User talk:E. Brown/Archive 1

HURRICANE ERIC ADVISORY ARCHIVE 1

---

This is an archive page, DO NOT edit!

---

Just for future reference: The main article namespace is for encyclopedic information only. If you want to share a list you created, that's perfectly fine - but keep it in the User: or Talk: namespaces please. That's all. :) Furthermore, the article and its history would still be there; please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy for the procedure to properly delete an article. The main article namespace is not for temporary personal articles, that's what your User talk:E. Brown or User:E. Brown (or sub-articles of those, like User:E. Brown/List or whatever) are for.

By the way, looking through your contributions, I noticed you merged Tropical Storm Peter with 2003 Atlantic hurricane season - A good decision, but again, for future reference, never blank an article. If it should be deleted, again, check the deletion procedure. However, in this case, a redirect seems to be the best option. I'm going to add #REDIRECT [[2003 Atlantic hurricane season]] to the article, which means it will automatically move people searching for that storm to that season. (There's only been one Peter, and if one ever comes again, then we can resurrect the article - but till then, this seems the best option) --Golbez 18:26, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Names

I tend to be very blunt. My statement that it makes your other edits look suspect was intended to get across to you how disturbing your actions were to me. People who intentionally post non-factual articles have historically not limited themselves to the single action, and indeed have gone to great lengths to defend their misleading information.

While I think your action was borne out of a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works and not malice, you need to understand why you got such a hostile response. It's like walking to a Bar Mitzvah wearing a shirt with this nifty geometric shape you've never seen before on it. Misinformation is the enemy of Wikipedia, and we react badly to it even when it is not intended to cause harm.

The only creativity that should occur on Wikipedia is that of coming up with wonderful ways of telling people about the world as it is. We have an active policy against publishing "original research" and works of fiction here. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Season Articles

Hey, E Brown, I'm wondering if you still need help with the seperate hurricane season articles. I've noticed that you've been doing them mostly by yourself, and you asked for help on them and I haven't been living up to that. bob rulz 06:24, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Real" perfect storm

I think there's some place for something along those lines, but I can't think of where it should go. As a separate article it just doesn't work, as it's too speculative. However, such hypothetical storms are a large part of disaster planning and should be treated somewhere. I can't figure out where it should go. I've been thinking about an article just about Atlantic Ocean hurricanes, it might fit there.

Oh, and a Category 5 hitting Miami isn't the worst probable US storm. Andrew hit Miami at minimal Cat 5, and while the resulting damage was very heavy, it's not hard to imagine worse storms. A Cat 5 hitting New Orleans would probably break all US records for destruction. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From what I've heard, the worst scenario for New Orleans is for the storm to pass just east of the city, which violates the normal "right front quadrant" rule. The theory is that if it passes to the east, the south-bound winds on the west side of the storm would cause a storm surge out of Lake Pontchartrain and into the city.

As far as Miami goes, I still think that out of all the major US cities, they're the most prepared for an intense hurricane. And while Andrew "missed" Miami, it was still close enough to destroy the NHC's anemometer in Coral Gables. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it didn't destroy the facility, just ripped all the instruments off the roof and cut power. Or at least that's what NOAA says. It was another three years before they moved to their current hardened building (which was already being planned when Andrew hit) [1]. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You know, looking back at this from today, its scarry. Donovan Ravenhull 23:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I would agree, except that it's been common knowledge for years that something like Katrina could happen. It just finally did happen. - Cuivienen 02:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Source for hurricane season deaths and cost

Hi, I was wondering if you could give me the link to where you found the season summaries that contained total deaths and estimated total cost? Thanks. --tomf688^(talk) 01:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Florida's Worst Hurricanes

Frankly, it doesn't seem like a good encyclopedia topic to begin with. The title implies a value judgement right off, and that's not good. It also sounds like the title of a cheap FOX television show.

If you really think it's useful, then if you're writing more than a few sentences about each severe storm, you should consider putting that info in its own article. Remember that you're writing a summary. In the past, people have tended to forget that a summary should be just the most minimal set of important bits. It should be just enough to answer the question "is this the storm I'm looking for?" with a reasonable degree of confidence. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible. The question is whether it's a good idea. Besides, 2000 words for 60 years really isn't that much. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

How about a quick list of storms by location of impact? --Golbez 01:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I quite understand why this is not a good idea. I mean, I feel that I'm providing interesting information here that isn't on other articles. Plus, I've already written six pages worth of information, I'm not going to just throw that out.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 14:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me?

What was that all about on my Talk page? "You changing a list of hurricane names to a list of sexually inappropriate swear words was vandalism though. So you cannot say that you are completely innocent of it, whether this incident was vandalism or not." ...I'm confused. I don't even know what you're talking about! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Look at the edit summery. I reverted a blanking see this. I happened to miss a vandalism, though. I was helping you, not attempting to hurt you. Not exactly my fault... Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:54, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

And see this. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Uploading

Nothing happens? You mean the browser doesn't even try to upload, or it starts to and never finishes? What browser are you using? --Golbez 22:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Weird. No clue; may want to put this question on the Village Pump, or try Firefox. I wholeheartedly recommend the latter :) --Golbez 17:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Again, weird. Ask the pump? Did this just start? Have you tried rebooting (since IE is so tied in to the system)? I haven't heard of any similar problems... --Golbez 18:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. I can't think of any other possibilities. --Golbez 20:09, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Reply about railroad

Hey E. Brown, hurricane enthusiast: Not sure which edits you're referring to, but here's the issues I've found:

• The '35 storm article referred to killing railroad workers, but this was long after the railroad was built, and the workers it killed were WW I vets who were living in relief camps in the Keys. They were working on road projects, not railroad projects, although of course there were some railroad workers in the Keys as long as the railroad was in operation.
• The 1906 story had a headline that referred to the destruction of the railroad. In fact, the railroad wasn't finished until 1912, so it sounded confusing.

What you said is certainly true, the 1906 storm did kill railroad construction workers. But it didn't destroy the railroad, it was six years from completion. It was destroyed by the '35 storm -- but it was already going out of business by that time. If I made a mistake in editing, my bad. Like I said, not sure exactly what you're complaining about. Get back to me with more detail or fix whatever you think is in error and let me know. DavidH 03:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

A bit more information. I see from the history you restored the hed that I deleted, which is "The Storm that Destroyed the Railroad" on the 1906 storm section of the article about 1900-1960 storms Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1900-1960. I maintain that the hed is inaccurate. Here is a quote from the article about Henry Flagler:

"The construction of the overseas railway required many engineering innovations as well as vast amounts of labor and monetary resources. At one time during construction, four thousand men were employed. During the seven year construction, five hurricanes threatened to halt [emphasis added] the project. Despite the hardships, the final link of the Florida East Coast Railway was completed in 1912. In that year, a proud Henry Flagler rode the first train into Key West, marking the completion of the railroad's overseas connection to Key West and the linkage by railway of the entire east coast of Florida."

So, the 1906 storm really isn't the one that "destroyed" the railroad. I think you should revert your edit, or let us know more about why you want it to be headlined that way. DavidH 04:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. Since this was '06, they were only 1 year into a 7-year construction effort, so there couldn't have been much done (maybe no track laid yet). Just want to avoid confusion with the '35 storm, which is known for storm surge destroying tracks and washing the evacuation train into the water. However, you know the '06 storm did impact the railroad construction and killed more than 100 workers.

I'm a writer too, and agree about the value of a good story and headline. I was a reporter for five years in the Keys before moving on to software development and tech writing. I get to see a lot of history and talk to people about hurricanes here. The monument to the '35 storm victims is about 15 miles south of my house; inside the monument, under a ceramic mural of the Keys, is a tomb that holds the ashes of some of the victims, from the piles of coffins that were burned in the days after. It's a sad and solemn place. Every Memorial Day and Labor Day there is a ceremony to remember the victims, especially the vets who died on the evacuation train.

Your call on the headline for the '06 storm section. Maybe something like, "Storm delivers death to Overseas Railway builders." Good luck, your efforts and enthusiasm are great for Wikipedia. DavidH 18:56, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane season thingy on my user page

I was a little miffed the first time it happened, but now I see it as some sort of low-grade project organizational type thing. As long as it is being updated for accuracy, I don't mind. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Miami hurricane

Please read up on just how they arrived at that $98 billion figure. It's a worthless number. I've clarified why in the article. --Golbez 20:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

By reading up, I meant read the article. It stated: If the development that existed there in 2003, existed in 1926, then the cost would have been $98 billion. That's like saying, if the Great Kanto Earthquake struck in 2005 instead of 1923, or if the San Francisco Earthquake hit today instead of in 1906, or hell, if Camille hit today instead of 1969, it would have caused, say, $50 billion in damage, and that's not the figure that should be in the article. I hope you agree that that makes no sense. Only the actual damages, adjusted for inflation (not development/normalization) should be included. "Wealth normalization" in their sense is not inflation. They are saying, not only counting for inflation but counting for development would it have caused $98 billion. Yes, I know NOAA said it, and it was incredibly stupid of them to do so. No one ever uses that measure in determining damages caused by disasters.

To put concisely:

• The hurricane caused $100 million (1926) dollars in damage in 1926.
• Had it hit in exactly the same place and way in 2003, the damage is estimated to have been $98 billion. This is because of the billions of investment that occurred in the 77 years between 1926 and 2003.
• However, it didn't. It hit in 1926. Therefore, it caused only $100 million damage.
• $100 million in 1926 dollars is $1.05 billion in 2005 dollars.

Do you understand now? --Golbez 21:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Idea for Infobox Hurricane

We must be careful with what information we put in infoboxes. If we put too much information in it, it uses its usefulness as a quick-fact list. However, I suppose this could be something interesting, but you must make sure to update all of the hurricane season articles so the infobox doesn't look broken (if you change the template). --tomf688^<TALK> 00:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Estimates

Well, now you're just not making sense, because it's like saying that the knot figures are more authentic than the mph figures. I see that all of the knots are rounded to the nearest 5, but I go back and change the mph to conform to the standard rule that hurricanes are always rounded to the nearest 5 mph (do you ever see it any other way?) and you jump on my back. Putting in "167" or "168" is giving an exact figure, which is misleading because hurricane intensities are only ever rounded to the nearest 5 mph, since that is the most accurate figure we can give. Also, you're also assuming that those knot figures, which are also rounded to the nearest 5, are accurate and don't ever mean "147" or "148" knots either. bob rulz 02:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with bob; the knots are just as much stimates as MPH. When the NHC issues a final tropical cyclone report, mph are rounded to the nearest 5mph, and I don't know how knots are rounded, but the point is, what you're doing here is over-precision. It's like if we have "he was 5'11" tall" and you put "1.8034 meters tall". Yes, that's more precise, but probably inaccurate. I'm going to undo some of these changes; when in doubt we should use what the NHC says. Are you putting in what the NHC says? --Golbez 22:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Golbez explained it better than me. The knots are converted to the nearest 5 knots, so obviously they aren't precise either. So when you convert the imprecise knot figure to mph figure, it's also imprecise. The closest that we can accurately determine the wind speed of a hurricane, or any other tropical system, is about 5mph; there's a good reason that the NHC only does it by multiple of 5's. And, as Cyrius said, these exact figures may be more precise, but that doesn't mean they're more accurate. bob rulz 22:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

E. Brown, don't pull that with me. "I thought accurate information was what wikipedia was about?" Almost all of these numbers, excepting pressure, are estimates. Windspeed is typically estimated based on measurements from a plane at altitude. You are making Wikipedia more precise than the people who gave us the numbers. Please tell me you understand how that seems wrong. As an example, you changed Edouard's speed on the 1996 page from 125kt/145mph to 125kt/143mph. The NHC's Tropical Cyclone Report [2] shows only increments of five. Do you think cyclones only shift in increments of 5 kt? For every single one of those numbers, assume a plus/minus of two knots. Likewise, since the knot is obviously not an accurate figure, neither can be the mph. Both are estimates, rounded to the nearest five. That's just how it's done. --Golbez 22:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Hurricane Name List

For your inquiry, the source of the names of Atlantic and Eastern Pacific hurricane for the years 1960 to 1978, I used an old 'The World Almanac, and Book of Facts' printed in the USA and currently distributed by St. Martin's Press for each respective years and also from a hurricane book published in the 1970's with a complete list of atlantic hurricane names for 1960 to 1970 (although the info in this book may contradict the World Almanac in some names but as priority I follow this book and sorry I forgot its title). However I wasn't able to get a copy of the 1975 and 1977 Almanac. It might be helpful to check it at a state library as the one in our city has most of the almanacs. O, I am unsure of the 1959 Atlantic hurricane list as I lost my gathered information and have to remember it from memory. Also the other info in the Old Tropical Cyclone Names are gathered from other websites that I've browse around, particularly the website of NHC, JTWC and PAGASA. -User talk:220.239.120.28

• O ya the name of the book which has the old hurricane names for 1960-1970 is '1001 questions answered about storms' by Barbara Tufty. published in 1970 by Dodd, Mead & Company; New York (551.55 T81 - Library code) User talk:220.239.120.28

Hurricane Research / Otto

The situation was a unique one and a complicated one, but you'll see I added Otto instead to the 14th-named-storm list. The reason is that Nicole (storm #14 from 2004) was purely subtropical. Throughout the rest of the lists, I had never counted subtropical storms in any of the lists - and thus opted to not count Nicole of 2004 anywhere. I did include "excluding subtropical storms" near the top, and I think it's fair to exclude them. Thanks for asking though, and glad I could clear it up. The Great Zo 02:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Archive

I'll archive them when we get to Sept 1; that's the natural cutoff for archiving the season article, and Katrina should NOT be archived while there is this much active discussion going on. I was really irritated at people who archived Talk:Pope Benedict XVI seven times in two days. However, it helps if you say in your edit summary that you're archiving, I don't recall if you did that or not before. --Golbez 02:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

PDF

You can't embed PDF into web pages, but you can convert the PDF to a PNG and then upload that. Make sure you use a sufficiently high resolution. I might give it a shot but I have only a second right now. Jdorje 22:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

One (poor) alternative is to load it in a PDF viewer and take a screenshot. Jdorje 04:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Okeechobee

Agreed, any useful information from the smaller, worse named article should be put into the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane article, and then redirected. --Golbez 02:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

sorry

You're right, that's exactly what I thought, that you'd edited my comment. I'd completely forgotten about putting it in the article (though I still maintain it's useful - it's the only source we have right now on the 970 mb figure). My sincere apologies. --Golbez 22:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Boort

Finally, someone I can relate to about this idiot. He is about as hypocritical as they come. My favorite being how he keeps accusing me of insulting him (which he never gives me an answer when I ask him about it) and then later in the same post he tells me that I need to "get a life." That sounds like an insult to me. Funny thing is, I think you are much more mature than him and you are seven years younger. --Holderca1 12:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I am all for it. Telling someone to "get a life" is definitely a personal attack. --Holderca1 14:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So is "idiot". --Golbez 23:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but once you personally attack my family, all bets are off, that's one thing that I do not tolerate. It is also why I came asking for help in the matter, I would have kept it to myself had he not done that. --Holderca1 15:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Right now I can see few parties in this who are without harm. There is, however, no reason to continue escalating this until a block is requested or required. Please don't communicate with Boort for a week or two; if you two are working in the same talk page, try not to direct comments at each other. Boort got this same notice.

Long story short - Calm down, everyone. --Golbez 23:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

By any means I would love to know if people really think that about my adds to the 2005 Hurricane Season or just you? If you may have not know Mr. Brown that Wikipedia is opened to all people including myself not just you. Your not the only hurricane enthusiast. So for you Mr. Brown I respect you input but I do believe I moved to a country that was founded on freedom and I didn't move from a third world country to be told by some pompous guy who thinks he owns a page on a free encyclopedia. So good day to you Mr. Brown.

I think it should be up to me to judge Mr. Boort's behavior that you Mr. Brown. For I do have my own mind. Unless you think I am childish as well? I'm sorry that I wasn't born with your background and prestige but please give me some credit that I have a functional brain, if it's not to much of a bother for you?

Your reasoning of "speaking for other people" echos that of soldiers' remarks saying they were following orders. Orders or not they are equally guilty as those who ordered them in the first place. So please don't get into technicalities.

Mill Springs

You go to Mill Springs Academy in Alpharetta? My boyfriend went there (but he graduated in 2003). Mike H (Talking is hot) 01:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Brad Hopkins. Mike H (Talking is hot) 06:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane 12

I noticed that you, on list of notable tropical cyclones, moved Hurricane 12 into the Eastern Pacific. I had originally placed it in the Central Pacific because it mentioned here on the CPHC site. I was wondering what your reasons for moving it to the East Pacific were. Michelle T 20:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Last Time

When was the last time a hurricane hit Texas hard. I know about Tropical Storm Allison, but was wondering about a hurricane and figured you would be the guy that could help me. ThanksFableheroesguild 02:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: Texa's bad luck

Thanks, but wasn't Hurricane Alicia retired for hitting Texas in 1983. Was there any hurricanes that hit Texas directly between 1983-2001.Fableheroesguild 03:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Most Intense Storms Note

I think it is my text that is clearer and more specific than yours!My version explains exactly what storms are included while yours leaves much open to interpretation.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The "also" sounds awkward to me and I think to most readers and editors.While some explanation of why the other Western Pacific storms aren't included may be called for,the explicit enumeration of what storms from where ARE included is more pertinent and is only vaguely implied in your version.Frankly,the only consistent way to treat this would be to have one global cutoff pressure,and even then there would need to be a note about the Indian Ocean not being covered.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 01:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Katrina's death toll

Personally,I think it better to keep revising an entry for Katrina every time there's an update (over 1,100 as of today)...its death toll has reached a level where its omission makes the list inaccurate.The person who added it before removed a VISIBLE note,your invisible comment will have people bringing up an edit screen before they see it...Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that the body search in Louisiana is now officially over pending unexpected discoveries.The 964 from Louisiana added to 221 in Mississippi and not sure how many elsewhere give us what is likely to be the final total or close to it.So why keep leaving it out?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

1928 Okeechobee Hurricane

Hey there. I made some substantial changes to this article, including changing the death toll to 4075+. This is based mostly on your research (the 1997 NOAA paper and the 2004 NOAA "FAQ" entry). You might want to check it out. Jdorje 02:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

See the discussion. Basically since the Florida death toll was revised from 1836 to 2500+ (by NOAA/NHC, circa 2003), this means (with the Caribbean toll of 1575) the overall deaths are bumped from 3411 to 4075+. The NOAA document also gives some breakdown of where the Caribbean deaths are (300 Puerto Rico, 1200 Guadaloupe) but it doesn't quite add up. Jdorje 01:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Linda

I saw that you removed the unwikiworthy what-if blurb about California from the Hurricane Linda article. I did a sort of half-revert of that edit because the information was true; Linda was briefly forecast to approach Southern California; it says so twice in the NHC's preliminary report. So I put the information back in encyclopedic prose and added the picture. Just letting you know so you don't revert my edit. Michelle T 21:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

1995 Atlantic Hurricane Season

Just to let you know, it worked. The sat pics are awesome, and I really appreciated it, because that was the first year I tracked hurricanes. Some of the storms were really wimpy; Barry, Chantal, Karen, Pablo, and Sebastien. This year is gonna kick that year's ass! Hurricanehink 01:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a question, do you, by chance, have 1990 storms? I notice the Diana and Klaus articles don't have satellite pictures... You have other rare pics, so do you have those storms, by chance? Hurricanehink 13:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane project

Thanks. I think the next thing I'd like to do is help get things more organized, by creating a hurricane wikiproject. I've begun a little bit of this work at Template_talk:hurricane, but although there are lots of hurricane people around, nobody seems interested in getting involved in this - probably because I haven't made many "highly visible" contributions to hurricane articles (mostly I've just written/expanded articles about obscure hurricanes). What do you think about it? Jdorje 00:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll probably go ahead and create a wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject_tropical_cyclone. I think it should probably be "tropical cyclone" not "hurricane" even though all the current templates show the latter. It may take a while to get into full use but the userbase is certainly large enough to justify it. Jdorje 01:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Hazel was a cat4 at landfall, see [3]. If you want to claim differently you need to show some sources. Jdorje 01:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The NHC hurricane lists are as official as it gets. They may not be accurate, but for older storms I think the best-track data isn't that accurate either. Also, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones. Jdorje 16:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

About Hazel...it could be a question of apples and oranges. The UNISYS track is probably based on eyewall windspeed, which is (say) 120 mph. But if Hazel is moving forward at 30 mph then the max windspeed is of course 150mph. The NHC may then use this to "officially" call hazel a cat4. However I'm a bit dubious on this since hazel's pressure at landfall (938 mbar IIRC) would suggest stronger than 120mph winds. Regardless, I think the NHC lists are the "official" source while UNISYS and the "best-track" data is research that may someday be used for revision of the official data (i.e., for Frederic). However, I would like to see a complete hurricane list from NHC... Jdorje 00:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and another similar storm is the Great New England Hurricane. Supposedly this one was moving along at 70 mph...astounding! So the question here is even bigger than for Hazel. They say it was a cat3 at landfall. Does that mean it had eyewall winds of 120 mph (with max winds of 190 mph (!)) or did it have eyewall winds of 50 mph (with max winds of 120 mph...although as a TS it probably wouldn't even have an eyewall). Jdorje 00:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, did you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones? Jdorje 00:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the wikipedia guidelines say if you want to make a list you should consider making a category instead. For hurricanes, most lists we have should have categories to go with them. For instance there is List of Category 5 hurricanes, which is complemented by Category:Category 5 hurricanes (although the former is atlantic-only while the latter may or may not be). This actually adds a bit of extra information that a category wouldn't...so it may be a useful article. However there's also List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_seasons which is simply a list of articles. This isn't useful at all...it would be better to use a category for this. There are lots of other straightforward list articles I think...I don't really know what they are however. Then there is the List of notable tropical cyclones which is interesting although not very helpful since it's incomplete...it contains a number of individual lists, many of which could be complemented (or replaced entirely) by categories. Jdorje 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, we need flexibility. And we don't want to (and can't) tell people what to do if they don't want to do it. Honestly rather than deleting lists I think it would be better to improve them. For instance the List of Atlantic hurricane seasons (currently the canonical example of a useless list) could be turned into a table showing a summary (stats) on each season. Nonetheless categories should be used to augment the lists. Two good examples right now are Category:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season and Category:Retired Atlantic hurricanes (which I just made a few minutes ago). Categories provide functionality that list articles do not, because they allow easy navigation between the articles inside the category. Jdorje 02:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Great New England Hurricane

I just read it from the wiki article. Unfortunately that article has no references to speak of (adding references to existing hurricane articles would be a good sub-project...but boring). Jdorje 00:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess this [4] answers both questions. That thing is, indeed, trucking. Jdorje 05:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

UNISYS versus NHC

UNISYS is quite wrong in many places. Aside from Hazel, they have an obviously wrong strength assessment for Andrew. I don't know if this is out-of-date or what, but...the NHC data must be taken as the official sources. [5] [6].

Uploading files

1. Make sure you're logged in.
2. Click upload file on the left bar.
3. Most pictures should be uploaded to the commons (so they can be used for all languages). The upload page tells you this. Click on the wikimedia commons link at the top of the page.
4. Make sure you're logged in.
5. Click "upload file" on the left bar.
6. Click on the "browse" button and fine the file in your filesystem. Source filename should show the filename.
7. Edit Destination filename to have the filename you want it to have *after* uploading.
8. Add a summary.
9. Pick a license.
10. Click on upload file.
11. You should now be able to see the page.

Jdorje

I don't think you need a separate account for the commons. If so just make one with the same username/password... Jdorje 23:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your audrey problem is because of the way the template works. See other examples of the template to see how to use it properly. I fixed the audrey one. P.S. I am on IRC (#wikiproject) if you need quicker help. Jdorje

Great. Now look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_hurricane_nopic and see what you can do. Jdorje 00:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI...someone broke the Alicia picture, I noticed it and changed the template. It's fixed now. Jdorje 01:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Zapp sorry about that . i just joined today and im still learning how to upload pictures. once again sorry!

Number of Storms

Hey, smarty you seem to know a lot about Hurricanes. What is the most Hurricanes formed in a sequence? Thanks. User:tdwuhs

21 User:Zapp

Yes it was used lightheartedly. ;) But the questions states. "What is the most hurricanes formed in sequence?" Somehow I can't believe that there are 21. User:tduwhs

So wait how many hurricanes have formed in sequence? User:tdwuhs

So does that mean 2005 is in second place for most hurricanes formed in sequence? User:tdwuhs

Should this record be in the 2005 season? User:tdwuhs

Fair use

I suspect it does qualify as fair use, but I'm not really the one to ask. I've noticed some images here and there on wikipedia that say they're copyrighted but used under fair use. You should probably ask an admin or copyright person. Anyway, the only suggestion I have is that the copyright data needs to be added to the info page for the image (which it is, I see) but does not need to be added to the article that is using it (the image caption in Hurricane Hugo). Oh and also, if it is from NOAA you can probably find a copy of it somewhere else, hopefully even a really high-res copy (like Image:HurricaneRita21Sept05a.jpg, I love this picture). Jdorje 21:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't know, but I don't find the picture compelling enough to fight a huge battle over it. I'm not a big copyright guru here, sorry. --Golbez 22:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Hurricane Hall of Fame"

I am interested in the "Hurricane Hall of Fame". Could you post it on your user namespace?200.74.188.7 23:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, you can email it to adams_d@bigfoot.com. Thank you! 200.74.188.7 19:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)