User talk:Nilfanion/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Re: Re Storm Articles
Well, if 2006 is as active or fairly active, I personally would be fine with having an article for each storm. If some TV shows can have articles for each episode, then I don't see the harm in having an article for all future Atlantic tropical cyclones. Hurricanehink 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops, sorry, it was the first thing in the morning after I woke up. I responsed on the 2005 talk page. Hurricanehink 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would say wait a bit, but the voting is basically in favor for it. Hurricanehink 21:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I figured it too. I would say wait until the vote is over, and then, if those who voted no are still against it, ask each one why they are against it and what is wrong with having it. After that, ask on the 2005 talk page for any possible alternatives, and reiterate that it is only for TD's. After those who still oppose it are still against, then you can request mediation. However, I won't be here for long to help. I'm going on vacation on Wednesday, and won't be back for 2 weeks, so you should ask someone else. Good luck! Hurricanehink 00:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll be sure to enjoy it! I'm just glad you were on my side from the beginning. You've been a big help, especially since I thought I was too bold to begin with bringing it up. Luckily you are a good swimmer, I suppose :) Hurricanehink 01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Cool. Good luck with the battle. Hurricanehink 01:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll check it out later. Hurricanehink 11:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure. I'm sure you'll find someone. Hurricanehink 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, good luck with that. Hurricanehink 12:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you having any luck with anything? Not much seems to be happening. How's this for a proposal. Since the list of 2005 storms is now a FL, that should not be touched at all. What should happen in the future is this; have only important storms in the season summary (Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Vince, Wilma, Alpha, and Zeta) with brief descriptions (1 paragraph at most), leave the list alone, and still have articles for every storm. This way, the information will only be replicated twice instead of having it superflously on the 2005 page. Hurricanehink 19:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Feel better! Alpha should definetely be mentioned because it was the one that finished the names, though Wilma broke the storm record. Yea, that sounds good for the season summary. Hurricanehink 01:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I doubt A class is attainable for a storm like Irene. You need a lot of info, but it can't be redundant. Epsilon has forecasting as a separate section because that was the reason for the article at the time. Irene had no real reason, so forecasting should be part of the storm history (unless the concensus is different). The end is in sight, but not quite there yet. Yea, the southern hemisphere seasons has bugged me for a while, but I made a personal pledge I wouldn't do much there (I did 1492-1890 in the Atlantic, nearly all of the WPAC, and all of the north Indian, and didn't want to waste any more wiki time on seasons). However, that sounds like a good idea. I would split it into two- Southwest Indian as one and Southeast/Australia/South Pacific as the other. The only problem with that is the naming. 2005-2006 Southeast Indian Ocean and South Indian Ocean cyclone season? What about South Indian and South Pacific, with, say, 130º East as the dividing marker? Hurricanehink 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good job on B class, and good point about the southern hemisphere. I forgot about the Australian scale. Well, a Southwest article and an Australian/South Pacific article works, but, at the most, only back to 2000, I would guess. Hurricanehink 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think all the way back is necessary, at least not now. A 3 way split is not needed, either. Just the 2 way split should be fine from 2000 to the future. Hurricanehink 00:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good luck. Hurricanehink 11:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
20 questions for Hurricane editors
Past seasons
- Is there any intrinsic difference between a storm in the 2005 season and a previous season?
- Should a 2005 storm have a laxer set of rules because it comes from a 'busy season' or abide by the same rules as any prior season?
- Does giving TS Lee an article mean 'notability' is not an issue for a past storm getting an article and set a minimum quality standard for those articles?
- The problem for older storms is not notablity in most cases, but simply lack of information. No one can write an article that adheres to the content policies of verifiability and no original research if the information is not available. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Would doing this open the floodgates for minor storms in the past?
- Conversely, should the notability standards used for previous seasons set a benchmark for 2005 and subsequent seasons?
Future seasons
- Is the higher number of editors interested in the 2005 season going to carry on into future seasons?
- It has already carried onto other seasons, like the concurrent 2005-06 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Every storm from Vince on has had an article continuously since the storm existed. Are future storms likely to get articles in the same way and be resistant to removal?
- Does this mean future season articles will inevitably the same problems, if they are reasonably active?
- Will how the 2005 season is handled determine how the future seasons are?
- Likely, as there were just more editors, there were many things tried out (like using {{HurricaneActive}}) and quality control has matured a lot for cyclone articles. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Does the community need to make its mind up before the 2006 season starts?
Format
- Is Tropical Storm Lee more worthy of an article than Bart Gets Hit By A Car?
- As Rob Church says, "A man's craft is another man's cruft". You're asking the wrong crowd, ask the editors who maintain List of Simpsons episodes. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Is the above comparison irrelevant to Lee having an article?
- If Lee has an article... do you care?
- If the list article was moved over the current storms section of the season article would the resulting article be too large?
- If the list article was moved over the current storms section would the editing received lose worthwhile information on the minor storms?
- If individual articles were created for all the storms would there be anymore information on the minor storms than there is already in the list?
- Which of the current arrangement, the all-storms-get-an-article, the return of the list of storms to the season article or some other arrangement is the best for a general reader NOT an editor?
- How about for a user doing research?
- How about a wikipedia editor?
- Which of the layout options do you prefer for the 2005 AHS?
Responses
I'm not sure is this is for me or not, but I'll answer. 1) No 2) Yes, mainly due to its newness. Wikipedians weren't as active for 2004, but there were plenty of people here for 2005. There's plenty of information. 3) Sort of. The main criteria is information, IMO. This is sort of a by-product of notability, though it helps when creating an article. When creating an article, if it's well-written, I don't see the harm in keeping it. 4) No. See above. 5) Not really. See above. 6) Probably. 7) Probably, though removal might not be a problem if we decide now. 8) Possibly, unless we decide right now. 9) Definitely, unless something changes. 10) YES! 11) I'd say about as worthy. If you think about it, that article only has Storm history, trivia, and quotes. It doesn't have any impact, yet with elaboration, it works. 12) No, I say it's a good argument. 13) No, but the arguments should be decided now. I suppose I was the one who opened Pandora's Box by bringing this back up, but I am fine either way if Lee has an article. 14) Yes. There's a season summary already on the main page. All that's needed as a replacement for the list of page is a link to every storm in the season summary. 15) Probably not. 16) There could be potentially more, if we include trivia or predictions. 17) I would say all storms get an article. The season summary gives useful information, and if they want info on non-notable storms, they can click right on the link for one organized page. 18) Same 19) Same 20) All articles for storms. Hurricanehink 22:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:AL132005LeeWindspeedtest.png
Thanks for uploading Image:AL132005LeeWindspeedtest.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 12:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Lee
Listen, I've been dealing with this issue for a long time (several months) and to be honest with you, I'm sick and tired of it. Lee was a pitiful storm that stayed out at sea. All the info that needs to be said about it can more than easily be said in the main article. I can't tell you how many times I've said that but these pro-article wackos will demand an article for every little disturbance that forms until their dying breath. This WikiProject has laid down the criteria for article creation. Lee falls far short of that. And Epsilon is a longer, better written and more interesting article. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- My above comment was hardly a personal attack. An expression of exasperation yes, but not a personal attack; i.e. willfully saying something negative to put someone down or make them feel bad about themselves. And I like the list article, it just needs to be part of 2005 AHS. I'm against the seperation of the two, not the existance of either article. Of course, not that my opinion does any good. These pro-article gurus (is that nice enough?) are going to do whatever they're going to do, no matter what anyone else thinks. My objections have been repeatedly ignored on a several issues (splitting the article, creation of articles for every menial storm, and the button bars; which I let slide) so I guess I'm wasting my time. I hope you can understand my frustration. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Even if it was written as good as a Clive Cussler novel, I'd still be uncomfortable with its existance simply because it was as weak as a tropical storm could possibly be, did not hit land and caused no effects on land nor did it affect human interests at sea. I've backed down on many of the articles on the menial storms of '05 just to avoid starting World War III (Maria is a good example). Many people have cited the existance of article on rediculously menial things such as induvidual TV show episodes as a justification for creation of articles for every storm. This is like saying that because one man gets away with theft that stealing is OK. Just because other people let it slide doesn't mean it's a good idea. My personal belief is that a subject has to attain a certain level of notability before an article is justified. Lee fails miserably in the notability category. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Pretty much, yeah. Vince, Epsilon and Zeta I don't have too much of a problem with. Ophelia is a well written article, I don't have a problem with it. The same applies with Beta. Alpha and Gamma have enough deaths to warrent an article and the articles have descent info. But the others don't really deserve articles. Some of the more tedious facts I wouldn't miss but basically I'd like to see the info in the list article cut and pasted back where it belongs. Not going to happen (unless we want to start World War III), but that's what I'd like to see. Each storm would have a subheading and all the info pertaining to it would be there, except for the notable storms, which would have summeries beneath their subheadings along with links to their respective articles. This is how it used to be done until the Atlantic went mad in 2005. It seems like everybody on the cyclone project, including myself, went mad with it. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean "isolated in 2005"? I spend most of my time here outside of 2005AHS. I got tired of the chaos and frustration. The only thing I've gotten out of that message is that you want to try and work out a compromise on the 2005 stuff, which I've been trying unsuccessfully to do for a while now. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2005 storm articles (cont.)
That's precisely it: TS Lee, like most 2005 AHS fishspinners, has no info outside of NHC products. A Start-Class article is hardly detailed, comprehensive and quality. (btw, this brings to mind one of Eric's rants [whom I see you have already run into]: I will not support this unless you can write a detailed, comprehensive article for each and every storm, which I am convinced you cannot do. Why? Because there isn't much to write. Why? Because these storms did absolutely nothing!) If the content is as comprehensive as possible, well as far as I'm concerned it's not enough. I appreciate the efforts you've gone to, but I'm not convinced. Yours with civility, -- Sarsaparilla39 11:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, mediation sounds good to me. I won't be on Wikipedia for a few weeks at least (and please do me a favour and put something on my userpage to that effect, thanks a bunch) so I won't be able to take part, but the idea sounds good. :D -- Sarsaparilla39 12:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll just steal Sarsaparilla39's section rather than create my own. As I've said before, I'm still undecided. I would certainly like to see all relevant information included on Wikipedia, but by creating separate articles we run the risk of accumulating irrelevant or non-notable information to "pad" articles like Tropical Storm Lee (2005). CrazyC83 has created articles for each storm in his own userspace, but many of them do not have enough information currently to merit existing as separate articles. If we slowly and very ponderously worked through exandping each of those articles, it could work.
On another note, and perhaps more relevant to my poisition in particular, is the consequences of splitting on the List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms page. Again, if we create a detailed page much like List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes either in someone's userspace or in the project space for the WikiProject and make sure it is featured quality before replacing the current list, I would approve. That said, a new list page cannot be put into the main space until all of the individual articles have gone through the laborious process above. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 @ 18:16 (UTC)
- You see, I, as a Wikipedian who frequents AfD, look at Tropical Storm Lee (2005), and it screams non-notable: no damages, no deaths, no land effects, no watches, no warnings, weakest storm of the season, not even the earliest 12th storm. I try to look at tropical cyclone articles as some other random frequenter of AfD might rather than as someone who actively contributes to the TC WikiProject, and I see articles that should be merged everywhere. (I am not going to debate whether Simpsons episodes deserve their own articles; I don't think so, but apparently someone else does.) If the article could be expanded to a reasonable length, then merging is not necessary. The greater the content, the more leeway notability assertions get. Otherwise, though, I think we agree.
- As for outside mediation: well, I hope not. However, the outspoken minority has not always indicated a willingness to discuss the topic as a minority group or to acknowledge that strong consensus is against them. Nonetheless, I would rather make concessions until they agree than bring in mediation as any concessions made to the "stubborn mergists" will only make the articles better. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 @ 18:39 (UTC)
Re:Storm article layout
My vacation is going great! Plenty of sunshine, relaxation, and places where I can edit Wikipedia ;) Good work with the 2005 articles, and good luck finishing the rest of them with the prior formatting. The articles' format works the way you said it. Other stuff could be called Trivia, and retirement should be in the aftermath section. I thinking forecasting shcould be a sub-category of preparations. Everything else works. Hurricanehink 14:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good find. But..... the reports are only useful for the more damaging hurricanes. In the past, they rarely go into detail for lesser storms; the 2003 report gives little information in Mexico on the effects of Erika or Larry. However, Odette has a lot of information, enough that I am considering giving it an article. It all depends on the location, and unfortunately, storms like Bret, Gert, and Jose will probably get little mention there. On the other hand, Bermuda typically gives great detail for the storms that impact the country, so that will work well for Harvey and Nate. Hurricanehink 15:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I just found something interesting: Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Sandbox. If that could be updated, expanded slightly and referenced, it would be a wonderful way to format the list now that we have separate storm articles. Your opinion? —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 23 April 2006 @ 01:59 UTC
BoM copyright
The BoM images are protected under copyright (I'm not sure, it may be Crown Copyright), and permission should probably be sought. NSLE (T+C) at 01:23 UTC (2006-04-26)
Re: Older Storms
Finally someone gets that! Up until relatively recently, most storm articles only had a storm history and a 2 sentence impact. The main problem with us Wicanepedians, myself included in the past, was they created an article and didn't go into much detail. Most retired storms, including Floyd, Georges, Gloria, David, and Mitch, all had very little. My plate is full, as well, trying to better every retired hurricane article to at least B class, if not A class. All I can say is great find. Hopefully Storm05, as well as other users will continue adding to some older articles. Hurricanehink 23:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, I didn't necessarily mean you. I'm just a little frustrated that most users don't care much for older articles. Thanks and good job for all the work you've been doing. We really need more Wicanepedians (yea, I liked the name when I thought of it) that will do some major work. I looked at Lee, but I'm not so sure if it can be B class. I don't know. You should ask someone else. I personally hate to do assessments, mainly because I don't know the objective criteria and that my standards are always too high or too low, if that makes any sense. Hurricanehink 02:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, completely right. Maybe you should ask someone for some help. 27 storms is quite a daunting task. I'd help, but my policy is to stay away from 2005, and I have to get back to my old policy :) Perhaps you should ask Jdorje on the assessments? He is a strong Wicanepedian and always knows what's best in terms of the technological setup. Hurricanehink 11:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, as long as you are OK with it. I know the feeling of doing a huge task without anyone's help (List of Atlantic hurricane seasons, List of WPAC seasons, List of NI seasons), so just be sure that if you get overwhelmed, there are plenty of us who can bail you out :) Yea, the NHC has a lot of interesting quotes. I especially like Epsilon's. Hurricanehink 21:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- LoL, no way. They're mine! :) I'm sure you can find plenty of interesting quotes from this season... plenty. Good to know you're reassured, and have fun. Hurricanehink 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- That is extremely weird. You should ask around. Maybe an admin? I'm sorry I can't help sometimes, but I'm not too good with the techincal stuff. Hurricanehink 00:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
GA-Class
There is no "GA" class of articles. GA corresponds closely to A-class. See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. The discussion page there has a section on GAs. However I haven't reverted your changes just yet since I wanted to talk to you about it first. (Also, neither Katrina nor Andrew are GAs in my opinion, but that's a separate issue.) — jdorje (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: Irene
LOL, no problem. A class, ideally, is just short of FA status. Things it may be missing are pictures, or sometimes A classes are too long. Irene, in my opinion, is nowhere near A class. A long storm history should have no indication on the assessment, but because forecasting is also in there, it is a B class. Perhaps we should have examples for each class? I'll bring that up on the Wikiproject page. Hurricanehink 13:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good, glad I could explain. I brought up the discussion on the Wikiproject, so hopefully no one else will be confused. I'll double check the five you worked on. They could be B classes by now. Hurricanehink 13:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)