Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

List of Atlantic hurricane seasons

I am a member of the List of Atlantic hurricane seasons team. We are working backwards to finish at 1492. Currently, we are at 1800-1810, but I am making progress. In addition, I am giving full summaries for each season 1950-2005. 1979-2005 were complete as of June, and I have done the rest of them up to 1962. I am working to bring it back, so it shouldn't be too much longer. All hurricane stubs should be finished, or discussed how we could add upon them. Death tolls and damage are necessities for important articles, as well as a storm history. Many storms I have gone to didn't have any storm history, they just said Hurricane Wiki hit Internet as a Category 5. It caused $Mucho in damage. There was more detail than that, but a lot were missing full summaries. In summary:

  • Finish Hurricane Archive by completing 1492-1799 Atlantic hurricane seasons(done)
  • Finish individual summaries from 1950-2005 by completing 1950-1961(done)
  • Upgrade all stubs(done)
  • Add damage, death toll, and storm histories to each Hurricane article.

Hurricanehink 01:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

So what will it take to convince you the older seasons should be 1880s Atlantic hurricane seasons rather than 1880-1889 Atlantic hurricane seasons? I want to be able to use {{Atlantic hurricane season categories|1880s}} and {{Atlantic hurricane season|1880s}} and have the categories work out right (to Category:1880s Meteorology and Category:1880s). Jdorje 21:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
See Category:1880-1889_Atlantic_hurricane_seasons and 1880-1889_Atlantic_hurricane_seasons. Because the "parents" all use 1880s (I used 1880s in the templates for the year) it would be rather more sensible for the name to be 1880s as well (rather than 1880-1889). Jdorje 23:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Central_America_Hurricane_of_1857

What should be done with this article? What should it be called? Jdorje 19:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe Cape Hatteras Hurricane of 1857, but the Central America part is misleading. Personally, I would rather see people take advantage of the seasonal pages, adding info there before the section is too large. Really, how is this storm notable aside from the fact it sunk a ship? Lots of storms do that, but that's for another debate. In conclusion, the title might need to be changed. Hurricanehink 03:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, by my standards the article is long enough to warrant a separate article...although it is extremely low-quality and could all be fictional for all I can tell. I agree though that information should go first into the season article, and only if that gets too long should a separate article be made. Jdorje 05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
It might be long enough, but the quality is really bad. Considering the lack of notability and that all of the information here could be put on the seasonal article (as that was the only notable storm of the year), I propose it be merged. Hurricanehink 20:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

We have another one, Antje's Hurricane of 1842. It has less than the previous one. You have to agree, this article serves no purpose and can, with extreme ease, be merged back. This anon is going page-creating happy, if you ask me. Hurricanehink 23:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mergable Existing Articles

Feel free to debate or add others. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Strongly against Ginger, Alice, Linda, and John. Ginger was longest lasting Atlantic storm, Alice was an extremely rare December-January hurricane, Linda was strongest EPAC hurricane, and John was longest lasting cyclone worldwide. All of the others, and the ones I added, I am completely fine with. Hurricanehink 02:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Antje's Hurricane and Ekaka should definitely be merged. The others that I've seen all have enough info to justify a separate article...although in some cases the article quality is too low to allow it to live. Jdorje 04:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
But I think your merges leave something to be desired. You are deleting information in the process of the merge. Antje's hurricane has 3 paragraphs plus a source which you cut to one small paragraph. Sure a lot of the information is redundant, but you cut the mention of why it was called Antje's hurricane. Similarly with the 1841 gale you dropped the source reference, and you cut out the mention of 18 feet of snow (I doubt this is a typo; 18 inches of snow is inconsequential) and the mention of the memorial. Jdorje 02:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, forgot about the sources. I put them into the seasonal article. I reiterated Antje's title and changed 18 inches back to feet. For Antje's hurricanet, the first 2 paragraphs are only sentences. I think I got it all now. Hurricanehink 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep an eye on this user. Most of the redirects done in the last few weeks were because of this guy... Hurricanehink 02:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep all existing articles IMO. They are all historically notable enough, or had enough information to warrant the article. CrazyC83 04:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Two more to the list. Both, like usual from that user, have low quality with minimal information that could be extremely easily put into the seasonal article. Hurricanehink 16:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to merging of any hurricane, so long as you keep all the info (including the sources). However I think the problem with this user is low writing quality, not lack of information or notability. So it just needs someone to go in and fix up what he's written. Too bad he won't create an account or I'm sure we could get him to do these things himself. Jdorje 17:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I added Allison, Gustav, and Emily to the list. All three are made by the same person, with the usual low quality article for a non-important storm. Hurricanehink 21:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

They are extremely low quality. I wish that author would follow the conventions used for other articles... Jdorje 21:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed for the moment, although if a better article can be made then keep the article. CrazyC83 06:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Added Lili to the list. Same as usual. This one might be able to be kept, as with Emily (1993), but I still think Allison and Gustav should go. Hurricanehink 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with Allison (1995) and Gustav, but all others should be kept. CrazyC83 01:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Strongly against merging Alice, Ginger, Linda, John and Gafilo. Partially against merging Fefa, Odette and Zoe. In the case of Odette and Zoe, both are very notable storms and the articles have good info, especially Odette's. Fefa is a notable storm and the article is well written. Agreed with merging Emily (1993), Lili (1996), and Adrian. Strongly agreed with merging Alex (2004), Bertha (1996, not on list),Alberto (2000) , Allison (1995), and Gustav (2002). Most, if not all, are skin-and-bones articles about storms that weren't that notable. They give just a summery of the storm that is best in their respective main articles. That leaves one more article doesn't it: Central America Hurricane of 1857. First off, the name is misleading, the storm occured nowhere near Central America and is named after the ship it sank. I say merge the article with the one on the ship instead of the hurricane season. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Removed Alice2, Linda, Ginger, and John because no one agreed to their removal and they are notable. The only reason I nominated Fefa was because I felt that the name could have been replaced a la Knut rather than retired because its impact seems like a hokey reason to retire a name. I know I nominated it, but I now oppose Zoe becaue it appears to be listed as retired in the WMO document I linked in the article request list above. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll vote again after time passed and my views have changed. No for Alex (2004), Adrian, Fefa (unless the name was simply removed), Zoe (it has potential), and Gafilo (potential exists). Iffy on Odette, Emily (1993, potential exists), and Lili (1996, there is potential). I vote for merge for Central America hurricane of 1857 (to be merged with SS Central America), Allison (1995, wow it formed early), Esther (little short, and not notable), and Alberto (2000, it basically only has a storm history). Hurricanehink 01:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Added Chaba to the list (little impact), and put Alberto and Bertha there (they have mergal proposals as well). I vote no for Bertha, and yes for Chaba and Alberto. Hurricanehink 15:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Alberto merged, based on consensus. Hurricanehink 02:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done E. Brown. Allison was doomed. Now what's next on the chopping block? Central America Hurricane of 1857, I'm looking your way. Hurricanehink 18:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

1857 was executed at 6:10 this evening. It was good writing and I tried to be faithful in the merge. Who's next? Bertha, I hope you've got a will ready! :D Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Ooo. Or not. We appear to have some dissenting voters on Bertha. If it's going to stay, it needs some more info. Lili doesn't have a bright future, but nor does it have consensus. I don't know, what do you guys think? Adrian could be next, it doesn't have a bright future either. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Good luck with any of the other ones, especially the 2005 ones. There seem to be 2 communities within this Wikiproject; 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasoners and non-2005ers. While some of us non-2005ers might agree with you (I for one am vehemently opposed to articles such as Alpha and Cindy, as well as Beta to an extent), there are a lot of the 2005 people who want to see everything more and more: more articles, more information, more everything. In addition, there was already a vote for deletion for Cindy, and it failed. Most of the pointless ones are gone. However, if it is longer than the infobox (longer than a stub, even), it should be kept in my book. I am all for the deletion of useless storms, but we are a minority. Perhaps we should just focus on what other articles can be created; most of the notable ones have already been created. Hurricanehink 01:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
My emotions and opinions tell me to tell them to go to Hell. My common sense tells me to use diplomacy, which is what I do. But every man has his breaking point. Sometimes, Cindy being a good example, I get tired of listening to it. The more I've had to deal with it, the more I've come to hate the Cindy article. It is almost the bane of my existance. I want so bad to merge it, but I know I'll catch Hell for it. It'd probably be reverted anyway. It's just so aggrivating dealing with these idiots who have no idea what they're talking about and keep saying the same frickin' thing over and over again. It just wears you out. This is probably why I'll never have children. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Ooh. Poor Eric! I know the feeling, but too many people think that piece of crap storm (Cindy) is deserving of an article and is notable. HOW?!?!?!?! It was a tropical storm that killed 2 people. Nothing else! I'll admit I laughed at your description of your anger, but I feel almost the same way. Cindy and Alpha are two very hot topics, and I would love to see them go. But no, we have those who want to keep those worthless storm articles. It killed a few people and was a storm in an active season. Give me a break. It really does wear you out. I guess some people won't sway their opinions... Hurricanehink 03:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the French wikipedia site - ALL storms, right down to the ignored depressions, have articles...[1] CrazyC83 02:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Added Erika (1997) to the list. CrazyC83, I will agree with Eric that not every storm needs an article. Few actually need it, and few others deserve one. I do see the argument for it, and unfortunately it seems I am among the minority who doesn't want excessive articles. I don't know. This is one debate I don't like getting in to. Hurricanehink 21:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Two more new ones. Not by Hurricane craze but by another person who makes a lot of articles; Storm05. Hurricanehink 20:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to be blunt: Why the Hell do people want the Cindy article so much?! Out of all of them, Cindy has given me the biggest headache. It doesn't make any sence to keep it. It adds no value whatsoever. It just restates what is said in the main article. I counted up the votes on the talk page from long ago and here they are:
  • Support Merge - 4
  • Oppose Merge - 3
Also, Jdorje implied that he opposed the merge but never expressly stated, "yes it should be merged" or "no, keep it". It doesn't have to be one of those bolded "support" or "oppose" options to count, it just has to be exlicitly stated so that there can be no doubt. So, in a majority rules world, Cindy is a dead duck. But in a consensus-rules world (like Wikipedia), Cindy barely escapes. I will still fight for consensus on the merge, though. Cindy should not have an article. I merged Doria, by the way. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 04:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
RIP Barry. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 04:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Chaba axed. Hurricanehink 23:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

{{merge}} placed on Esther's head. That one seems to be next on the choping block. I posted a poll on Adrian's talk page. I'm still undescided on that one. Similar situation with both Fefa and the Havana storm. I see no consensus on Cindy and moved it back to candidate list. I think that the failed candidates list shouldn't even be here, it serves little purpose. My opinions: Merge - Cindy, Odette, Alex; Keep - Beta, Zoe and Gafilo (latter two I removed from list based on the fact that I see no one here who supports their merging); Undescided -Fefa (leaning keep), Adrian (leaning keep), Havana storm (stumped). -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 03:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Odette guillotined. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Eric, if it makes you feel better, I added two more new ones that I personally would love to merge. I just thought I'd wait for a consensus before Storm05 loses another yet article. Just for the record, I oppose the deletion of the Great Havana Hurricane of 1846. Hurricanehink 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The List of Pacific typhoon seasons goes back to 1944, but before a certain point they are all stubs. What should be done with these? On a related note, *every* basin should have a Pre-XXXX article (like Pre-1980 North Indian cyclone seasons). Jdorje 02:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh yea, that was an old project of mine. I personally did summaries between 1961 to ~2002, but my computer went weird, and I am no longer able to open PDF files. I have to use another person's to do so. Before 1961, I think Storm05 and HERB worked a little bit, but when I get the time I will extend it the way I want it. You know what that means, storm summaries and impact for a lot of storms. On the List of Pacific typhoon seasons talk page, there is adequate info to extend it back centuries, and not have a Pre-XXXX page until about 1600. This is long range, but within the range of our capabilities. Hurricanehink 02:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Another Barry bites the dust. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 06:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[long speach in Latin holding Cross] Bill, may you Rest in Peace, Amen. (in Hell you murderous Son of a...) ;). Storm05 may need grief cousiling. And that's a lighthearted way of putting a potential issue that may arise out of this. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 06:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Side note: from now on when we merge articles we need to remove the {{hurricane}} from the discussion page. And make sure to add it when making new articles. Jdorje 06:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Gerda has been put to sleep (I'm running out of lines). Jdorje, I didn't see that message until now. I'll try and remember to do that before merging. Hink, thanks for cheering me up ;) -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 06:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The last word:
  • Alex - Merge
  • Esther - Undescided (leaning merge)
  • Cindy - Merge
  • Havana storm - Undescided (leaning keep)
  • Babe - Merge
  • Adrian - Keep
  • Fefa - Leaning keep

-- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 06:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My last word (if it matters):
  • Alex- Keep, but needs a lot more
  • Esther- Merge
  • Cindy- Merge
  • Havana storm- Keep
  • Babe- Merge
  • Adrian- Keep
  • Fefa- Keep

Hurricanehink 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Beryl's on the list now. That's short, and can easily be merged. Hurricanehink 16:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As is Leslie. This one was iffy, but because the storm did nothing on its own, it should be merged. The precursor disturbance, which did become Leslie, did not have a circulation and thus, was not a tropical cyclone. Hurricanehink 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Beryl, we hardly knew thee, but that's fine because you were merged. See you never. Hurricanehink 22:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Adios Leslie. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Hurricanehink 22:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Fefa safe, removed from the candidates list based on consensus-keep. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A newcomer: Hurricane Betsy (1956). -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 02:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Because most of the important articles are already done, any new article (before 2005) should be put here once the original author is done. This way, we can decide right away, rather than waiting and talking about it. This way we can could determine if the storm is deserving of an article and if enough information is given/available. Hurricanehink 19:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think that could be put a better way, Hink. How about: "That way we could determine if the storm is deserving of an article and if enough information is given/available. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll remove mine so no one gets offended. Hope this can be put into use in future. Hurricanehink 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought we were already discussing articles here *before* creating them? Jdorje 20:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Right here is where every new article will be, so we can assess them right away. Hurricanehink 20:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I vote merge. Too little info. Hurricanehink
Merge. Not notable enough. Hurricanehink

Let's see if this can be put into use. Hurricanehink 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fare thee well, Ivan. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 03:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
"It's ova' Babe..." Babe bites the dust. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 08:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Bye bye, Dolly. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 14:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Added 2 more to the list- Subtropical Storm One (1978) and Tropical Storm Arlene (1993). Hurricanehink 16:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Give me an A-R-L-E-N-E's gone! Hurricanehink 02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to add some info to the existing article but that can be difficult since some many of articles are lacking sources to add more information or theres nothing else worth interesting to add. As for the canidate articles, I'll get to them as i can find good info on them. Storm05 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Gordon to the list. If there's nothing else to add and it is short, merge it! There's no need for pointless articles. For the candidate articles, they were non-notable storms that don't deserve an article, and do not have enough information to justify one. Storm05, I'll ask again, what is wrong with adding information to the season article? If a new article is just a little bid more in depth than the season article, there's no need for a new article. Take Arlene (1993) for example. The information about killing those in El Salvador was good and new. You could add that and other parts of the impact section to the section in the season article, rather than making a new one. Most of the important storms are already done. Just pick an article and add to that. Rather than adding to the list of sub-par hurricane articles, bring a short one up to a better status. I'm sorry that nearly every article you've made in the last few months has been merged, but there's no need for storms like Arlene or the January Subtropical Storm. Hurricanehink 15:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was that the storms (like Hurricanes Alicia, Inez , Hattie, etc...) they are short and there are to0 few sources listed to add more information which makes it difficult because without a listing of sources, it will be impossible to find and add information. Storm05 16:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Ooohhh. Maybe try googling it. Hopefully there's enough info for each retired hurricane. Hurricanehink 23:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So long Subtropical Storm One. Never earned you place in history. May you rest in peace... NOT! Hurricanehink 20:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Archived. Hurricanehink 20:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Floyd axed. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 22:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thelma and Katrina gone. They won't be missed. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 22:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)\

I added Ginger to the list. There's not enough trivia or impact to warrant an article as it is, though with some work it might be able to be kept. Hurricanehink 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For once, I have to disagree with you on this one, and Faith. The trivia section is of minimal importance IMO and should be used on a per-storm basis. The impact section can easily be expanded. This storm is very notable and deserves an article. It was AT LEAST the second longest lasting hurricane to form in the Atlantic, if not the longest. It spent more consecutive days as a tropical cyclone than any other Atlantic storm on record (remember, the 1899 storm had a long stint as an extratropical storm before regaining tropical characteristics). Faith went farther north than any other tropical cyclone on record. It is, in my opinion, one of the most incredible feats ever achieved by a tropical cyclone in the Atlantic. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but why are they notable? Jdorje 00:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. Sorry, I guess I just disagree with you that a long path is reason for notability. Just because they happened not to hit land, that makes them *more* important somehow? Seems like it should be the other way around. Jdorje 00:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I mainly put that there so someone would prove me wrong and add some more information. It could stay, but could use some more in-depth trivia. Faith, on the other hand, I am not for a merge but I don't see the need for an article. It wasn't the longest anything, and for all we know it will be declared extratropical much earlier in its lifetime. Hurricanehink 00:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
My main point is that by the criteria we have been using, these articles are not deserving. They are less notable than many other articles which have been rejected simply for lack of length. It is not proper to have these articles stay just because we (any of us) "like" them, when we merge others' similar articles based on the same criteria. Jdorje 00:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Hurricane Jose (1999) and Hurricane Kyle (2002) to the list. Neither of these storms were that notable, especially Jose, and they both caused little damage. The articles are also almost direct copies from the NHC reports. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the Hurricane Kyle (2002) aritcle!, and for Jose, the NHC report has detailed storm history than other sites. Also another thing STOP saying that the articles I wrote are direct copies becasue I did my best to put it in my own words! Storm05 15:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
By puting it in your own words, you summarize it, not switch a few words. Second, Kyle is still an unimportant storm that doesn't deserve an article. I still think the 2 should be merged. Hurricanehink 17:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Jose chopped. Irene added to the list; somehow this one slipped through the cracks. And who said Cindy had consensus keep? It's still a non-notable storm, that fact is unavoidable. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Bonnie and Able to the list. Hurricanehink 17:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Earl. It's time to make a descision on the ones that have been here a while. Alex, Daisy, Esther, Cindy, Faith, Ginger; keep or merge? My votes:
  • Alex - Undescided (leaning merge)
  • Daisy - Unhesitant merge
  • Esther - Weak merge
  • Cindy - Undescided (leaning merge - article has improved slightly but the storm still isn't notable)
  • Faith - Expand and keep
  • Ginger - Strong keep
  • Irene - Merge
  • Kyle - Merge
  • Bonnie - Strong Merge
  • Able - Unhesitant merge
  • Earl - Strong merge
-- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, do or die time. My votes:
  • Alex- Weak keep, though it needs more impact
  • Daisy- Weak keep. I know you might be surprised, but I feel every season since 1950 should have at least one article, and this happenes to be 1962's most notable storm.
  • Esther- Merge
  • Cindy- Keep. Damage warrents it.
  • Faith and Ginger- Keep and add.
  • Irene- Keep and add.
  • Kyle- Merge
  • Bonnie- Merge
  • Able- Merge
  • Earl- Merge.
Hurricanehink 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bye Kyle. And, Hink, I disagree with your take on Daisy. If the storm's not notable and there's that little info, the article should not exist...period. JMO. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Able disabled. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Bonnie gone, Esther assassinated. They were bugging me and there seemed to be little opposition to merging either. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 03:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Added 1919 Florida Keys Hurricane to the list Storm05 17:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Added some more (what I think) low-quality articles. Here's my voting.
Hurricanehink 01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Daisy has wilted. My votes:
  • 1919 storm - Keep
  • Alex - Weak keep
  • Cindy - Undescided (leaning merge: info is OK but the storm's effects were pitifully small).
  • Dennis (1981) - Merge, not notable.
  • Earl - Merge
  • Faith - Keep
  • Ginger - Strong keep
  • Josephine - Merge
  • Matthew - Strong merge, this storm isn't anywhere near notable.
  • Nina - Keep but greatly expand
  • Chebi - Merge
  • Ginny - Merge, interesting storm but nothing that can't be said in the main article.
-- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Matt dead. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Added Ma-on to the list Storm05 15:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dennis dead. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 20:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Added 1904 Great August Gale to the list. Storm05 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Added Irene (2005) to the list. Storm05 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hurricane Irene (2005), 1904 Great August Gale, and Typhoon Ma-on should all be merged. Hurricanehink 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hurricane Earl (1998) was merged by E. Brown, and I merged Hurricane Gaston Predictions and Timeline of Hurricane Gaston. Hurricanehink 22:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Irene is no more. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 14:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ginny merged. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 14:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Josephine merged, and yes I actually did take some information from that article and put it back in. I also archived some of this. Hurricanehink 20:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Ma-On gone. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Dora cut. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
And Janice is outta here! Hurricanehink 21:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Added Clara to the list. The article isn't bad, but the storm killed no one, there is no damage stats, and it was a 70 mph tropical storm. There's no need for such an article. Hurricanehink 00:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Even that's generous. The articles facts are jumbled, confusing and contradictory. The storm history section is lack-luster. I agree with the merge. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Clare's been taken care of. Hurricanehink 17:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Added List of Multi-Basin Tropical Cyclones. Hurricanehink 17:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

1904 Great August Gale

I could find no evidence that this event actually happened. There are no hurricanes for August 1904 in the best-track, a google search turns up nothing outside of wikipedia, and an anon posted to the talk page that "Great August Gale" usually refers to a storm of the '20s. The article itself was written by an anon who had no other contributions. Accordingly, I redirected the article to 1904.

Now on a related note, 1904 has mention of a Texas hurricane that killed 107 people, but this storm also didn't exist; the best-track for 1904 shows no hurricanes hitting texas and the pastdeadly list mentions only one storm from 1904 causing any fatalities: a storm that killed 87 in cuba. However all I did was add {{fact}} to this entry, I didn't delete it yet. This brings to mind the question of date entries; we should make sure all notable storms - and only notable storms - are listed on the date and year pages. A giant task.

Now on yet another related note, 1904 Atlantic hurricane season made no mention of any deaths in 1904. I updated the cuba-storm section to mention the 87 deaths (the NHC cites a cuban publication as the source), and updated the season's infobox.

— jdorje (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Projecct Tropical Cyclones Best and Worst Articles of 2005

This is a top ten list of the best and worst articles ever written,

Best

1.- Hurricane Katrina 2.- Hurricane Dennis 3.- Hurricane Emily 4.- Hurricane Floyd 5.- Hurricane Ivan 6.- Hurricane Jeanne 7.- Hurricane Georges 8.- Hurricane Gaston 9.- 1900 Galveston Hurricane 10.-Hurricane Rita

Honorable Mentions- Hurricane Lili (1996), Hurricane Elena, Hurricane Wilma, Hurricane Stan and others.

Worst

1.- Hurricane Inez 2.- Typhoon Ma-on 3.- 1919 Florida Keys Hurricane 4.- 1914 Atlantic hurricane season 5.- Hurricane Edna- Please come on, this storm is more notable than that! 6.- 1984 Pacific hurricane season 7.- 1999 Pacific hurricane season 8.- 1998 Pacific hurricane season 9.- Hurricane Dora 10.-Hurricane Hilda

Dishonorable Mentions- 1928 Atlantic hurricane season, Typhoon Babe, Typhoon Pongsona, Typhoon Talim and other.

Storm05 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Best/worst discussion

Katrina the best? That article is a mess, I beg to differ. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Worst - Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Gaston. As for best...see the FA-Class and A-Class articles (IMO many of the A-Class ones are better than the FA-Class ones, just because it's a tedious process to get them upgraded to FA-Class). — jdorje (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with so much of this I'm not even going to start, cuz I'm bound to get carried away. This section is unnessesary. It's WAY too subjective. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This whole section can be deleted or archived, IMO. Hurricanehink 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it can be immediately archived. I just had to chime in against any mention of Hurricane Katrina as the best TC article. — jdorje (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I will say that being a stub or really short does not make an article "bad". If a certain subject needs an article and all it has is a stub, then so be it. A stub is better than no article at all, and can be expanded on. What is bad is long articles that are poorly structured, poorly referenced, and poorly written in general, because there's nothing you can do with them. It takes more work to fix them than it would take to rewrite them from scratch. Hurricane Katrina is the primary example of this. Yet, we all share a part of the blame: we all stood by while the Katrina monstrosity grew. The content of the article is fine, and if we'd just stepped in months ago and given the article a little bit of structure the rest of the edits would have been more naturally guided into the right locations and we wouldn't be in this situation. — jdorje (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible storms

Ive created a list of possible stoms , this list is still under construction though, feel free to ask any questions or comments about these storms, have fun! Storm05 13:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There's probably too many to list, and they are at the discretion of you if they were anything or not. Given that all of that is unofficial, it's fine on the user talk page. What criteria are you using to add storms to your list? Hurricanehink 16:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Those Medtiterranian storms were probably all baroclinic. With water temperatures of about 15/16 degrees Celsius, I can hardly believe they were tropical or even subtropical - Yarrah 16:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
My critieria is guessing that those storms were probably tropical (or subtropical) by looking at the satallite images and determining the factors of what makes these storm tropical or subtropical as opposed to an extratropical system. Storm05 16:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, you are guessing, and thus, no point to this topic. No offense, but this page is for talking about actual tropical cyclones. Hurricanehink 17:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point!, I determine the storms like the pros do (ie the National Hurricane Center and other weather organizations), plus i need opinion about these storms, how can I recieve opinion if i just put this topic on my discussion page?, and finally just because the water tempratures is 15/16 degree Celsius (meteric system confusing) doesnt mean a tropical (or Subtropical) storm can form, just look at Epsilion and Zeta!. Storm05 18:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Also its important to know that some of these storms may have been storms that the officals have missed and are waiting to be classified as offical. Storm05 20:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Thus, you do not need to get opinions on those storms. — jdorje (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me first ask a question. Do you know what a polar low is? A polar low is a cold core system with convection resembling a tropical cyclone. Look here. This looks like a tropical storm, but look at the time of year. It is April! The location and climatology says that, despite the look, it wasn't a tropical cyclone, and probably not even subtropical. It takes very special circumstances to have a tropical cyclone, and in the off-season the odds are extremely low. Anything in the off-season would likely be in the Bermuda area (north or south), and it rarely happens. The South Atlantic is even more rare. Next, unless you observe actual data, you do not determine the storms like the pros. The pros use ship reports, buoys, and reconaissance reports to classify storms. Do you do all of this? A topic belongs at the speculation page of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. You cannot compare Epsilon and Zeta with some of your storms. Until the NHC upgrades it, everything is unofficial. Hurricanehink 23:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Completely agreed. All those that Storm05 has listed are more than likely low pressure systems. Many of them are all but certainly lows. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Tropical Storm Ana of 2003 formed in April of that year and it had claim to fame to being an off-season storm. I still say that some of the storms that I listed are legitimete Tropical or Subtropical storms that officals missed. Storm05 16:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Ana had ship reports of tropical storm force near the center, and had a warm core based on satellites. In addition, there is a very shady area in between extratropical and subtropical, so it must look very good for it to be upgraded. I will admit, the NHC is very conservative and unless they have conclusive evidence they will not upgrade an extratropical low; thus some storms might have gone un-noticed. However, none looked good enough to be tropical or even subtropical. This is just my little old opinion. Hurricanehink 16:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Storm05, do you have a PhD in meteorological science? Didn't think so. These guys are experts. They are human but they know a storm when they see one. You just looking at some visible images and saying they're wrong would be like looking at a sick person and telling a doctor that he misdiagnosed the ailment. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There should be zero need for further discussion on this. This is as bad as the list of unusual cyclone names. It's all original research, and POV. NSLE (T+C) at 01:04 UTC (2006-03-03)

List of Pacific typhoon seasons and North Indian cyclones

Just to let you know, I am currently working on the Northeastern Hemisphere in the tropical cyclone project. The North Indian seasons are almost done, and the Western Pacific is slowly coming along. I am basically doing this all myself, so it is going to take some time, but this sector of the Tropical Cyclone project is coming along. A todo list to finish:

  • 1950-1984 Pacific typhoon seasons (all separate articles)
  • Decadal articles for Pacific typhoons back to 1800
  • Century articles for Pacific typhoons back to 1600
  • Pre-1600 Pacific typhoon season
  • 1982-1984 North Indian cyclone seasons (Done)

Come to think of it, you should appoint someone in charge of each basin. I notice the Southern Hemisphere seasons is going nowhere, the Eastern Pacific is almost done, and the Atlantic is done except for minor things (infoboxes). Hurricanehink 20:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think appointing people will work...we need people to step up to take responsibility for each basin. Having one person in charge of each basin (except possibly the Atlantic basin, which is both larger and closer to most editors' hearts) is probably a good idea, but we need volunteers for this. For the moment it sounds like you've volunteered for the EPac and Nindian basins. Jdorje 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The NIndian is done right now, so now I am working on WPAC. Maybe you should personally ask someone if they're interested. Hurricanehink 02:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, on another note, I had at one time started calling the NIndian basin the "northern indian ocean tropical cyclone" basin. You have since renamed it as "north indian cyclone" basin. Your name is better...however a lot of things (categories, etc.) may have to be renamed to get everything to match. On a related note, "Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone" basin is also too long (though not as bad as the old NIndian name). Jdorje 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. I just thought based on the formats of the other basins (Pacific typhoon, Atlantic hurricane) that it would North Indian cyclone. Sorry to cause extra work, but on the bright side, the basin is done!

New Articles

I've made two new articles for the Southern Hemisphere Cyclones Storm05 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Whos checking the Southern Hemisphere Cyclones article because there are two new articles waiting to be checked. Storm05 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Finished Southern Hemisphere Cyclone Articles

Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones?

Per Portal talk:Tropical Cyclones#Move to Portal:Tropical cyclones?. I'm reposting the (as yet) brief discussion from there to here. Please state your minds (and note that I'm proposing to move both the Portal and this WikiProject). Blackcap (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(begin copying)

Why is the "C" capitalized? Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words says that it shouldn't be. My recommendation is to move it to Portal:Tropical cyclones. Portal:Artificial intelligence doesn't have the "I" capitalized, and note that our WP article on this is at Tropical cyclone and not Tropical Cyclone (which is a redirect). If there's no dissent, I'll be bold and do it myself. Blackcap (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Basically the C is capitalized to match Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. If one is to be changed, they both should be...and there will be a lot of redirecting to fix (fortunately we make heavy use of templates, like {{tcportal}}, so it won't be as much as it otherwise would). Don't change it unless you're willing to change it ALL. Jdorje 00:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm willing. I'd best wait a wee bit to get more opinions, though. Blackcap (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(end copying)

As the namer of the wikiproject, I have no particular opinion. We can rename it, but only if those who are going to do the work are willing to do all the work - don't leave it half-finished for the rest of us to clean up. Jdorje 04:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Are there any more templates apart from the ones at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones#Templates and {{tcportal}} for when I make the change? The rest is just using Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, AFAIK... anything I've overlooked? Blackcap (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
O.K., here goes: I'm a-moving it now. Blackcap (talk) (vandalfighters, take a look) 00:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
O.K.! It's been moved, the templates have been changed, the infoboxes have been moved, it's been de-capitalized, and there are no double redirects according to Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. If I've not done something or I've done domething wrong, please tell me: AFAIK, though, it's all taken care of. Blackcap (talk) (vandalfighters, take a look) 01:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


List of Notable tropical cyclones

This is getting long. Should it be split up into basins, or at the very least, have a list of Notable Atlantic tropical cyclones? This could also list records on the Atlantic records page. The retired storms section is very long, and there are many under Off-Season, Canadian, and Unnamed. With a separate page, there could be more detail, and more organized. Hurricanehink 22:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In short: yes. Jdorje 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The retired ones, for example, should go to List of retired Atlantic hurricanes. CrazyC83 06:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Sample article

Do we have a sample article yet? Should it be a season or a specific storm? I saw that notice on one or two other WikiProjects, and wondered if we should as well. Also, should some of this page be archived? It's very long (100 Kb). Hurricanehink 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Hurricane Dennis, it's the supposed FAC. We need one for seasons too...maybe one sample for each basin. As for archives, I believe some archiving has already been done. However any *discussion* archived should first have its results put in the appropriate place on the wikiproject page. Jdorje 03:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Good idea for Dennis. For seasons, it should be 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, 1997 Pacific hurricane season, not sure about WPAC, 2000-2004 North Indian cyclone seasons, and 2004-05 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. Since some of the discussion is still ongoing, I'll leave it as is for now. Hurricanehink 15:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Devon

I like Hurricanes. I think I coild do good in the WikiProject. Are you alowing users to join. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 17:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, the door is always open. Just add your name to the list of Participants on the main page of this wikiproject located here. Hurricanehink 17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Hink. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 01:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Found 1893 Charleston hurricane

Found information about this hurricane. Also known 1893 Sea Island hurricane. I hope this information will be useful. juan andrés 02:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The 1893 Charleston hurricane was not the same as the 1893 Sea Islands Hurricane. Information on the charleston hurricane should be added to the 1893 Atlantic hurricane season article. Jdorje 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Season names and renaming of season articles

There is a user who has been renaming tc season articles: 1971 Pacific hurricane season and 1980-81 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. I left him a note, but I can't move them back or stop him from renaming more (except by creation of redirects from the names he would choose...which might not be a bad idea but would be very tedious as there are ~200 such redirects that would need to be created). Jdorje 20:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning is based on a Wikipedia naming convention for article titles. While I have no particular opinion on the convention, I had always thought 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the official name for the season, as given by the NHC. If we are to move these articles it will take a massive amount of work - very, horrendously, many hours of work. All ~200 season articles have to be moved, all ~200 season categories deleted and created anew, and all 500-1000 (?) storm and dab articles recategorized and will have to have their links updated. BTW, you can see the user's recent changes at [2]. Jdorje 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Heh heh, he seems to have lost interest in the project of renaming after I pointed out to him how massive it was and instructed him to come here for further discussion. However there are still several dozen articles that were renamed, and random links here and there (seemingly without pattern) that were changed. Jdorje 21:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
2002 Pacific hurricane season, however, has been messed up and now holds duplicate copies; the main copy has losts its revision history. Jdorje 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Fixed now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
As for the naming convention, usually a WikiProject's own conventions can override the global conventions (and most conventions are developed through WikiProjects anyway). I'm going to move the pages back, but that leaves the question, what do we want to do? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I vote for putting it back. No need for the extra work. Hurricanehink 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I did it already, but now we need to discuss whether we want to change it or not, as I've listed this on WP:RM. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml and elsewhere in the NHC site I think you can see 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is the official name format used for the Atlantic. Jdorje 21:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Very true. IMO, there's no need to fix eeevvvveeerrryyy article when the current format is fine. Hurricanehink 21:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

On ~~ 82.45.238.200 vandalized the page of 1999 Atlantic hurricane season in the sections of Gert and Irene.

  • Reverted and warned. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've already put this article in my watchlist. So I've noticed that also errased a paragraph from Gert's Section. In Gert Section was nonsense, and in the Irene was a paragraph entirely made of fake info, with terrible spelling, of course. juan andrés 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Stub seasonal articles

Ive went back though the Atlantic hurricane articles and found that most of the articles are STUBS!, come on guys, you can do better than that.

Stub Hurricane Articles

  • 1890
  • 1892
  • 1896
  • 1897
  • 1898
  • 1899
  • 1908
  • 1909
  • 1910
  • 1911
  • 1912
  • 1913
  • 1914
  • 1917
  • 1918
  • 1919
  • 1920
  • 1921
  • 1922
  • 1923
  • 1924
  • 1927
  • 1928
  • 1929
  • 1930
  • 1931
  • 1933
  • 1934
  • 1935
  • 1936
  • 1937
  • 1938
  • 1939

Storm05 19:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to make a list. Just look at Category:Tropical cyclone articles by quality. Jdorje 19:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dennis FA on main page soon

Guys, please add Hurricane Dennis to your watchlists (click here to do so) as it will appear on the Main page as the featured article on February 6 and vandalism is to be expected. NSLE (T+C) 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 06:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The dennis article links to Hurricane Alex (2004), but this article is quite sub-par. We should give it a little attention (or merge it) today (Deniis feature is tomorrow). — jdorje (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

List of unusual tropical cyclone names

I cannot begin to list the problems with this article. Please other people take a look. --Golbez 20:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I propose it be deleted. How do we go about doing that? Hurricanehink 21:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone needs to drop him a note on his talk page, I'll put it up at WP:PROD. NSLE (T+C) at 00:31 UTC (2006-03-02)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_1&oldid=1071670123"