a storm like Wanda hit today it would cause $2.5 billion HK. None of the sources say 2006 dollars or USD. The overall writing is poor. "A tropical wave formed west of the island of Ponape" - tropical waves don't occur in the WPAC, and if they do it probably wouldn't form there. "The wave continually changed directions and the first advisory was released on August 24 near the island of Truk." - why can't you say moved erratically (but use something different that what I said). Also, you have to write with the storm in the past. You shouldn't say when the first advisory was released. If it developed into a tropical depression, say that. "On the afternoon of August 27, the wave became Tropical Depression 59W west of Guam after merging with a 200-mbar low from the Southern Hemisphere." How did it have its first advisory if it didn't form into a TD yet? What does the last part of that sentence even mean? I'll say it once, I'll say it again, don't copy and paste. It is very bad. If you don't understand what is said in the official report, do some research on tropical cyclones and put the jargon phrases in your own words. "The depression intensified quickly into Tropical Storm Wanda at the fourth advisory on August 28. Strengthening continued and Wanda became a typhoon on August 29." I know it happened back in 1962, but do you have any meteorlogical conditions? Why did it strengthen quickly? Is strengthening from a TD into a typhoon two days later that quickly? Again, don't mention advisories. It's bad. "An aircraft reconnaissance on August 30 indicated that further intensification had occurred and 90 mph winds were reported near the center of Wanda." Again, you need to write with the storm in the past. It should say the storm continued to strengthen, and recon flights confirmed Wanda was a typhoon (though put it in your own words). "On August 31, Wanda reached its peak at 110 mph winds, a category 2 typhoon, with a minimum pressure of 949 mbar just north of the Philippines" Whoa, it went from becoming a TD near Guam to a typhoon near the Philippines. How did it get there? "At that point, Wanda had a diameter of 1000 miles across" It's too trivia to be its own sentence, but try merging it with another sentence. "Wanda made landfall in southeastern China with winds of 100 mph." Whoa, how did it get from the Philippines to China? "Wanda quickly weakened and dissipated over China because of cold air and a land strike." Needs re-wording. "The Japan Meteoroloical Agency continued tracking Wanda over China, and soon re-entered water on the 3rd, quickly making landfall again on Hainan Island where the JMA ceased advisories." Does it matter who tracked it? (the warning center is misspelled, BTW) How did it get from dissipating over China to re-entering water on the 3rd? What water? A glass of water? A damn? The Gulf of Thailand? Did it redevelop, or was it the remnants that made landfall? The whole impact sections needs to be rewritten for better flow. The wording is, in general, bad. Find more info to better it. "Wanda made landfall in Hainan Island on September 4, however no damage or any of the four-hundred-thirty-four fatalities." That makes no sense. Specifically, "However no damage or any of the 434 fatalities." is not a complete thought. The records should be put in the impact section. You need, I repeat, you need to put more effort into writing articles. The WPTC is trying to build a well-written and informative tropical cyclone encyclopedia. Having an article that is poorly-written and has few sources is not good. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean newer report? The main thing I want you to do is find more sources in general. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When did I ever say that? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That was an unrelated comment I said to Storm05 regarding that tropical waves generally don't occur in the WPAC. The archive is currently down, but I checked Gary Padgett's report for 1999 PTS as an example (he uses official data), and only one might have developed from a tropical wave. So, unless they say it formed from a tropical wave, it's probably best not to say it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Gary Padgett only has done summaries from 1997 to the present. I am not going to give you the sources. You have to find them yourself. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Heres a google link that lists all the sources it has 946 hits (dont know about if some are reliable or not). Storm05 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually heres some unique links:
 * http://www.skywarn.org/pd.factsheet.final.pdf
 * http://www.wind.arch.t-kougei.ac.jp/info_center/APECwind/hongkong2.pdf
 * http://www.yanjan.force9.co.uk/typhoonsintro.htm
 * http://www.redcross.org.hk/home.cfm?Mid=19&FMid=4&popup=0&langid=1&Ver=T
 * http://www.geocities.com/dinmurnel/norman.htm
 * http://www.ussmontrose.com/History.html
 * http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/091/mwr-091-10-0613.pdf
 * http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Nikonophile/comment.html?entrynum=6&tstamp=200605
 * http://www.lairig.freeserve.co.uk/bluefunnel/wanda%20report.htm

Hope that helps, cheers! Storm05 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I assessed it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Does any place actually say the depression was a tropical storm explicetly? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right link. It mentions a Babs before the storm and a Charlotte after the storm, neither of which were in the 1962 PTS. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "the JMA has it too"? That link was from JMA. I'm not sure what to say, since the JTWC has the other names (Babe and Carla). Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops, yea. I really don't know. I hate the WPAC due to its inconsistencies, and now I prefer to stay away from there. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

List of notable Pacific typhoons
While looking at your contributions, I saw your List of notable Pacific typhoons. Currently it has an incomplete list of Category 5 typhoons. Am I correct in assuming that you eventually intend to publish it as a new article in the main namespace?

I am not trying to interfere with your future list. However, I'd like to say that I don't think that a list of Category 5's really accomplishes much simply because, as you have no doubt noticed, Category 5's are quite common in that basin and not at all exceptional. If you still wish to include a list of Category 5 typhoons you probably should make it clear whether you are using JTWC (1-min average) or JMA (10-min average winds).

Instead, I suggest making it more parallel to the list of notable Atlantic hurricanes but with obvious differences. (ie: there is no off-season in the northwestern Pacific)

Just trying to help. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1962 Pacific typhoon season storms
Are you planning to make articles for all of the storms in this season? Before you do, please consider notability (the ones that didn't affect land should not have articles), then the fact that there is next to no information available for almost all of them (even the ATCRs on the JTWC website don't contain very much info aside from storm history, which can go in the season article). Not every single storm needs an article, and articles for most of the 1962 storms aren't really necessary (especially if they are not named, such as 66W). One good article is definitely better than a bunch of stubs that don't have much information, so focus on writing good summaries for the storms in the season article. --Core desat  01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to New Jersey Route 17
Why did you change references to external links? At least most of those look like references to me. --NE2 03:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an acceptable, though deprecated, form of referencing. Changing "references" to "external links" is misleading, especially since the New York Times article is not an external link. --NE2 03:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Never ending questions
The first is a really good question. It's an error, as shown that they have winds of 35 mph or less, and also that in recent seasons they're still called subtropical storms despite the JTWC issuing warnings for them as a TD. However, they are definetly TD's, and do not get an ACE value.

For the second, I am really busy with real life right now, and when I am on Wikipedia I do things I like... basically anything involving the Atlantic or EPAC. So, I can't help you with your work. Additionally, you never said what you needed help with; help finding info, help assessing, help copyediting... what? Given that the newspaper archive is down (maybe temporarily), I wouldn't know where to find sources for WPAC articles. Googling is your best bet. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Much more impact. If you were to publish that now, I would immediately propose for a merge. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that there's four main parts of a TC article (storm history, preps, impact, and aftermath), and that you said other than the last two, I'll say that you should expand the storm history and preps as well, if possible. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Button bar for WPac
Thank you for expressing your views on the proposed WPac button bar. You are invited to give your opinion on a set of factors regarding this here. -  SpL o T  (*T* C+u+g+v) 15:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

1962 Pacific typhoon season
For consistency, ALL seasons of the PTS pre-2000 should use JTWC info in the titles and infobox. JTWC max winds, JTWC lowest pressure, no such thing as severe tropical storms in the header. In the prose you could mention that Japan considered it an STS, but as far as infoboxes and headers go it's JTWC first. – Chacor 16:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see you got it. Thanks. – Chacor 16:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thingies
Thanks for passing. I stay away from the WPAC, so I don't have many links there. I would guess something might be here. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but I would guess it's because ACE is an NHC thing. I don't believe there's ACE for Indian Ocean or southern hemisphere, so that could be the reason. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time to do all of that. Before I would consider doing it, have you checked for every storm on google whether there's impact info? The overall writing still looks pretty bad. Maybe the depressions should be in one section at the end, all together, rather than being mixed in. The depressions don't have too much info, and it's all just tedious storm history. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ruth is probably the best, and that is pretty bad. You need more information. Otherwise, it is going to stay a start-class article. Try googling for more damage information. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It needs more sources. If I were reviewing that, I'd fail it due to lack of info. Is there anything notable about the route? Is it the shortest in the county? Does it provide access that no other road does? Why was it built in the first place? When, specifically, was it built? Who planned it? How much did it cost? When was the first and only traffic light put on it? These sorts of questions are important to such an article. Also, you live near there, don't you? Why don't you take a picture or two of it? I'd make the article look much better. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't have a digital camera? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not fun. Well, maybe you should try again with the camera and the scanner. Worst comes to worst, you can crop out the problems in Microsoft Paint. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean giant white backcrop? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That sucks. Well, you should still try and get some images and more info. Try and answer my questions from above. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good article passes
General view within WPTC is split on us reviewing tropical cyclone articles at GA. Nonetheless, I am concerned. Your pass of Tropical Storm Bertha (2002) clearly shows you shouldn't be passing articles yet. You should not be passing articles which you're not sure about factual accuracy ("Factualality [sic]: I'm not sure, but for now pass."). I'd advise you to get some experience dealing with other article passes before moving on to WPTC articles due to possible conflict of interest. – Chacor 16:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
I notice that you hardly ever use edit summaries. In you past 50 edits, you used six, of which one was automatically included by the software and two others were asked for by the Good article people. Well, did you know that you can be reminded to always use an edit summary? Simply go to your Preferences, go to the "Editing Tab" and choose the last check box. It should say something similar to "prompt me when I don't leave an edit summary". This makes it easier for people to see what you are doing. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1997 Pacific hurricane season
In your last edit to the article 1997 Pacific hurricane season, you removed the ACE total for the central north Pacific, and I just added it back. Why? I assume that it was just an accident. In the future, please be more careful and utilize preview functions more often. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (I know, it's me again;)

Hurricane Prediction Page
Is your prediction page running to contribute to, or is it a little /too/ early? doktorb wordsdeeds 08:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Isaac
First, it's spelled wrong. It's Isaac, with two A's (not two s's). It needs more intro and storm history, but if you were to publish it I'd rate it a start. You shouldn't publish it yet, though. Fix the naming first. The storm history, aside from having no sources, is on the short side.. Use tropical weather outlooks and discussions to make it longer. Wording needs to be improved, and some phrases are awkward. You should try and find some other sources, as two might not be considered enough by some. For example, you could mention that though it passed fairly close to Bermuda (find the exact distance), it caused no effects on the island, per this link. Due to the short length of the impact and the preparations, I recommend you combine the two, and have a section title called "Preparations and Impact". If you can find records or anything else useful, add it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You could add a bit of storm history to the lede to make it longer. The storm history, while a decent length, doesn't use any tropical weather outlooks, and only uses three discussions. You should read through it again, as some places are awkward or even incorrect. "The strengthening convection caused Dvorak to release its first numbers on the system." That isn't true. The organizing convection resulted in Dvorak classifications to begin, not due to the strength of the convection. "Continued strengthening was slow as high upper-level wind shear influenced with the wave." Strengthening isn't the right word. Further organization would work better. "just twelve hours after the cyclone's formation" sounds a bit POV (12 hours isn't that short of time). "Soon after, Isaac merged with a larger extratropical system on October 3, although the merge wasn't expected for another day or two." The last part of that isn't needed at all. "Had Issac gone farther north, St. John's would've experience worse winds." This sentence is unimportant and possibly false (what if the strongest winds were to the southeast?) "Cape Race experienced 26mm of rain, the highest by Issac. St. John's and Cape Pine reported 10 and 19mm rainfall totals" Ugh, please rewrite this to make it flow better. "This is the third use of the name Issac. The other two were in the 1988 season and the 2000 season. It was not used in 1982 and 1994 due to an El Nino effect. Retirement, if it happens, will come to know in Spring of 2007." This section is completely useless and should be removed due to poor grammar and the fact it isn't true. All in all, you need to put much more effort into it. It's poorly written, and probably has more info out there that's not in the article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, why are you tired of asking me for assessments? I provide you ways for you to better your articles. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, just checking. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't know what a contraction is? That's a fairly basic term in writing. It is combining two words to make one, such as that's in the previous sentence (the combination with that and is). Your article only uses wouldn't. As an addennum, you should avoid possessiveness, as it can be informal. For example, "after the cyclone's formation" could be "after the cyclone formed." The intro is still very short and should be lengthened. Have you googled for any information regarding Newfoundland effects? You should use the TWO's and the discussions, like I've said several times, to make the storm history better. Aside from being very poorly written, the storm history is a bit short. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to check, do you plan on doing more work on it, or are you completely finished? The article still needs a good bit of work. For example, you shouldn't link to the NRL backup page as a source saying one model predicted it to get to 88 knots. You need a source that says it explictly. You never rewrote anything. The storm history is still poorly written, as demonstrated by the following examples.
 * "The strengthening convection caused Dvorak to release its first numbers on the system." - Like I told you before, it's the organizing convection, not the strength of the convection, and what numbers?
 * "That did not come true as the first Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert was not released until four days afterwards." - How does one relate to the other? Why didn't it strengthen? Did it ever fluctuate in organization or did it remain disorganized for a few days?
 * "The NHC did not think it was a good system and the TCFA was discontinued." - You need to explain acronyms for which you never used before, while the rest of the sentence is apalling.
 * "Three days later, on September 27 another TCFA was issued, but this time it became the ninth tropical depression." - Why was the TCFA issued? Is it important to keep using a term for which you never wikilinked and explained?
 * "after the cyclone's formation" - avoid the possessiveness
 * "Deep convection was slow that day as cold air left by Hurricanes Gordon and Helene upwelled" - That makes no sense. The convection was not slow, and Gordon and Helene did not upwell cold air, it upwelled waters
 * "The next day, the cyclone started moving west-northwestward and started gaining subtropical characteristics with a deepening convection." - Subtropical characteristics? Like what? A subtropical storm doesn't have deepening convection near the center. It needs explaination and a wikilink if it's even true
 * "Vertical shear lessened, moving away from the upwelled air and Isaac started re-developing in its core." What shear? You never mentioned any shear before
 * "Atmospheric conditions were favorable as Isaac was able to reach hurricane status on September 30, when forecasters predicted it would not." Source? What atmospheric conditions were favorable? Where did it reach hurricane status? Did forecasters predict Isaac would not strengthen when it was becoming a hurricane, or prior?
 * "Issac quickly weakened to 80 mph, but was able to attain the same pressure." Dropping 5 mph isn't that significant, so no real need to say quickly. Why did it weaken? Is the pressure important?
 * "Isaac encountered cooler air as the storm got closer to Newfoundland as on October 1, Isaac weakened into a tropical storm on October 2." While I'm thinking of it, there are some verbs which you should avoid when writing. Get is one of them. A conjunction is needed, and some distances would be nice.
 * "Isaac made landfall in the Avalon Penninsula as 40 mph minimal tropical storm on October 2 and was able to keep tropical cyclone formation with a deep convection." Did it make landfall in or on the penninsula? Check your spelling, peninsula has one n. The last part of that sentence makes absolutely no sense. Tropical cyclone formation? It formed a few days ago. Did it only have one deep convection, lots of deep convection, abundance, superfluity, sufficient, waning, persisting?
 * "Soon after, Isaac transitioned into an extratropical storm and merged with a larger extratropical system on October 3 off the Avalon Penninsula." According to the best track map, it merged with the other storm to the northeast of Newfoundland, not near the Avalon Peninsula (again, one n, please check your spelling errors)
 * Preps and impact are fairly short, so they should probably be merged
 * "Several watches/warnings were issued in association with Hurricane Isaac." What type of watch/warning? Snow watch? Tornado watch? Wind warning? Hurricane warning? Tropical cyclone warnings and watches? Rather than starting with that, why not start with the first watch/warning, and let the information tell the reader there are several.
 * "for the Burin and Bonavista Penninsula" Is it one or two peninsulas?
 * "The Atlantic Storm Prediction Center released a warning for Prince Edward Island and northern Nova Scotia to expect 30-50mm rainfall totals on October 1 for the newly-formed extratropical system." For Isaac or the extratropical storm it merged with?
 * "A rainfall warning was issued for Southeastern Newfoundland also for 40-50mm rainfalls" Does that mean a rainfall warning was issued due to 40-50 mm actually falling or due to the threat of it? While I'm at it, it needs metric conversions.
 * "The final warning issued was a tropical storm warning for the Avalon Penninsula on October 2." Shouldn't this go earlier in the paragraph when you mentioned the TC watches/warnings?
 * "However, due to Isaac's small size and fast forward speed, winds were lighter over most of the Avalon Peninsula." Over most or the rest of the peninsula?
 * "The Canadian buoy 44138 reported wind gusts up to 56 knots and sustained winds of 50 mph" Is that impact or storm history?
 * There's surely more, but that's what I saw in a quick read-through. It needs a lot of work done. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll post my comments here, too. I haven't read Hink's above, so there'll probably be some overlap. Overall, the article is decent, but there are a number of things that need to be done. That's it for now. fix these issues and I'll look at it again. —Cuivi é nen 23:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * More Wikilinks. Provide links to tropical cyclone and Atlantic hurricane in the opening paragraph. The first time a Category is mentioned, it should like to Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale.
 * Spelling of Isaac. It appears as "Issac" multiple times in the body of the article, which is incorrect.
 * Some sentences (such as "Rainfall totaled up to 25mm..." are somewhat awkward. In fact, most of the lead is awkward, with short and disconnected sentences.
 * "Preparations, Impact and Naming" doesn't need such a long section title. If the only preparation was the issuance of watch or warning, it's fine to put it in a section titled "Impact".
 * There should be no spaces between different tags.
 * Citations should all be converted to cite web format.
 * "See also" should not include links to pages already linked in the text; therefore, the 2006 season (and once my suggestion above is followed, tropical cyclone) should not be there.
 * Remove all contractions; they don't belong in formal writing.
 * Isaac didn't "begin as a tropical wave exited Africa". It "originated as a tropical wave that exited Africa". The wave was not Isaac as a result of exiting Africa (work on semantics).
 * The bit about not being used in 1982 and 1994 because of El Niño is original research and should not be included.
 * In general, there are OR smatterings all across the article - the bit about stronger winds at St. John's, for example.
 * Check your comma usage. "...which was upgraded to a tropical storm warning, the next day." contains an extraneous comma, and there are others.

Isaac article
Intro is too long, but otherwise I like it. It would be Start-class as it is now. CrazyC83 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ready for publication. CrazyC83 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * NASA is an agency of the US federal government, so yes. (Usually, if it ends in .gov and it is a federal level group, it is public domain) CrazyC83 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not ready yet. Unencyclopedic tone, OR, and unnecessary information. – Chacor 04:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Erika('03)-Track.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Erika('03)-Track.gif, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Dingmans Campground Campsite Button Bars
Template:Dingmans Campground Campsite Button Bars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: 1962
There is no point of that. There's not nearly enough information to justify that. A tropical depression section is all that's needed. Just a quick description of the storm history and dates would suffice. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really merit anything. There are satellite pictures of recent tropical depressions, but no one's saying for us to create Tropical depressions of the 2006 Pacific typhoon season. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NYSR-NYCR Newsletter - Issue 1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Article project
Just curious, what happened to your other projects? Does Kristy even need an article? How is it a rare coincidence that Kristy, John, and Ernesto were simultantously active? I don't think it is that rare there are three systems in the NHC area of responsibility. Do you have a source for it producing rainfall for Central America or Baja Peninsula? It looks like it passed pretty far from there. I have no idea what the record is for most times becoming a tropical storm in EPAC. I have no idea also why you are spending your time on articles that are not needed when the season article is fine. Have you considered working further on season articles in other basins? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I hate to sound like I'm shooting you down every time, but Kristy never got closer than around 700 miles from land, so it couldn't have affected Baja. It also could not have been absorbed by or even slightly affected by John, which dissipated three days before Kristy did, inland, and over 1000 miles to the east. I agree with Hink, you should probably on articles that are needed or already exist, or work on season articles that have enough citable information. --Core desat  12:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said (in fact I'll quite myself) "why you are spending your time on articles that are not needed when the season article is fine?" In the past, you've moved from storm to storm, sometimes publishing it and sometimes not, without ever putting much effort into it. So, could you either put more effort into the articles or take the time to improve season articles (like you did with 1962 PTS)? To answer your question, you should wait. I started a new discussion regarding the standardization of inflation calculators on the WPTC talk page, which will hopefully provide a project wide standard. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #7
After a long hiatus on my part, the December issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Inflation
Please do not adjust inflation calculations to 2007 USD. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are still in 2006. Please use reliable sources, as well. What calculator are you using? If it's the same one you mentioned before, please stop. We agreed that site is not reliable. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Does it look like it is reliable? Please use a more official source. The one I used, for example, was provided by the federal reserve - very official. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bob
Yea, you overdid it with the references. Here's a quick guide to references. The lede should not have references if the information there is presented later in the article and is referenced there. However, if you introduce a new fact in the lede, it should be referenced. For anywhere in the article, the reference goes at the end of where you found the information. It's difficult to explain, so I'll demonstrate. If sentences 1 and 2 are from site a, the reference would go at the end of sentence 2. If sentences 1, 2, and the first half of 3 are from a, while the second half of 3 is from b, one reference for site a's information goes after the first half of sentence 3, and the reference for site b's information goes at the end of sentence 3. For your article, you only need to put two references in there. One at the end of the first paragraph for the preliminary report, and a reference for the preliminary report after the end of the second paragraph. The article looks a little better than before, though it didn't take much. The article still needs a lot of work. I know you don't like hearing me say this, but it's the truth. You need to put more effort into your articles. Several sentences are not complete thoughts. There are several typos. It is lacking in information, too. If you were to publish it as it is, I would immediately propose for a merge, and after it is merged (not if) your work would be for naught. Please work on existing articles! We don't need an article on Bob. Moreso, we don't need a mediocre article on Bob. Take a look at the project as a whole (which for some reason you are not a member of, why is that again?). 162 stub articles and 402 start articles. We are trying to lower those numbers, not raise them. Look at all of the retired hurricane articles that are start or stub class. If you want to be useful to the project, please consider improving one of those articles, ideally an article that actually has a lot of information. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you possibly respond? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's because the writing is poor. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's just a lot of poor wording. You need to learn to write better. Examples: "The distance totaled out" (distance doesn't measure time). "The streak was the longest gap recorded after a streak" (don't use the same word twice like that, this happens a lot). The first sentence of the storm history makes no sense to me. The second sentence is false (high pressures does not cause cyclogenesis). Third sentence is confusing (how does a ship reporting a pressure of 1015 mb have to do with the depression strengthening). The fourth sentence could be explained better. Is there a reason for the weak steering currents for the fifth sentence? Is the sixth sentence the reason for weak steering currents, and what is a frontal ridge? Why did Alicia turn to the northwest? What is an anticyclone, and how did it allow Alicia to strengthen? Where did Alicia make landfall, and did it make landfall in or on Texas? Did it lose tropical characteristics because it accelerated to the northwest? When did it lose its identity? What sort of watches and warnings were issued (hint: wikilink)? The impact section contains very little actual damage, and some parts of the aftermath should be moved there. The overall article isn't that good. I have a question for you. Why are you not a member of the Tropical cyclone wikiproject? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You really didn't solve anything. You need to learn to copyedit on your own. Here's something you can do. Get all of the information you can find on Alicia through a google search and organize it. Put similar info together, and be sure to source it. You need to learn how to wikilink, as well. It's better than it was before. Good job, and keep it up. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It'd be a lot easier if you were more independent and if you listened to my advice and the advice of others for the past year. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A good idea/principle to go by would be that if you create or edit material for the WPTC, it needs to conform with the WPTC standards that we have established. A good place to read up on those standards would be here. Thanks! :) -- RattleMan 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #8
The January issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Something Not So Cool
Yea, I've seen that before, but I don't buy it. I have a strong feeling that the standards for TD's raised significantly in modern years. Given that we now have more data than that time period (more satellites, recon, and buoy data) but the TD's have gone down, it appears the NHC was much more liberal in classifying TD's back then. For example, look at some of the TD's from 1970. Some were very short lived, and were probably systems that were in the process of becoming a tropical cyclone, but didn't make it (like modern invests). Look at some of the longer paths, too. I find it very unlikely they were at 35 mph or below for that entire path. Either Hurdat will upgrade them to Tropical Storms, or, more likely, they weren't tropical. Some were probably just extratropical storms, like the two in October. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, technically they are official. The one-point storms in Hurdat of the 1850s officially lasted for the one point, but we know they lasted for longer. It doesn't make sense, though, that the number of tropical depressions dropped when the number of storms raised, especially looking at their tracks. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, but I'm not sure how much use they are. Some seasons only have track maps for the depressions. Hurdat doesn't even include depressions, so it might not be the best idea. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go, I find that fairly unlikely. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you're not really part of the project, so you're not allowed to post on the WPTC talk page :P If you were to join, however..... Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I doubt there's enough info to make it any decent length, and wouldn't it be better if you just concentrate on one article? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * .... Yea? One newspaper article and the TCR is probably not enough for an article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Notice that is only $30,000 (1987 USD). The really is not a lot of info, and what is there could easily be merged with the season article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not going to be that much. It's only been 20 years, which isn't terribly much for inflation. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * $300,000 is still pretty small. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, Felix was only one storm (you said Felix 95 are less costly, with are generally being used for more than one). Second, Felix had a lot of information, something TD 14 lacks severely. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

< Even if Gustav did cause less than $300,000 in damage, it still had information, something TD 14 lacks. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for an article. All of the info there could be easily merged to the season article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd call it high Start-class or low B-class as it is written now. CrazyC83 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: How do you do this?
Just copy and paste the following here. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, actually. The AMS is a different organization whose material is copyrighted. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, NOAA has each monthly weather review, which is written by NOAA staff members but published by AMS. That URL includes NOAA. Satellite images in the Atlantic and EPAC, for the most part, are in articles written by NOAA members or by a GOES satellite. I'm not sure about the WPAC images. That could be a copyvio, come to think of it, if it doesn't specifically credit NOAA. You'd better ask someone. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the older image, though it technically isn't a I1 candidate as you requested it and it is clearly inferior why waste time? This particular image looks in the clear to me its a derivative of a US govt image (the satellite mosaic) published by a US Goverment employee as part of his work. The text of the article is probably in the public domain itself (though I'm not 100% sure), but the image is fine. However remember just because noaa.gov is in the URL does not mean the image is free this image for example is copyrighted.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Satellite pic
I've been using HRPT Reader to read the data I've downloaded at CLASS. There's a good tutorial in PDF format on the program's website that tells you how to use CLASS. Good kitty 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

NYSR-NYCR Newsletter - Issue 2

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: 1944
Not sure, but I would guess it might have something to do World War II. 1939 was towards the beginning of the war, so the U.S. probably still had a good amount of observation posts in the WPAC. As Japan gained control of the WPAC, maybe the United States wasn't able to track typhoons as well. I'm really not sure, but that's what I think. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did you include extratropical cyclones? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's 1938, but if you know they're extratropical (the opposite of a tropical cyclone) I don't know why you would include it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: 1914
I'll put comments on its talk page. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Karen
The content isn't terrible. I wouldn't publish it yet, but it's on its way. Here's some things to do for now.


 * 1) Fix the areas affected in the infobox - it should be No areas affected, not nothing
 * 2) The lede is way to long for an article as short as that. One long paragraph or two medium ones would be nice. Remove any extraneous details, like the fact there were also two WPAC storms and one EPAC storm (unless that is some sort of record, it's not important).
 * 3) Storm history... try and get as much in there without being boring. Focus on the storm's development and demise more. When did the NHC forecast it to get to 70 mph? Add more info from dicos, also.
 * 4) Nice touch on the strike probabilities. However, those are incorrect. According to the link you provided (which should really be the exact link you got) Bermuda had, at most, a 2% chance. Provide a source for the 48%. Furthermore, the probabilities aren't for landfall; they indicate the probability for the storm to pass within 65 miles of the location.
 * 5) Add more wikilinks throughout the article to existing articles (Iris 95, Karen 01, and meteorological terms like tropical wave).
 * 6) cite web

Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you get all of them, and I'll give you some other things you should do. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt there is no more. The discussions provide lots of information. Why do you mention its probability of affecting a certain latitude/longitude under impact? If it's open waters, it shouldn't be included. In the storm history, give more important details to Karen. Get rid of Humberto, Jerry, and Gil. They mean nothing to the storm history. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, nm. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You can probably publish it now, but it still needs more work. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You got mine and Nilfanion's permission on this one. As Nilfanion said on the IRC, the biggest flaw in sandbox work is that only one person edits it. When it's in mainspace, someone might gain a little from the article, and you can also put cleanup on it so someone else can clean it up. The article isn't terrible. I'd say start class, and come to think of it, you could probably do the same for your article on TD 14 (1987). Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, I read it again, and it's probably start class. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Try this link to get to the IRC. Type in Mitchazenia as your user name, server as irc.freenode.net, and #wiki-hurricanes as channel. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * About time you bit the bullet and joined the WPTC :P Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)