User talk:Jdorje/Archive4

See also /Archive.

Hurricane track

Good God! Did you upload all that yourself? That is incredible. I'll help you put the infoboxes together.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Batch mode? What's that? Also, I hope you know that 1995-2004 have already been uploaded, you just filed them in the category right? I'll get started on those infoboxes right now.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 16:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You can upload them all in one click? I thought you had to do them one at a time.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 16:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Smart man, Jdorje. Smart man. (I have no idea what movie I'm quoting, but I know I'm quoting one :D).

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 16:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Doh! I had just hit the save button for 1993 when you told me that. Grrr. Personally, I think either way works.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 16:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I just fixed the date in the name line (1995 to 1992 for example) and left the rest of that stuff the way it was. Anyway, if I don't put the image name in there at all, how is the computer going to know what track map to put in? That doesn't make sense to me.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 01:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't mention it. And uh, good point about the strongest storm. Do you want to just remove it or what? I think it's useful info. I completely forgot to update the other seasons. Sorry about that. I thought it would be better if we put it that way given the fact that not all storms of tropical storm intensity were named, even in the naming era.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just go with total storms. With the strongest storm thing, that means we'd have to make two templates if we're going to carry it back past modern times.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hats off pal

Your work on the hurricane pages has been extaordinary. You should be greatly commended and hereby are. All of us on the hurricane pages are very grateful for the work that you've done. I am incredibly impressed. People say that I do a good job, but your contributions are often overlooked, even though they're greater than mine. Please accept this barnstar as a token of my appreciation. You are the most vital link in the group that I've come to call the Big Four hurricane contributers (You, Hurricanehink, RattleMan, and myself. You keep this motley crew together and organized. You should probably consider adminship sometime in the near future.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: 155mph winds?

At this forum, people post the recon reports, and they found 135 knots a few minutes before NHC released their 120 mph, confusing many people who thought for sure it would be higher. (might have been ~140 mph with % reduction) -- RattleMan 21:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

That was what I was thinking. Do you have any suggestions? -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane tracks

Now that's just unbelievably cool. I could name the hurricane tracks for most of the modern hurricane seasons. Those were interesting examples (Drew, Okeechobee and Dog). You would never get those if you weren't a hurricane freak. The one big advantage UNISYS has over us is that they have, as you pointed out, coastlines drawn. Their tracks are also a solid line instead of a dotted one. But this is much better than what we had. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 13:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Damn, you're good! That high res image of the world is stunning. You can make your own hurricane tracks with that program. God, I envy you! (grumble, grumble). :) -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 03:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. You want to put the color coding system into the articles? I'm not sure that'd work. The colors look better in tables I think, like the one in List of notable tropical cyclones -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so you want to replace UNISYS color scheme with the Wikipedia one. Personally, I like the UNISYS one better. The colors are easier to see against the background. The colors for categories 1 and 2 are white and cream respectively. Those would be horribly difficult to distinguish on the track given that they look so much alike. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this is a matter of opinion, but I think we should compare the two and see which one we like better. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 23:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that's unbelievably cool. How long did it take you to do that? That's fantastic. You've got your own UNISYS archive right there. That is incredible! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There has been some discussion on the Hurricane Faith talk page about adding a track of Hurricane Faith to the article. Do you think you could come up with one? Thanks. Oh, and the freeciv pages you gave me don't seem to work anymore. It keeps telling me that the page couldn't be found. Although I can get to the pages that I had clicked on earlier, which makes it even more strange.-- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Faith. As for the season tracks site, they may still be there, but where the hell are they? (not to put too fine a point on it :) ). Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I did that. That's where I found the error message was from using the pages on the link you gave me. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Wilma and image

There's already an infrared image of it at peak intensity. The satellite image is also already in use at the main article. Is it really necessary ot put it into Hurricane Wilma? -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 04:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I assumed you reverted it just because the link was garbage. If that's not the case, feel free to remove it. But I do think the satellite image at peak intensity should be shown somewhere. Jdorje 04:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Piconly infoboxes

I'm sure you've already noticed, but on the articles with 10 or more seasons on them (like the 1870s), putting the infoboxes under each heading makes the boxes conflict with each other. This looks somewhat bad. I tried alternating the boxes from left to right to left, etc (like is done with the storm images in the 2005 season), but I've had no luck. What do you think? -- RattleMan 07:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with Rattleman. I think that the ones in the multi-season articles should be removed. That's just my personal opinion. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 21:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You can remove the infoboxes if you like (with them alternating it is just barely passable...and would be fine if a little more text were added to the one-sentence seasons) but the pictures should stay. The pictures tell a lot more than the text does. Jdorje 06:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks BETTER, but the text is too close to the infoboxes with the left-side boxes. I think there's a way to pad them as is done with HTML (HSPACE?). -- RattleMan 06:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

True. The next thing I tried was using class="infobox" in the template. The results of this are now visible: the boxes no longer conflict but just all stack down the right side (seems the alignment is now ignored so they're all on the right). This is also not bad...except now they don't necessarily line up with the text for the season. Jdorje 07:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Compare User:Jdorje/Season1 to User:Jdorje/Season2. Jdorje 07:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Fifi Track Map

Your track, Unknown 11 is a track of Hurricane Fifi. Before you add it to the Fifi article, I'd like to point out that Fifi continued in the East Pacific as Hurricane Orlene. You might want to consider adding that to the track. It's Unisys data is here, and its Unisys track is here. You could also make two maps instead.

This also applies to Hurricane Joan and Hurricane Hattie. Though you've already uploaded a Hattie track map, it became Simone (track data) (Track GIF) and then Inga (Track Data Track GIF).

Joan's data is here and its track is here. Miriam's data is here while this is its track GIF. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 20:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It'll take a bit of work to get the tracks of the two storms to run together...but I will try. Jdorje 20:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

90 mph = 150 km/h

Hey, you're right. 80kt = 92.06235584 mph, and 92.06235584 mph = 148.16 km/h. That's odd. Hopefully, it will be easier when the 8pm advisory rolls around. I say list the exact values. -- RattleMan 22:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The conversion rate I used was 1 knot is 1.150779448 mph. Very close to 1.15 exactly. -- RattleMan 22:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Just noting, while I've no idea what this is on about (Hurricane Beta perhaps?), 1 kt = 1.852 km/h; 1.6 km/h = 1 mph; :. mph = kt*1.852/1.6 ;) -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

While I don't trust wikipedia's conversion numbers anywhere, I'm quite sure a mile is not 1.6 km exactly (though it's very close). A knot (speed) might be 1.15 mph exactly, or it might just be very close. Jdorje 05:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

1 mile = 1.6093km, actually, to five significant figures. Therefore 1 knot = 1.1508 mph, to 5 s.f. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

With round errors that could be 1.15 exactly. Jdorje 05:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

2004 West Pacific Post-Season reports and best track

THEY'RE IN!!!!. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Template hurricane main

All right! I've been meaning to create something like that. That is awesome. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 13:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane tracks revisited

Sorry, I've been away from my desk for the past few days. Let's not get carried away with the induvidual storm tracks stuff. That could clutter the page. We've got enough track stuff in the articles as it is. For induvidual storm articles, then they're warrented. But let's avoid clutter on the main pages. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dora track

After checking google images again (where I found it), it comes from here: [1]. The picture doesn't say where it comes from but at the bottom somewhere on the site it says "Powered by the Weather Underground" so I assume it comes from there. so if it comes from there and it's copyrighted you can delete it but the article needs a track and that's the only one I could find. Is it possible you could or you could get someone to make a track image based on this one? --Revolución (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Colors

Saffir–Simpson scale
TD	TS	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5

... I think that the TD and TS colors are (and Category 5 might be) too bright - they seem to suggest there's something more important about those storms than the storms with hot colors. I looked at your track map, and it feels my eye gets drawn to the green tropical storm dots too much there too. Also, the contrast between Category 1 through 2 might be increased some, it's hard to tell the difference, though white vs. yellow is fine. Category-5 red looks good on your map, but as a background behind text it makes things harder to read, so a lighter shade of red or pink might be better. Maybe grey, white, aqua, white, yellow, orange, pink-ish? Thanks for reading! AySz88^-^ 03:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. I didn't make these colors...they are currently held in {{storm colour cat5}} and friends, so you could try just playing around with them a little. Jdorje 07:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Oop, I missed your response; I'll play around with it, but would it cause a lot of grief with having to redo the storm graphics? --AySz88^-^ 02:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The storm graphics will eventually all have to be redone anyway. Jdorje 03:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I might have something at User:AySz88/Sandbox#New hurricane color palatte - I was concentrating on the appearance of text on top of it. Perhaps take a look and see how it might look with an image? --AySz88^-^ 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What about {{storm colour extratropical}} and {{storm colour subtropical}}? Although these aren't used in the images anymore (see 1959 Mexico Hurricane; they use shapes instead so the strength is still shown), I don't know how you'd replace extratropical in the infoboxes. Jdorje 04:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Added those and fixed up some of the colors; thanks! :) --AySz88^-^ 05:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Now TD and Cat1 are too similar. Switching TS and Cat1 might help, except then you lose the nice blue->green->yellow progression. Also I think blue colors won't show up well on the track images (I'll test it when I get a chance). Jdorje 05:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed that, I think... take a look. :) I'm hoping the azure is dark enough for the bluer colors to show; I was relying on the difference in saturation instead of hue for those. --AySz88^-^ 15:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

At [2] are all the storm images with the new colors. I'm not entirely happy with the new colors, but I can't say exactly way. Maybe I'm just not used to them. Maybe they're too "pastel"...but this may be needed since they're used as backgrounds for text also. It's also a little hard to distinguish TD/TS/Cat1 I think. Jdorje 00:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

NSLE's waiting for your OK to do a switch-over to the new colors. Thanks for your help on this! --AySz88^-^ 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this correct:

  double colors[7][3] = {
    COLOR(0xcc, 0xe8, 0xF0), /* DEP */
    COLOR(0xcc, 0xcc, 0xff), /* TS */
    COLOR(0xdd, 0xee, 0xaa), /* cat1 */
    COLOR(0xff, 0xFF, 0xaa), /* cat2 */
    COLOR(0xff, 0xdd, 0x00), /* cat3 */
    COLOR(0xFF, 0xA5, 0x00), /* cat4 */
    COLOR(0xe7, 0x93, 0x93) /* cat5 */
  };
 

? Jdorje 23:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I never replied to this, I didn't see it. :( --AySz88^-^ 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you again for your help before this latest inundation of posts, unfortunately people seem to be only speaking up after all this time passed and I put the new palette in! I apologize for this thing dragging on so long. --AySz88^-^ 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Bert

Your track shows that it never made it to Tropical Storm status, it did. --24.83.117.65 01:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Jdorje 07:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Fat Infobox

The hurricane season infobox is fat now! Why is it so wide. That's annoying. It leaves these big margins around the track map. Can we fix that? All it does is hog space. Another thing, the tables on the 1891 and 1892 seasons are as ugly as sin. They need to go. Thoughts? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Regular. The infobox now takes up --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------that much space! Bad bad bad! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My main point is that the infobox now takes up at least half an inch more that it did when we instituted it. It occurs on all the seasons. It shouldn't take up half the page, which is narrow enough as it is. It used to not be that wide, I'm dead certain of that. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Internet Explorer. And I don't think it's me. It was fine before all the maps started getting uploaded. You don't see how it takes up half the page. The margin by the pic isn't huge, but it's quite noticable. Nor is it really that big of a deal :). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe it's me. One more thing and then I'll stop bitching: the tables on the 1891 and 1892 seasons are as ugly as sin. They have to go. Thoughts? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Tables

You mean the infobox active? If so NO. I still believe a season summery is better. But who ever created that ugly table has some good ideas, but the table just needs to either be drastically tweaked, redone or removed. I think we both agree that it is horribly formatted. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait, I take some of that back, an infobox like the one we have could be quite useful. Sorry, I was confused. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good...minus the storm links (no subpages) and the colors (they will be pointless without a key and a key would take up too much space). Keep the storm summery though!. That specific table is incomplete by the way. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Not bad. The text needs to be moved down below the table and the information in the text needs to be expanded. But overall, it looks good. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

EPac Retirements

I was wondering where you got the info that Hazel was retired in the EPac because it was retired in the Atlantic? While I think that that is why it was retired, I am not sure. I also ask because Dora, Celia, and Hilda are in a similar situation.

Also, do you have any idea why Iva and Adele (and Knut, for that matter) were retired? The only info about it that I could find is here but the document doesn't give reasons why. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 19:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Screenshot

I forgot how to take one. F? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much how it looks as it is quantity. There are about 8500 words on the page. There are 37 pictures. There are 7 in 2004 and just 1 everywhere else. And we haven't even gotten to the post season track map yet. I love how 2004 looks. It may need another picture or two but all in all, it is a great article. It was nominated to be a featured article and I don't know how it didn't win, all the votes I saw were 'support'. The 2005 page should be modeled after that. I feel that most, if not all of the tracks should be removed. The track map at the end of the season will suffice. You seem to have disagreed with that, saying it will look like the UNISYS rough track page map. No it won't. It won't even look as cluttered as this: [3]. It will also be much more colorful than this: [4]. It will suffice. Plus you can't say until you see it anyway. The tracks must be removed, and probably some sat photos too. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Many are cluttered in one location. Around Hurricane Dennis there are about 3; 2-3 inch, pics in 8 inches of page, lengthwise. 2004 had only 10 less storms yet the 2005 article has 30 more pics than '04. And '04 doesn't look all that barren to me. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That screenshot is close to how mine looks. I still think that the number of pics needs to be drastically reduced. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the text is three inches wide in many places! If you think the text is so boring then why don't we delete it and have a photo album for crying out loud. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

What is it with you and subpages. People don't like being led on a leash. They like everything in one place. That's the way it should be. I think the way we've been doing it is just fine. I see no reason do deviate from the tradition. The storms section is not tedious. It may not be a Tom Clancy novel but it won't bore people to their graves. Most people above 12 have gotten beyond the point of picture books here; needing pictures to tell the story. The text is the meat of the article. It gives details on every storm that somebody is bound to be interested in. The text is not pointless. It's vital. Without it, you have nothing but a photo album. That's not what Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia is all about. I've recently been trying to remove tedious details. The pics should be secondary. The text is primary. The way we have it now tries to put the photos first. The pics should back up not take over the story. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it doesn't speak a thousand. We need the text to do that :). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless the storm is notable and deserves its own page, less important details should be deleted entirely. They're tedious and...(wait for it) un important. So why have them. Subpages are for notable storms only. Creating them for minor storms is like letting Joe Blo into the VIP room. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Saffir-Simpson small}}

I reverted that again; it still doesn't work because it should default to right-aligned. I'll ask at the Help Desk about why {{if}} didn't work. --AySz88^-^ 20:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Iwa Track

I have nominated your image, Image:Iwa_1959_track.png for deletion for these reasons:

• It is a track of 1959's Hurricane Dot, not Hurricane Iwa. This is Iwa's track.
• Also, I was under the impression that the images name should be "Iwa_1982_track.png".

I just think that you made a mistake in your uploading. I am letting you know so this error can be corrected. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, Iwa was in 1982 (guess I was confused since the Iwa summary does mention the year 1959). I'm not sure what you mean by it being misnamed however...if there were an Iwa in 1959 that would be the correct name for it. Jdorje 07:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Err, I guess by "misnamed" you mean it's not sufficient to just upload a new file, the old one must also be deleted. BTW, thanks for checking over the tracks...Iwa was a special case since I built it the same way as the unnamed hurricanes. For all the other named hurricanes, I think there is very little chance of an error in the tracks. For the unnamed hurricanes, there is a greater chance of an error being made. Jdorje 07:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

1959 Mexico Hurricane Track

Your track for the 1959 Mexico hurricane, Image:1959_Mexico_hurricane_track.png, has a bit of a problem. It was a Category 5 hurricane, and yet your track appears to show it becoming extratropical right before landfall. There is no Cat. 5 Red anywhere on the map as I can see. To compare, your excellent Image:Katrina 2005 track.png has Cat 5 Red on it. Thanks in advance. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 01:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem...and not only for that hurricane. However it's important for the track to show where the storm became extratropical, since most "Storm history" sections make a big deal of this. I think what's needed is a different way of drawing that differentiates tropical from extratropical (and maybe subtropical?) while still showing wind speed. Jdorje 06:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Your 1959 Mexico Hurricane track looks much better, although it is hard to tell the difference between the squares and circles without clicking on the picture. It is better than it was before. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

mph<–>km/h

They were just estimations. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 13:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Pre-1890 Atlantic hurricane season infoboxes

Have you thought how we should do the infoboxes for the decadal articles? I tried the format for a single season for the 1880 season, for example, but it didn't work. I'll be glad to do all of them if you have a format for them. Should there be an infobox without a pic at the top of the entire season, or would that be overkill? Also, some of the boxes are big, while the article size is small. Should I just expand the seasonal articles to include every storm of the season (I currently only did notable storms)? Hopefully that's not too many questions, and I'm looking forward to your response. Hurricanehink 14:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Storm track direction

Hi, Jdorje. On the storm track maps, it is hard to tell which end the storm started and which end it finished (e.g. Image:1899 San Ciriaco hurricane track.png), apart from reading the article and seeing which direction it went. Do you think that you could put some way of telling which way they went on the images (maybe just start and end at the start and finish(?)). Thelb⁴ 12:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Proper Nouns

It's fine nitpicking. I'll try for the future, and thanks for the compliment. You yourself have been doing a fine job as well. It must be tiresome to fix all of the stupid errors that people should be able to do, though I'm sure that, as with me, reverting vandalism is the most pointless job you hate to do. It needs to be done, and I'm glad you gave that vandal a second warning. Just curious, how many articles are on your watchlist? It seems that every time a hurricane article has something new on it, you are right there to fix it correctly. Hurricanehink 13:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, I figured you must have. That's quite a few pages, but it has to be done. I myself have quite a few pages, though I didn't bother with some of the more pointless ones. Good to know for the future that someone is watching every hurricane page I edit (cue Phycho music). And just to let you know, remember the anon who is creating a lot of good pages, but never made a name? In case you didn't know, I'm pretty sure he is now Storm05. Hurricanehink 20:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew

Thanks for brining this to my attention, you see, I didn't mean to make all those changes. What happened was, I was looking at the history for 207.200.116.5 and noticed he added "26 confirmed 39 unconfirmed" to the Hurricane Andrew article. Without thinking, I cliked on edit this page (on an old revision), and added a comma between that so it read "26 confirmed, 39 unconfirmed" and clicked save, this automatically reverted thet page to that revision with the comma added. If you'd like, I will restore the page back to what it was before I made that mistake, unless you want to keep it that way. -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 20:35, 06 December 2005 (UTC)

Has the vandal ever explained why? He's probably doing it to aggravate you. -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 20:53, 06 December 2005 (UTC)

Try adding "65 total" next to it, if someone still removes the breakdown, then it's a vandal, if it stops then it was just users who thought it would be better to have the total and not the breakdown. -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 21:08, 06 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hurricanes in Mexico

I didn't name it Category:Mexican hurricanes because most of them have occurred in more than one country. Plus, most "Mexican" categories are "____ of Mexico" or "____ in Mexico". Cheers, --Vizcarra 23:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Alice

Why did you remove it from the Did you know section on the portal? It shouldn't have to be brand new to get on there. If it's an interesting fact, there's no need to remove it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Common Images

What category should I put the hurricane images under? Category: Tropical Cyclones? Hurricanehink 12:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Comma splice

It doesn't really matter, but technically, if a sentence has a secondary thought, it needs to be bounded by commas on both sides. But thanks for helping with the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 07:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Roxanne

I reverted your removal of the Hurricane Roxanne first Cat 3 in October stuff because it is true. The NHC says it at the top of their preliminary report on Roxanne. I am not kidding:) Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sounded negative and like a know-it-all. I misinterpreted your edit summary as you thinking that the fact wasn't true. My mistake. I suppose that you could say that it is too trivial. Sorry for taking so long to respond, also.

The statment you asked about mean that, of all of the October major hurricanes that formed in the Atlantic between 1961 and 1995, none of them reached Category 3 in the northwestern Caribbean Sea. Thank you for correcting my bad typing, BTW. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Track Error

You wanted us to hunt them out earlier in the betting pools section. Well I found one that's in tune with a UNISYS error. In the 1997 West Pacific Typhoon Season (the Pacific's most hellish season), Super Typhoon Isa and Tropical Storm Levi's track are mixed in with the track for Super Typhoons Oliwa and Paka. You clearly tried to fix it somehow, but now there a two tracks for each storm: Isa and Oliwa, Levi and Paka. Your tracks for Isa and Levi by the way, are not from the best track but from the active advisory positions. The best tracks are here: Isa, and Levi. If your program is only able to accept UNISYS best track format then you're screwed. By the way, could you make the induvidual track images bigger? Right now they're about the size of a postage stamp. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The links to Isa and Levi's best track are in my previous post. See the blue links? About the larger images: I didn't say make them gargantuan, I just said make it big enough so I don't have to use a magnifying glass to see it ;). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Pressure

Thanks. I had nothing to do last night, so I was happy to help a bit. I'm not sure if the category should be added to the infobox. It sounds good, but the infobox is mainly for the storm history, while the Hurricane Active is for one specific time. Maybe have a new template; infobox current, so that doesn't interfere with the other infoboxes. Not sure, though it could work, but you never know. Keep up the good work. Hurricanehink 13:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's what you meant. In that case, it sounds like a good idea. Might be a lot of work, but it makes things easier, I guess. Hurricanehink 20:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, something weird happened. How come You are reading this text because this page uses a meta-template that has been deprecated according to WP:AUM. Please fix the page to exclude this template. See also Template talk:If. comes up when I click on a hurricane page that has a pressure. Do you know what that means? Hurricanehink 20:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Most articles are fine, but the same message still comes up for some storms. This problem is a little annoying... Hurricanehink 23:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. That might take a while to purge every one, so hopefully it will be fixed on its own. Hurricanehink 23:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to know. Hurricanehink 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

2004 West Pacific Post-Season reports and best track 2

At long last, they are all completed. Every last storm has every element of its report completed. There are a few technical errors (Talas' track image is actually that of Nanmadol, Noru's has the same problem. There are some errors in the North Indian summeries too.) Other than that, they are all finished. The pdf page isn't up yet but should be soon. UNISYS should be up to date in about 2-3 weeks. It's been a full year since NHC finished the reports for the Atlantic and E. Pacific 2004 seasons. These guys sure know how to take their time! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Best Track

JTWC has a best track data site here: [5]. The track tables themselves (the links on the lefthand side of each basin page lead to links to the induvidual storm tables of that year), are hard to read. They give you a high-tech run-down on the basin pages. I've set up a more user friendly rundown here: JTWC Best Track Key. They have a more user friendly best track in the tropical cyclone reports, but they have different formats coinciding with changes on the website. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Carol pic

Yeah, I've seen that picture too. It's pretty insane. We should make it known that damage photos or action shots are just fine for the infobox. If sat photos or radar images are nowhere to be found or suck beyond imagining, damage photos or action shots are welcome in that infobox. Anything good to fill it up. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Button bar

Sorry, impulse thing. I was aggrivated that people were still defending those stupid colors. I'd made countless clear points but those same stupid colors keep showing up on the proposed revisions. There are only a handful of good ones. I'll try and not let my emotions get the best of me next time. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Why does that have a template? This means that tons of articles get titles they don't deserve. For example, 1973 has an infobox and a picure, yet it is categorized as Category:Hurricane articles needing an infobox and Category:Hurricane articles needing a picture. And this is repeated for all the articles. Why? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Aren't they updated automatically? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Dissipatation and formed fields

OK. I'll go back and fix the few I started. You had to add more work, didn't you :) Hurricanehink 20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh good, you got them. OK. Time to get cracking. Hurricanehink 20:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

More? Woohoo. Hurricanehink 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Have fun with the North Indian... nice and short. God yes, it annoys me that there is no list of hurricane articles without disambiguations. We should have a category called Category:Tropical Cyclone disambiguations. This way, we could get all of the disambigs on one list, without having them interfere for occassions like this when we update every article. Luckily for me, I more or less memorized what is an article and what isn't based on my 24 hours a day here for the last 6 months :) Perhaps we should bring that issue up in the Tropical Cylcone Project talk page, be it the portal or the wikiproject page. Was the Hazel infobox really that annoying? ROFL when you did that. Hurricanehink 21:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Why can't we just remove all of the disambigs from the Atlantic hurricanes, with links to Atlantic hurricanes, Pacific hurricanes, etc. at the bottom? Hurricanehink 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I got through Beta, but I got to leave right now. I won't be back until tomorrow, so the Atlantic is open if you have the time. Otherwise, I'll be glad to do it tomorrow night. Good luck! Hurricanehink 21:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Infobox Category?

Which category do you think the hurricane infoboxes fit into at Wikipedia:Infobox? Sciences or History? --AySz88^-^ 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Both? Jdorje 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I can add it in both categories.... --AySz88^-^ 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Then, I don't know. Maybe a new category meteorology? Jdorje 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I put it in Sciences for now, then.... --AySz88^-^ 21:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Formed and dissipated

This could be troublesome for storms like Hurricane Ivan? And I'll do the WPac. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean, Ivan dissipated once before reforming as a TS. And what about storms like Hurricane Wilma? It turned extratropical; extratropical != dissipated... NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with STYs is that some Cat 4s are STYs and some aren't, there are both Cat 4 (Longwang) STYs and Cat 5 (Nabi, Haitang) STYs. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good, have done for all 2005 WPac storm articles. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I see many of the storms have been done. Is there a section that needs to be done? Great work with the infoboxes. Hurricanehink 21:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't take to long. As of now, there aren't any articles in the Incomplete infoboxes, which I know isn't true, unless you were able to get them all. Is this the last of the infobox updating? ;) I'm sure you must be sick of going through every article (though it does give you a chance to double check things you normally wouldn't). Hurricanehink 22:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh that's cool. How do you write that in the edit summary, though? Also, it seems that the pic and tracks for every storm is becoming a hot issue.... I'll just leave it at that. Keep up the good work. Hurricanehink 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Hurricanehink 00:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Test articles

Thanks for the editing and help on the test articles. I had originally deleted the categories because they were not articles yet (no consensus among us all) but later reverted those done seeing they were done for all of them. The rest of them (for the storms without pre-made articles) are forthcoming. Delta is planned to be my next one, due to its interesting history. CrazyC83 03:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW I have been publishing them in random order - although the first three (Epsilon, Maria and TD19) were intentional: Epsilon since it had been requested and has since become the main article, Maria due to its interesting history and TD19 due to it being the "lowest common denominator" - I wanted to see what an article for the least notable storm of 2005 would be like. CrazyC83 03:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a good criteria. 1995 would be the only other one that comes close, and paring down some of the more notable storms could reduce that - 2005 was unique in that there were very few non-notable storms! CrazyC83 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving the pages required me to put the current date-modified redirects up for speedy deletion, as I cannot move onto them using the "move" button. Only the depressions can be moved immediately, and it would look silly to have them be published first. CrazyC83 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Infobox nopic

Good question. The current format is fine. All we have to do is find which ones are left. There can't be that many, right? All we have to do is look in the Hurricane Articles needing a picture, and go from there. In fact, I'll do that right now. Hurricanehink 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There, I think I got all of them. What's next? :)Hurricanehink 22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hurricanehink 02:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane lists

I created those since I thought that "New England" meant, litterally, the six states of the region, which is why I created Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New York (I'm wondering if West Virginia and DC should have categories - neither region have any part on the coast, but they do get hurricanes - and if the New England states are split apart, same with Vermont). Of course, most hurricanes that affected those regions will likely get placed in several (or almost all) of those categories (i.e. Floyd, Isabel, Donna, Hazel) CrazyC83 21:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Few hurricanes affecting the Northeast? That's not true at all...any hurricane make landfall from the Carolinas northward (unless it quickly turns back to sea, i.e. Ophelia), will affect that region in some form or another. Most of those hurricanes that were listed can stay, since they still affected those six states. As for the west coast of Canada, there has never been a hurricane or tropical storm that has even come close; the waters even off northern California are too cold and unstable, let alone British Columbia! The six New England states should remain grouped together (as they are very small and most hurricanes that affect the region affect at least 4 or 5 of the 6 states), but the other states should keep their own categories. The Hurricanes in Canada category should remain as is; it isn't very often that a hurricane penetrates into central Canada (i.e. Hazel). CrazyC83 21:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete data

I added those only to storms that are clearly not showing a realistic lowest central pressure (i.e. Ethel, Carrie) and have no pressure readings AT ALL shown from its peak intensity. If it is estimated (before dropsones) but fully recorded, I did not mention it. CrazyC83 19:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Template: Infobox hurricane

When I looked at the Tropical Storm Zeta page around 15 minutes ago (10:40 AM EST), I noticed that the "Tropical storm" heading (against the blue background) was properly centered and supposedly fixed from what I saw yesterday. Now, it is suddenly left aligned in my browser again. Is there any way we can fix that? I am posting this here because you have made many edits to the template, and I'm not sure exactly how to center the heading. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 15:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Does it look misaligned to you, though? -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It must just be my computer then :). -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Track proposals

Could you make an estimated track for the 1635 Hurricane. I have some more hints to its path now in the article.66.30.58.20 23:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because my tracks are made from the NHC official data and there is no data on this storm. Jdorje 23:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a little idea where it traveled. See the article and islandnet.Ice 02:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

TD22

I wrote it in the form that is used on the NHC site - where Twenty-two is shown as one word. Twenty-Two should be created as a redirect though... CrazyC83 03:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

French Wikipedia To Commons

Hi,

You sent me a message today asking me to move some pictures of tropical cyclones to the WikiCommons space. As I created the article about Tropical Storm Gamma, I wasn't knowing very much about WikiCommons, so my pictures weren't shared with other language Wikipedias.

Later, I discovered WikiCommons and put most of my pictures there, but for the one you wrote, I didn't. It's done right now.

For now, I'm rewriting the final version of the French version of the very long article about Hurricane Katrina. It will keep me busy for weeks...

Have a nice year !

-- The Shadow Knows - 207.134.29.126 02:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

New Template

I was thinking of providing links to sections in the main season article within the text of the season timeline articles, so I created {{Tcarticle}}. For example:

{{tcarticle|2005|AT|H|TS|Arlene}} makes its first landfall near [[Cabo Corrientes]] in western [[Cuba]].

would be in Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.

However, it tends to display like this:

Tropical Storm Arlene makes its first landfall near Cabo Corrientes in western Cuba.

Do you know of a way to correct this?

— Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 17:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of my template is to display a link like 2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Arlene as Tropical Storm Arlene and not have to type that whole thing out. I'm planning to use this for links in the timeline articles (e.g. Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).

Does the text above, "makes its first landfall near Cabo Corrientes in western Cuba", display in a box of some sort? That's what it looks like in my browser. Using subst causes the same thing to happen, and just adds more lines of text to the article. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Response on help desk

Seeing as you have contributed since, but maybe not responded, I figured you may have not seen the response to your question on the help desk. jnothman ^talk 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Image problems

reply by Good kitty 04:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Odette

There wasn't anything to merge really. Most of the info in the subpage had already been stated in the main article. Trust me, I checked. I did omit the fact about Lili, that was an oversight, I was in a hurry to go to dinner. I apologize for that. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 05:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

confusion re years and seasons

Hi

I note that you modified the link which I made re 2005 and 2005 season, with a comment to the effect that it is confusing. First I should say I only made the change to be consistent with a prior change made in the article by some one else. Second I do not think it is necessarily confusing as (1) holding the mouse over the hyperlink shows clearly that it will go to the season page, rather than year and (2) this style is used quite regularly elsewhere in the hurricane season pages as far as I can see. I found many examples on a quick look through the main 2005 atlantic season article for example. Anyway just my tuppence worth... Nashikawa 14:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I thought that I did everything correct when writing those articles, maybe I should've doublechecked before submitting. Storm05 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

re:subst:clear

It's listed in the list of templates that should be subst'd, so I followed that. --AySz88^-^ 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? Did I do something wrong? I guess we don't have to follow that if you don't want to. --AySz88^-^ 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

intro

I think it's useful to explain why it was longer, like we did with 2004. One question mark is sufficient. --Golbez 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Hurricane_Maria_September_6_2005.jpg

The image is the original as far as I know, and it came from the Earth Observatory, which is a part of NASA. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Template for the grading scheme, cyclone assessment work

Hi,

I noticed that you created Template:Grading_scheme recently for use on the WP 1.0 assessment explanation page. This is the page where we explain what each grade means, and we link to it in case anyone wonders what "B-Class" actually means. Can you explain the reason for creating a template for the table? My understanding of the software is rather tenuous, so it's not surprising that I don't understand why the new template is needed! Also, I wanted to commend you and others on your cyclones project for looking at assessing your articles. We will be contacting the project soon requesting a list of articles, it looks like you will have one all ready! At WP:Chem we created a worklist to track our assessed articles (380 of them!). Thanks, Walkerma 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply on my talk page, that sounds fine. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I was missing, especially as I recently had to defend one of my templates from deletion over a misunderstanding! Cheers, Walkerma 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tagging Dab pages

I accidentally started tagging pages as |class=dab (lowercase D) instead of |class=Dab . It added the orange "disambig" but didn't give any indication that it wasn't putting things in the right category. I've started correcting it, but perhaps it should accept both lowercase and uppercase? --AySz88^-^ 19:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm done with everything that should have class=Dab. I'm pretty sure Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation and Category:Disambig-Class hurricane articles match now. --AySz88^-^ 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I managed to refresh a few talk pages by editing the page and clicking "Save page" without changing anything. At least, it managed to refresh the name in the category. --AySz88^-^ 01:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Todo

I 100% agree. I'll have that be my next project. Problem though. What do we do about retired storms with next to no info? Some early ones, and the 1990 ones, have extremely little information on it. Hurricanehink 01:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

2002 Season

My apologies... I was adding that information to the season when it was moved... when I saw the edit conflict I assumed that someone had vandalized it... next time i'll check to see if it has been moved before making changes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I just moved most of them back to their original locations... and someone else moved 2002 back. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced hurricane seasons

Uhm, what are the redirects? NSLE _(T+C) 00:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Infobox small

That isn't too bad of an idea, but it seems a little too much for older storms. For the 2005 season, it could work, but there's no need for that much when the sections are very small in pre-2004 seasons.

Now it's my turn to ask a question. For seasons with the pictures and paths, what should we do about the short sections that are 1/10 the size of the table? Should they be filled with more information, or be left as they are? Hurricanehink 00:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)