Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

FA flood

So, reading the thousand discussions surrounding User:Danny's thoughts about the next goal for Wikipedia, including Danny's contest and 100,000 FAs, there seems to be a call to find all the FA-quality articles we can find, and make them FAs. We have a lot of hurricane articles that are close, or at, FA quality, yet that don't have the flag. For example, we have 35+ GAs, and we can easily make half of those FAs. So, the question is, with the current climate that begs to identify all high-quality content, do we want to flood FA with a ton of hurricane articles? (Not all simultaneously, but sending all that we can over a period of time.) We can also try sourcing Tropical cyclone, and submit it to WP:DC... Tito xd^(?!?) 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, flooding by tropical cyclone articles. Ironic :) That's a good idea. I'll start with the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season, which I recently finished redoing. link. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the only issue is to define what makes a list and what makes an article... as well at the ACE table, which I imagine must be somewhere. But that is a different story... which other articles are ready to go to the chopping block soon? Tito xd^(?!?) 22:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

cough* Tropical Storm Lee (2005)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No kidding... Tito xd^(?!?) 23:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004)? That should be a FA. Same with Hurricane Georges. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 20:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and i think we can make Hurricane Edouard (1996) an FA. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Let's wait until 1933AHS passes and then let's send the other ones in. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the next closest one is Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004), given that it has all sections (SH, preps, impact, aftermath), as well as an impact pic and some storm pics. Should this be on the assessment page or here, BTW? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, in the assessment page, but now that we're here, perhaps Bonnie should be next, after Fabian/Gustav/Katrina history are done. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That could work. I know this is far in the future, but what about Tropical Storm Bill (2003)? I just finished that, and now it's extremely comprehensive and long. Could you give it a look over (needs a copyedit I'll bet, which you are great at). Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. We're just going to need two lists soon: an FA queue, and a list of articles I have to look at... Tito xd^(?!?) 04:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, so true. Actually, I was thinking we should have two FAC's at the most (3 is a bit too much). One would be the big impact/lots of info storm article, while the other is the lesser impact one that comprehensive with not terribly much info (like fish storms and low-impact storms). Should we make an actual FA queue, primarily for the lesser impact storms? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If we get any articles within this portion of the project to A or FA, check to see if the pages have a box mentioning/including them into the meteorology/weather events project. I did a quick search of a couple of the grades (FA and A) which only showed 3 meteorology articles reaching those two levels before I threw in a meteorology box on top of the Katrina article. It does not appear that the tropical cyclone project articles get included in meteorology automatically, and they clearly appear to be within the scope of that project as well. Just an FYI. Thegreatdr 20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I put Tropical Storm Bill (2003) up for FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

FA'd. Which one is next? Tito xd^(?!?) 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie? Hurricanehink (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 14:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur, and that makes us three, meeting the rule of thumb we used to use... go ahead and nom it. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone else nominate it? I'm pretty busy lately, and I'm not sure if I could adequately handle the FAC nom. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Copy that, working on it. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

On FAC now. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. The only problem I can forsee is the South Carolina tornado damage, which is listed as fair use. I'm not sure if that is an adequate fair use rationale, and it could still be public domain due to being from NWS website. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Something found on an NWS website does not mean it was taken by an employee of the government as part of their duties. NWS does often use photos from private individuals, we should never assume that NWS site = public domain. – Ch acor 14:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I said it could. We don't know who took the picture. It could have been a NWS employee, for all we know. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO, when it comes to images, the best way to approach images is to assume works are copyrighted unless proven otherwise. It's not safe to assume that it was an NWS employee who took it unless explicitly stated... in fact there have been deletions of some images on commons for that very thing - private images used by the NOAA that Storm05 uploaded under PD-NOAA. – Ch acor 14:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Bonnie is FA'd. What's next? Tito xd^(?!?) 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Henri (03)? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Any other suggestions? Tito xd^(?!?) 21:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. How about some more effort to bring, um, tropical cyclone to FA? There has been some effort lately...it would be nice to have as many people in the project as possible to bring the centerpiece article up to FA. Personally, I'd consider it embarrassing to have the main article brought to FA last. Thegreatdr 21:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir here... ;) Although that is indeed correct. Tropical cyclone is far advanced, but there is still a little bit of work left. At the same time, there are a few articles which have been ready for quite a long time, and that essentially can occupy the slot on FAC while we're busy fixing the flagship article until it is ready and in FAC condition. Tito xd^(?!?) 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Tip. I see his name a lot, but he has a very short article. Good kitty 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here goes nothing. I put Henri up for FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier if someone went into all the GA-class articles and decided which could be inched up to A-class. (I am biased in some of them, and also I will generally not upgrade to A-class unless it is at (or will be at) FAC or if there is supporting opinions) CrazyC83 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I've done a lot of work to about half of them. That said, I'll update the assessment page with the remaining GA's. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An FL Flood is also a possibility.... Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I just put List of retired Pacific hurricane names up for FLC. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this isn't much of a flood, having just one FAC at a time. 2006 PTS articles are pretty good, probably good enough to pass in an FAC, though it's practically guaranteed they will be changed in the future with the post-season reports. I'm sure the FAC people are getting sick of the low impact storms all the time, but unfortunately we don't have any bigger storms ready yet. Tropical cyclone is undergoing work. Eye (cyclone) could work as the next one, seeing as we have yet to have a non-storm or season FA (IIRC). No retired storms are ready, despite several being GA or A class. What does everyone want to do? Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I put 1995 Pacific hurricane season up for FAC, JTLYK. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what's next? We need more time... Tito xd^(?!?) 05:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina? Crazy recommended [[Tropical Storm Edouard (2002)]. We could also continue the 2003 AHS and go with Hurricane Danny (2003) or Tropical Storm Mindy (2003). Why not all four? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I went with Edouard, BTW. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:KatrinaNewOrleansFlooded.jpg

Would this pic have any chance being a Featured Pic. I think it may need a little brightening, but other than that, is amazing. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks a tiny little bit grainy, but otherwise it shows New Orleans flooded very clearly... typhoonchaser 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality is balanced by the "historical importance" part of WP:WIAFP, so it could have a chance... Tito xd^(?!?) 04:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a hope if you ask me. The quality is bad enough that it needs the historical offset: this image of flooded NOLA isn't the only one (and IIRC isn't the most famous one), so the historical value isn't really there IMO. A more serious problem is the image doesn't have a proper source! The description is "AP Photo/US Coastguard". It is tagged as PD-USGov, but the sourcing is to a couple news sites: one of which is 404'ed. The original image should be on a US Govt site somewhere and could well be at a higher resolution/quality (which could make the FPC viable).--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you guys help out with GA nominees?

There are quite a few articles related to this project at the Wikipedia:Good article candidates. It doesn't require any credentials to review articles for GA as long as you are careful to follow the instructions written on that page, and to follow the Good article criterias. You would also help out us reviewers, it is sometimes difficult for us to assess NPOV and coverage of those kind of articles.

Fred-Chess 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not like everyone knows about the subject of the article. Passing TD9 (2003) was my first GA passing.Mitch azenia(7700+edits) 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

One main reason is that a lot of us feel a potential conflict of interest in passing something related to the project. In the past it has come up, and no real agreement was reached as to whether or not WPTC members should be passing WPTC articles (Failing, though, is a whole different ball game, because that usually means it's really not good enough). – Ch acor 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I for one would trust your guys' opinions more. I find it more likely that an article would be passed that contained major lack of needed information (that we just didn't know was needed) than one of you trying to glorify the project by passing them easily. Besides, they can always be caught latter and delisted. GA is a casual procedure and no big deal. --SeizureDog 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewers cannot be heavily involved with writing the articles though...it is one thing to be involved in the project, but another to be writing the articles a lot (and putting them up). Yes, there is a backlog - and some articles have even bypassed that by going straight from B to A class - and ultimately FA - without even going GA (see Hurricane Fabian and Hurricane Edith (1971) for example). CrazyC83 18:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd help, but seeing as half of them were nominated by me I might be a little biased. That said, I did review one or two I did nothing for. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSED ROCKER★ 03:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Featured topic?

Anyone want to try to get a Featured topic out of the WPTC? We have some options, all of which will take some time. Here's some ideas I had.

Retired Pacific hurricanes- Out of the 7 retired Pacific hurricanes, one is an FA (Iniki), one is a GAN (Ismael), and the rest shouldn't be too hard, excluding Fefa and Fico. ~~A List of retired Pacific hurricane names article would have to be created, as well~~
List of retired Atlantic hurricanes- This one will be difficult. It has the most important storms, and of the 68 names there are still a lot that need a lot of work on. Seven are FA's (Gloria, Mitch, Floyd, Allison, Fabian, Dennis, and Katrina), eight are GA's or A's (Audrey, Camille, David, Andrew, Georges, Keith, Charley, and Ivan), and four are stubs (Edna, Janet, Gracie, and Flora).
Billion dollar U.S. hurricanes (2005 inflated)- With 42 of them, this one might be a little hard, but at least there is plenty of information on them. Included are billion dollar retired Atlantic hurricanes from above, Hurricane Iniki, Hurricane Juan (85), TS Leslie (00), and TS Claudette (79). Seven are FA's (Gloria, Iniki, Mitch, Floyd, Allison, Dennis, and Katrina), Eight are GA's or A's (Audrey, Camille, David, Andrew, Georges, Leslie (00), Charley, and Ivan), and there are no stubs
The most powerful tropical cyclones by area of development or impact- There's eight of them; Inigo, Ioke, Linda, Wilma, Cyclone 5B, Gafilo, Zoe, and Tip. This one might be a little difficult. None are FA's, only Linda is a GA, and Cyclone Inigo would have to be created.
2003 Atlantic hurricane season articles- I'm not sure whether it would qualify as a featured topic, but this would be extremely easy. All articles except for Isabel and Juan are GA's or above (including 3 FA's), and the season is a GA.
2005 Atlantic hurricane season articles- Similar to the above, though more work is needed. 8 articles are still starts (including Rita, Stan, and Wilma, all retired), though 3 storm articles are FA's (with the main article and the list of article being featured), and 12 are GA's.

Any thoughts? Anyone interested in trying for one of those or a different featured topic? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say 2003AHS is the easiest to work on, and should perhaps be the trial nomination. After all, improving the hurricane season itself isn't that difficult when the storm articles are already developed considerably. Tito xd^(?!?) 22:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The retired Pacific hurricanes shouldn't be done simply because I'm not certain Fefa and Fico were retired for being damaging rather than for some other reason. 2005 AHS might be good, I suggested it ages ago. Ditto for 2003 AHS per Titoxd. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, EPAC retired canes would be pretty easy, which is why I mentioned it (it took 10 minutes to think of 2003 AHS). You're right though; unless we find out whether they were retired for damage, it might be difficult. The biggest problem with 2005 is that it needs major redoing/expanding for three articles. Once I finish Isabel and Juan for 2003 AHS, I'll FT it. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

2003-05 AHS's are the obvious choices at this stage. Season's are the obvious topic choice, though any list is viable.--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Another I thought of, although it will take considerable work and several more articles, is 1995 Atlantic hurricane season being a very memorable year (although overshadowed by the insanity of 2005). CrazyC83 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but you're right, it will take considerable work. The best quality article in the season is Felix as a GA, which still could use some more work done to it. The four retired hurricane articles all need a ton of work (Opal especially), and the rest of the articles would have to be made (ideally). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee hee

Well... apparently, we're overloading WP:FA. That's... always good, isn't it? :D Tito xd^(?!?) 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's funny :) Well, they wanna split us with meteorology, so we're gonna have to overload them even more if we want to be our own category :D Hurricanehink (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you see the one on WP:VPM a little while back: "What is with Wikipedia and hurricane articles?". As for FA they've noticed the problem that GA had a while back, lets get GA to split us into our own cat first. No wait, we don't want any Hurricane GA's do we? They should all be FAs...--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting new feature

As reported on the Signpost, the MediaWiki devs have developed a new feature that allows us to create "sortable" tables. An example use for this new capability is shown in the List of Arizona hurricanes here (scroll down to the table and click on the arrows). What do you guys think about this? Tito xd^(?!?) 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That is cool! I like that. I can't think of a lot of articles that could benifit from it, but it's still a cool feature. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooo, I can think of some ways to use it. Explanations can wait.--(Nilfanion)10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyvios in articles

When re-writing Typhoon Shanshan (2006), I noticed that a good chunk of the original article's impact section had been copied verbatim from news sources. This is clearly copyright violation, and we probably should check Storm05's other articles for possible copyvios. – Ch acor 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember some other authors had this problem in the past, as well. Curious, do you have a copy of the text and where it was taken verbatim from? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[1] Last paragraph. The moment you see "Saturday" in the text alarm bells should ring. Copied from here and various other sources. Re-arranging the copied text to insert them at different places isn't enough. Compare: "Also in Nobeoka, a 42-year-old man was found dead Sunday in a crushed bedroom littered with roof tiles and glass splinters while an 84-year-old woman farmer was knocked dead by a fallen tree outside a greenhouse, according to local police" v.s. "Also in Nobeoka, a 42-year-old man was found dead Sunday in a crushed bedroom littered with roof tiles and glass splinters while an 84-year-old woman farmer was knocked dead by a fallen tree outside a greenhouse, according to local police". – Ch acor 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I'm surprised about that. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A plea concerning the extratropical cyclone articles

I've been fairly absent from the tropical cyclone project as of late due to filling out some related meteorology stubs and getting them up to at least B class. Also, the work on the extratropical cyclone article and our recent Late November 2006 Nor'easter offshore the Southeast has led me to create and fill out other extratropical cyclone/blizzard/nor'easter articles. I've noticed a couple of people currently and previously in the tropical cyclone part of the project have been assigning extratropical cyclones equivalent Saffir-Simpson categories based on their central pressure. Please don't do this. Extratropical cyclones are larger systems with broader wind fields, and I'm worried that calling some 970ish cyclone that affects the East as a category 2 hurricane is going to lead the unknowing to an incorrect conclusion for its maximum sustained winds. Thegreatdr 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization of the tropical cyclone article

That is one long article...it may take a while for several of us to make it an FA. =) I added a number of links when there were cn's in the text, with a couple of them eliminating some factual errors (like the 18 annual typhoons the Philippines were supposed to receive!) It's so long, that there may be a number of other factual errors within the article. Direct links were make into refs, some no break spaces were added where numbers and units were side by side, and the sections were reordered into (what seems to be) a more logical order. This is only my second attempt at improving an article from GA, so feedback (positive or negative) would be appreciated. Thegreatdr 03:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been meaning to work on that article for a while, and after finals are done two weeks from now, I'll try to overhaul it as well. But thanks, though, the article really needs it. More eyes can't hurt... I will check the new additions soon. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Extratropical cyclone on Main Page

While everyone is drooling over the History of porn being Today's Featured article, I don't think many have realized that Extratropical cyclone will be on the Main Page after that. It's WikiProject Meteorology's first FA, so it would be nice if we kept an eye on the article while it is in the spotlight, as we know how that usually goes... oh, and congratulations to the parent WikiProject would probably be nice too. :) Tito xd^(?!?) 05:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Need help reviewing cyclone GAs

Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates has been getting a heavy backlog, and we could use some help slimming it now. Of particular problem is your guys' section. I just passed Tropical Storm Arlene (2005) which had been waiting for almost a month and there's plenty where that came from. A lot of the problem seems to be that you guys make too many good articles but are, let's face it, boring to read for the non-cyclone fanatic. Not that that is your fault, it's just all of those important details that you need to include go right over our heads. So I think it would be better if your own members review the articles. They would know what to look for and might actually enjoy learning something about "Tropical Storm Kal-El (2036)". Just...make sure not to be bias, ok? --SeizureDog 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. – Ch acor 14:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Data source on TC satellite and other info

Tropical Cyclones data observed by TRMM/PR,TMI,VIRS, Aqua/AMSR-E and Midori-II (ADEOS-II)/AMSR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.124.224.224 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Not usable.

Earth Observation Research Center, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
JAXA/EORC, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

– Ch acor 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just in case we didn't know already...

We apparently do have the shortest FA in Hurricane Irene. See WT:FA. Tito xd^(?!?) 07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? No wonder there was so much controversy at its FAC. Let's see how long that lasts until Nilfanion wants to go for the gold (6.3 kb). Hurricanehink (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Records

Just wondering, what article has the most sources so far? Storm05 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Katrina has 113, that's probably the most or at least among the highest in our project. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the most. Tropical cyclone comes close with 104, though, and by the end of the expansion/cleanup, it will probably have more. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I did a look though wikipedia and found articles with many as 207 sources!.Storm05 16:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A question about "articles not under the scope of this project"

This is something I just noticed. Why is it stated on the main page of this project that the tropical cyclone, Saffir-Simpson scale, and storm surge are not within the scope of this project? Thegreatdr 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Originally, they weren't, as the scope was restricted to storm articles. Gradually, the scope has expanded, so that probably is out of date. Tito xd^(?!?) 23:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the line implying that they lie outside the project. I like the idea on the underlying line in the code mentioning perhaps a top 10 could be listed. If we chose to do so, how would we determine a top 10? Thegreatdr 03:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe people should suggest the 10 most important ones which we will choose from. In addition to the three there, I nominate (in no particular order) Eye (cyclone), Hurricane Katrina, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, 1991 Bangladesh cyclone, Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology, Typhoon Tip, and Tropical cyclogenesis. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I also nominate Tropical cyclone scales, as SSHS is not used around the entire world. The other ones seem acceptable to me, and would be the ones I'd think about first. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. So should we put the 10 of them in? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd think Catarina (2004) would trump 2005 Hurricane Season. It would avoid POV, and we'd have a southern hemisphere candidate. Tracy of 1974 is another alternative. Thegreatdr 23:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, tough call. Catarina was meteorologically interesting and fairly important, but so was 2005 AHS. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been slowly trying to eliminate many of the general articles from an Atlantic-centric point of view to avoid POV tags...it's best to be proactive. If Catarina is not important enough, Tracy's devastation of Darwin around Christmas 1974 was significant. Thegreatdr 01:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not all three? Storm surge isn't particularly important, and it is a stub after all (not something we should be advertising in our top 10). Also, rainfall climatology, while important, could be removed from the top 10. That way, Tracy and Catarina could be added, which are two important southern hemisphere articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why ten, for that matter? I think 2005AHS qualifies, (over $200 billion greens qualifies it, IMO) and rainfall climatology is important as well. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ten is a nice neat number, though I suppose we don't have to limit ourselves. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So is twelve. Just ask girls... ;) Tito xd^(?!?) 02:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, true. I was also thinking, we should have the 1970 Bhola cyclone, not the Bangladesh cyclone (I forgot which one was the deadliest). Hurricanehink (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bhola. There needs to be a S. Hemisphere one. Cyclone Tracy has fallen from grace. Its also good to have one of those weird midget cyclones they have down there. Good kitty 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

<--- Well, provided no one disagrees, there will be two southern hemisphere storms. Is everyone alright with these twelve? Tropical cyclone, Tropical cyclone scales, Tropical cyclogenesis, Eye (cyclone), Storm surge, Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology, Hurricane Katrina, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, 1970 Bhola cyclone, Typhoon Tip, Cyclone Catarina, and Cyclone Tracy Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Having a second southern hemisphere storm would offset two Atlantic cases. I'm ok with it. When Good Kitty mentions Tracy has fallen from grace, I assume they mean the article, not the storm? Thegreatdr 16:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea. Alright, I'll put the 12 in. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So, do I push all of those to {{Top-Importance}}? Tito xd^(?!?) 04:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, tough call. On one hand, they are probably our 12 most important articles. On the other hand, 12 seems like a lot for the absolute most important articles. What is the precedent for other projects? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A whole lot of projects assign importance ratings based solely on the project (e.g. The Beatles is Top for WP:BEATLES, but it probably isn't going to be Top for WP:1.0), so we're safe there, I think. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, agreed the 12 can be pushed up to top, as they are our core articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll push them up. Tito xd^(?!?) 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hideous rule-cruft guys, I'm sorry I missed this debate. With non-storm articles, any core topic concept is plausible and meaningful. With storms, the selection above is truly ABSURD! Seriously, Katarina and 1970 Bhola are fine and Tracy is fair enough. However, Catarina a storm which ranks way down the list in terms of damages (anyone want to work that out it could be good for the notable cyclone article) being Top? And TY Tip ahead of TY Nina? Yes, we should avoid bias to the Atl basin in our choices. However, to ignore the self-evident fact that the WPac, NIO and Atl are more inherently significant is positive discrimination the other way. Before I could realistically accept Catarina as a Top, I would want to see all $10 billion (2006) damages Atl storms and all 2000+ deaths storms as Top too, which devalues that grade.--Nilf anion (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(/me hides in cover) Damage does not mean notability, and the only known cyclone in an entire basin is pretty important. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hink, pretty important yes. But more significant than killing 100,000 people (1991 Bangladesh)? Are you serious? We should not restrict our core to a limited number of articles. Instead we should consider what constitutes the core. In non-storm articles, that is fairly easy to express, but with storms notability can come from 2 things: impact and records. In the scheme above what would happen if a Category 4 direct hit NYC in 2007? Drop Katrina to high?--Nilf anion (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so what would be the Top-Class damage cutoff? $5 billion USD, with normalized inflation and currency conversions? Tito xd^(?!?) 23:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh the irony in that Tito... That was the cut-off I chose for High at the first pass (TS Allison was border H/M). I'm not sure about where to put a cut-off. Could we compile a worldwide list of storms by costs and by deaths? That would be important for the list of notable TCs anyway, but would help with judging where to make the cutoff.--Nilf anion (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'm getting it started. Our situation is a bit different. If we want to have a true core of necessary articles, it would have to be fairly big to get all of the most important storms. Do we want to be very selective and only have maybe 5, or should we expand it to 20 or more? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many, IMO. As long as it is clearly evident that they're important, it's good. ;) Tito xd^(?!?) 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tito here. To say the top X storms are top for any value of X is a mistake, same logic as with the NYC 'cane above - if that occured it would be very important but how exactly would it diminish the importance of another storm? Generate a complete table, possibly adding a new column: damage as % of GDP of affected countries. We might say any TC worthy of inclusion in list of notable tropical cyclones would be top class, that is how these matters tie together. That article should be dominated by damaging storms, but would also have all the basin record holders and Catarina...--Nilf anion (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait why can't we make the strongest storm of each basin a TOP or HIGH importance, damage, deaths or not?Mitch azenia(8600+edits) 00:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my..... Alright, I do not believe "the only known cyclone in an entire basin is pretty important". From my perspective, probably the only notable thing the storm ever did was impacting Brazil, and that was nothing - compared with Tracy or Katrina. Any cyclones that were notable only because of their unusual formation (eg. Vamei, Vince, Agni) and nothing else isn't what I call important. RaNdOm26 05:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been developing a table in my userspace to analyze the importance of our storms against the most important criteria. A few storms stand out as clearly wrong (without the NOAA basins included yet), Cyclone 05B should not be a mere mid for example. I'd think the question we should ask is what kind of ratio do we want T/H/M/L storms to be? Obviously the Atl fishies are low, Bhola and Katrina are Top but what about the more difficult ones?--Nilf anion (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Historical significance needs to carry some weight, if you're going to make rules regarding importance of individual tropical cyclones. Methinks we've had this debate before, and you conceded some ground on this point. Thegreatdr 15:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment graphs updated

OK, I've updated the graphs that I had originally posted on Archive 9. A few observations from there:

We should reach the 800-article mark before the end of the year, if the rate of article creation keeps up.
We're clogging up GA; they can't keep up with the pace we send through there. Perhaps we should start assessing some of those articles ourselves? Should we skip GA in some cases and send straight to FAC?
Most of our A-Class articles don't last long there; they're pushed up to FA status. That's usually good.
There's been a sharp increase in our rate of FACs after October of this year.
At any given time for the last four months, there's between 115 and 120 B-Class articles; it seems the number is stuck there. Same with Start-Class, which is stuck between 400-410, and Stub-Class, which has been a flat line since year, hovering at 155 articles. These articles are mostly hurricane seasons.

Also, I posted two additional graphs, which I found to be very useful. The first one shows our validated content; as apparent there from the slopes of the graphs, our rate of approval at GA, FA, and our A-Class assessment page is either equal or greater to the rate of creation of new articles. The other graph shows each classification as a percentage of our total articles; when the left and right edges of the graph are compared, there are definite differences in the numbers from May to the numbers now. Sometimes the rate of improvement appears slow, but over time, it adds up. Hopefully, these will be helpful for the newsletter, which should be in the production stage right now... ;) Tito xd^(?!?) 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Tito, go away. Me still not with it yet- weekend with any luck ;) Good job on the graphs of course. An interesting thing to carry out could be a categorisation of our articles, a pie chart showing storm articles, seasonal articles, and others maybe? However you would have to do your own analysis not just rely on mathbot's work then...--Nilf anion (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I can probably do a pie graph for seasons, storms, tropical cyclone meteorology, meteorologists, and other articles, but it would be a current graph, since it would be a royal PITA to do with respect to time. Remind me about that Tuesday, since that's the earliest I can work on it. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tito, you could use the tables recorded in the newsletters to get some graeter detail for the storm articles without a hefty expenditure of effort. Obviously much of anything would be a PITA.--Nilf anion (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting?

Great work with the graphs. Would it be possible to the categorization more easliy by breaking up the WPTC into the three categories? Meteorology has their articles split by topic (tornado, floods, etc), so splitting it by seasons, storms, and other could keep things organized so things wouldn't be too difficult. Is such an idea feasible? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean having an assessment table for the storms, a separate table for the seasons, etc? Tito xd^(?!?) 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like that. Mainly, I mean splitting the {{hurricane}} template into seasons and storm like the {{meteorology}} template splits the tornadoes from the floods. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's some issues to consider there:

Having an assessment table for part of the project is doable (WP:BEATLES does it), but not necessarily a good idea (BEATLES has indicated that it wasn't as good an idea as they had expected). Having more articles makes Mathbot slower too, as it has to read more categories, so it is something not necessarily ideal either.
Meteorology's intentions are to allow the sub-projects to split away completely into separate projects, a la WPTC, so it's not necessarily the same situation either. Do we want to split off into WikiProject Individual tropical cyclones, WikiProject Tropical cyclone seasons and WikiProject Tropical cyclone meteorology? We don't have that many editors specializing in certain areas, as everyone chips into pretty much everything, so I don't think that is necessarily a good idea.

We can probably try something similar to Military history's task forces, but again, it depends on the level of autonomy that we want to give each task force, and the level of responsibility each one gets. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, that makes perfect sense. Nevermind about it, then. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A-class articles

Looking at the great tables above that Tito made, it makes me realize that A-class articles are very underused. Basically, they are divided into articles that are ready for FAC and those that still need a good bit of work. Do we really have much of a use for A class? Those that are A right now could either go right to FAC or down to GA. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are supposed to be at least a rough sketch of our FAC queue. Since 1995PHS is done on FAC, which ones are viable to be put on FAC next? Any viable candidates should be raised from GA to A. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Erika? We can always get the rainfall pic later... and Tropical cyclone needs a week to be completely ready, IMO. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here goes nothing. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to clog up the Peer Review, but I am still considering. I really don't want to unilaterally promote anything to A-class unless it is an FAC or there is a previous consensus. CrazyC83 05:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Bringing this back up - there are only 3 A-class storm articles, and 66 storm articles at GA. We should go through all 66 to see what should go to Peer Review or FAC, since some likely can at this point. CrazyC83 05:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Probable As:

Cyclone Rosita	Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New Jersey	Hurricane Alberto (2000)
Hurricane Alex (2004)	Hurricane Allison (1995)	Hurricane Bob (1985)
Hurricane Danny (2003)	Hurricane Edouard (1996)	Hurricane Emily (2005)
Hurricane Emmy (1976)	Hurricane Erin (2001)	Hurricane Erika (1997)
Hurricane Ismael	Hurricane John (2006)	Hurricane Juan

I got bored after Juan, and since I had 15, I thought that would suffice for now. That said, some of these article need a bit more. For example, Alberto can use some info from the MWR reports; Emily needs {{cite web}} formatting; John needs double-checking with the TCR. I only looked at each article quickly, so feel free to tell me to get knotted or to add more suggestions. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Standardization for inflation calculations

I think the project needs one set source for inflation calculations. I propose using this site for U.S. inflation. Does that work? If not, what would be better that goes to the present year? What should be done with the non-US, also? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, non-US calculations should be converted to US dollars and shown in both figures. Also we need somewhere able to calculated in 2007 USD. CrazyC83

I have that. Here Tom's Inflation Calculator Goes all the way to 2051!! And, it goes as far back as 1666! Any old hurricane can have a change.Mitch azenia(8300+edits) 14:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little leery about using something like that. The site doesn't look official in any means. It doesn't say where it gets the sources for back to 1666 (only 1914 to present, which mine has). Additionally, it says it guesses for the future (past 2014), and present to 2014 are estimates. I think a better site should be found. Crazy, that's not exactly what I meant. I mean other countries regarding how exactly we inflate it. Do we convert 1999 MXN to 1999 USD, for example, and inflate to 2006 USD using US calcs, or should we convert 1999 MXN to 2006 MXN using GDP deflator, and then to 2006 USD? The latter would be good, though I don't know of any websites that do that. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You first need to deflate or inflate the local currency, then convert it to USD. The USD was worth about $3.50 MXN in 1994; it was worth almost $10.00 by 1996, if my memory doesn't fail me. If you convert the 1994 value directly, you then use the United States' CPI, which ignores the devaluation of the Peso in the two following years, giving an incorrect result. There must be a table somewhere that does that... and yeah, I'd rather trust the Federal Reserve's site than some random site out there. Tito xd^(?!?) 17:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to form the data from a source like this into a template, so it can be used automatically by infoboxes. However, that is clearly tricky...--Nilf anion (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially due to rounding. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got a working switch at User:Nilfanion/Inflation. {{#eq:81200000*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}}}} gives Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "[". Obviously this is no good for giving the 2006 damage figure of Katrina without rounding. I'm trying to find if there is code somewhere to round to ~2 sig figs. 2 sig figs for inflated figures seem good?--Nilf anion (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This can be done by the use of nested #if's; but is messy. {{#ifexpr:{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}}}}<1|{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}} round 2}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}}}}<10|{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}} round -1}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}}}}<100|{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}} round 0}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}}}}<1000|{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}} round -1}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}}}}<10000|{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}} round -2}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}}}}<100000|{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}} round -3}}|{{#expr:81200*{{User:Nilfanion/Inflation|Year=2005}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} million is the correct value to 2 sig figs, but just look at the code.--Nilf anion (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, impressive! Do you think it would be possible to expand it for other nations? Hurricanehink (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hink, possible but we need data (the problem Tito refers to above). As for inflation I've worked out a way to do this simply. WP can easily round to any power of 10; if the editor tells it how far to round to (guideline being 2/3 sig figs) that would do it. Check my sandbox for an example.--Nilf anion (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

After a long slog I finally managed to get the code working (see the edit history of Template:Infobox hurricane season). If you look at my sandbox, whilst I cannot tell it to give to 3 sf I can tell it to give it to 1 dp, if that works use it; if not move on. The table which it calls is in my userspace, and is based on the Fed Reserve data linked above. If we are going to use this we really should move it to main Template: space. Question is do we want to do this or not?--Nilf anion (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome work, and I think it should be implemented. The only problem is that 2007 is just days away... oh well. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Regional list templates

I added all of them for the North Atlantic and Pacific at User:CrazyC83/TemplateRegional. Others could be added as well for other regions. CrazyC83 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on the templates. For the actual articles, I'm not sure if all of them are needed. Mexico, for example, would be fine having maybe five total (Yucatan Peninsula, southwest Mexico, Bay of Campeche/Gulf Coast states, northwest Mexico, and Baja California). Cuba would be fine just being List of Cuba hurricanes. Europe would be fine just being List of Europe hurricanes. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the number found and analyzed. They could of course be multiple redirects to one page. Also I was thinking Florida and Texas could be further subdivided if they got too long, if the coverage scale is broad. For example, Florida could go to Florida Panhandle, North Florida, Central Florida, South Florida, Southwest Florida and Florida Keys; Texas could go to East Texas, Central Texas, North Texas, South Texas and West Texas (incl. Pacific storms). CrazyC83 15:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Florida has already been split up by time period. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to divide Florida even more by area. We've never really defined the purpose for a List of XXX hurricanes article, but I'm sure we can adjust the Florida and Texas articles so not too many pages are necessary. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are all of them different colors? Tito xd^(?!?) 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... consistency would be good. All of those are too aggressive in choice of colours anyway. I favour using two non-eyecatching shades of the same colour (blue?), navigation templates are for ease of use; they shouldn't draw your attention away from the text (like the Caribbean one does).--Nilf anion (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The colors at Template:Navigation bar are nice, IMO. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

consistency in naming conventions

Hi,

I just noticed y'all have both these in GA status:

.. one is "effect" while the other is "effects" & also "in" versus "on". My mind is small and a hobgoblin is doing a tapdance on it. Maybe y'all should have consistent naming conventions... :-)

--Ling.Nut 03:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Either could work. Is it effects, as the hurricane impacts an area in more than one way, or is it effect, describing the whole impact for the area? Similarly, is it the impact from the hurricane inside the state or the impact the hurricane does to the state? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox consolidation

This is from a discussion on the IRC channel. Basically, we have too many templates for our infoboxes and I think we should try and consolidate them down to a limited number. I feel the initial goal should be one template for storms, one for individual seasons and one for multiple-season articles - making no distinction between current and past; and also making the small templates in the seasons just a version of the article box. We also should get rid of the "helper" templates and automagically calculate the unit conversions in these templates. In addtion we should be able to note what basin we are in (for priority of units). In the long term we may be able to condense further, getting a {{WPBeatles}} beater :)--Nilf anion (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox hurricane season}} is now much more powerful. See the usage instructions on the Templates page for details. It now works for all individual basin seasons.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have known this would happen. Thankfully the IB has fallthrough. I've altered 1933 Atlantic hurricane season to use the new code. However as the strongest storm was not the most intense storm, I haven't touched that part. What should we do for that? List only the strongest storm or something else?--Nilf anion (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Satellite Imagery

I mentioned this in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season talk page because I wasn't sure of the policy of uploading satellite images you created with other programs. Anyway, its kind of fun making these things with the HRPT data, and you can produce really spectacular results with it. Here's a familiar image of Hurricane Andrew, except with most of the East Coast pictured [2]. The resolution is 1k, which is the same as the one used in Andrew's article. I think some of the data goes back to 1978, but definitely well into the 1980s. I'll check if any imagery is available, if anyone requests it. If its not okay to use these, please delete this one. Good kitty 07:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The imagery is fine in terms of copyright, so there is no problem with keeping it (even if its not used in the article). However, the sourcing you have provided there is bad. Please provide direct links to the actual images on CLASS (or sufficient detail in description that anyone can use the search to find it), linking solely to the CLASS homepage isn't best practice.--Nilf anion (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to do that because the data is stored in a temporary directory available only to my account. You really just have to know what you are looking for, but once you know, it's easy to find it. Good kitty 13:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's a URL where the data can be ordered, I'd link that URL and specify what exactly the order was. That's what is done for NEXRAD I think. – Ch acor 14:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a fairly exact amount of information should be given - so I can go and order precisely the same image if I choose to do so. The NEXRAD data gives a human-readable description of the exact data set used for the image, it should be possible for sat images.--Nilf anion (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I figured out that you can search for specific datasets. In addition to Andrew, I've made new pics of Mitch, Iniki, Hugo, and Gordon. If anyone has ideas for others, I'll see if I can find them. Good kitty 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Excellent pics! Is there a way to combine them with the Blue Marble maps, where land features are slightly more visible? Tito xd^(?!?) 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Its probably possible, but AVHRR images are from a fundamentally different source from the Blue Marble (MODIS). Tito, talk to the good people on the Worldwind forums - I bet they good be intergrated on that program ;)--Nilf anion (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The other thing that is missing is the source instrument. From your descriptions I can find the original now, but only because I recognise AVHRR imagery when I see it ;)--Nilf anion (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I figured this new toy out, and I am, well, excited to say the least. I uploaded an AWESOME picture of Hurricane Bob (1991), showing most of the coastline. Prepare yourself for the awesomeness before you click this link. →Cyclone1→ 22:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Tcseason

Template:Tcseason has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Tito xd^(?!?) 00:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice on naming conventions

Would those working on hurricanes (or weather phenomenon in general) have any advice for naming conventions for earthquakes? I've attempted to find guidance at WP:NAME, but haven't found anything yet. My specific question is whether an event should be identified by: (a) common name; (b) minimal name unless disambiguation required; (c) standard convention such as date and year? Earthquakes can generally be located specifically and unambigously by location and year (though very famous earthquakes may have a well-known popular name). The case in question is 1356 Basel earthquake, which recently got moved to Basel earthquake. My instinct is that the former is more usual, as the year is what people are often referring to, just as much as the location. What do people here think? Carcharoth 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be the format you prefer. For the tropical cyclone Wikiproject, most articles for unnamed storms have the format of Year Location Hurricane, unless it is known as a different name or is preceded by Great Location Hurricane. For earthquakes, which don't have names and to my knowledge aren't usually classified by a particular name, I think it should follow that format. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. In case anyone is interested, I requested a move and started discussion at Talk:Basel earthquake. Carcharoth 01:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina stuff

Do you guys here deal with Hurricane Katrina stuff? I mentioned two things on the talk page over there a while ago (October 2006) and got no response. Have a look at the last three sections of the latest archive (Archive 7) for talk page stuff that never got dealt with. Does anyone here want to take on brushing up a featured article so that it maintains its high standards, instead of degrading over time and looking like it was written about intensively at the time but not maintained since? Said in the nicest possible way, of course. :-) Carcharoth 03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tis being dealth with now! Thanks. Carcharoth 04:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)