User talk:Storm05/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Storm05/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You made a name, nice[edit]

Good for you! Keep up the good work. Just curious, were you able to upload the pic of Hurricane Dennis? Hurricanehink 20:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Storm path[edit]

I noticed you linked Typhoon Emma to the UNISYS storm path - nice work. Any storms you can find in UNISYS, I can make a track and upload it - as I've done for Emma. Add {{storm path needed}} to the "Storm history" section, and add the UNISYS link to the external links (as you did) and I'll get to it ASAP. Jdorje 19:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New articles[edit]

It's good to see someone so enthusiastic about article creating. However, some articles you write are for a non-notable storm. Why should Gustav in 2002 have an article? It did next to nothing, wasn't all that notable. Just because it appeared in that encylopedia of yours doesn't mean it should have an article. The season articles are there for a reason. Just add the content you don't see there. Let me know why you feel those hurricanes should have an article. Hurricanehink 16:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones and follow those conventions when making your articles. In particlular, you need to categorize the articles so we know that they're there. Jdorje 21:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hurricane Articles again[edit]

For Esther, not a bad start. A couple things. First, if you use an infobox, the number one thing you have to remember is to name it an infobox hurricane nopic. Otherwise, it was a large red link that is useless. On the seasonal page, be sure to follow the right template. Do not type out Main Article Hurricane Esther. First, it takes up too much time, and second, it is improper format. You can follow the simple format;

. Be sure to include the categories at the bottom. They should be;

[[Category:Atlantic hurricanes|Name (Year)] ] (with no space) [[Category:Year Atlantic (unless it is Pacific) hurricane (or typhoon) season|Name] ] [[Category:Category X (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or Tropical storms) hurricanes|Name (1961)] ] [[Category:Retired Atlantic hurricanes|Name (Year)] ] (if it was retired) [[Category:Location hurricanes|Name (Year)] ]

[[Category:Year meteorology] ]

In see also, do not include list of Atlantic hurricanes. It is not really needed. Instead, you can simply put {{portal} } (without the space). I also switched the storm history with the one in the seasonal article, as yours lacked one or two details. Overall, C+, but you're on the right track.

Second, I would advise against mentioning the great lakes hurricane. There was little to no data, and in all likelyhood, it was an extratropical storm that briefly exhibited characteristics of a hurricane. More can be talked about in the talk page, but because there is little available data and uncertain structure, it should not go on the seasonal page, or even the list of notable tropical cyclones. You're on the right track, so keep it up. Don't take offense if I or another person merges your article back into the seasonal article. It might be too short for a non-notable storm.I think that is it for now. If you have any more questions, you know where to find me. Hurricanehink 02:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lili 1996[edit]

What I think happened was you didn't save it. It didn't appear in your list of contributions. You might want to think again about a Lili article. What purpose does it serve? Is there enough information for a well-written article? Hurricanehink 18:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lili and Ginny[edit]

For Lili, it could use some work, but it is a semi-notable storm, and I liked seeing the Europe effects.

Ginny is a different story. I was pleased to see the proper format (infobox and category). However, I completely re-wrote some sections (sorry for your time wasted), as some of it was redundant. Personally, I don't know why the hurricane needs an article. You never answer when I ask you about your storm choices, so I'll ask again. What is wrong with adding the new information you have to the seasonal page? Why should a hurricane with an interesting quirk that otherwise did very little have its own article?

You are doing a good job. It's good to see someone so enthusiastic about article creating, but most of the important storms are already done. If there is any doubt of a storm's notability, ask anyone, but un-important short-length storms tend to get redirected to the seasonal article (as has happened to some of your older works). Hurricanehink 21:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, but I am in the party where it should be notable enough. How were Allison or Ginny notable? Allison was a June hurricane, but there have been many of those. Ginny I can see the notability, due to its late hurricane hit and snowfall. It is just that some articles you have made were not that important. Gustav from 2002, NC Cane from 1857, Alberto from 1982, Antje's Hurricane, couple others. Most are worthwhile, though. Somehow, you still manage to pick important storms, so keep up the work, and we'll see what happens from there. Just to let you know, you don't have to write out your signature every time. All you have to do is type "~~ ~~ (without the space)". Talk to you later. Hurricanehink 23:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hurricane Articles[edit]

Hey, you stole my article! Just kidding, but I was going to do Dennis tonight. It needs some work; a longer storm history always makes the article longer without adding stupid information. I wouldn't say it noted for being the only notable storm of the 1981 Atlantic hurricane season, as there were other important storms. The intro could use work. One thing. Don't combine the Storm History and Impact in one section. The standard format for hurricane articles are

Storm History
Impact
Other Important Fact explained

Retirement can go in impact, though the long strengthening was perfect where it was. Be sure to check for misspellings. In see also, you should have List of notable tropical cyclones rather than just tropical cyclones. You're on your way. Just keep it up. One question, do you, by chance, have enough information for some hurricanes before 1850? I know you did before, but they were for not as important storms. I am talking about the Point-a-Pitre Hurricane of 1776, or other deadly early hurricanes. Let me know. Talk to you later. Hurricanehink 21:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you got that last part last time (or maybe you haven't been around here), but does your encyclopedia of hurricanes have significant information on historic hurricanes, like the Point-a-Pitre Hurricane of 1776, 1666 Caribbean Sea Hurricane, etc. I have death stats, but I was wondering if encylopedia has more than that. Let me know, and Happy Holiday. Hurricanehink 03:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]