Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:11, 20 September 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Pobbie Rarr, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Terence Ong 15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Retirement sections

Why have you edited retirement sections for hurricanes (like Hurricane Ivan) the way you have? The old texts had more useful links and did not claim future knowledge. — jdorje (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my bad, with hindsight I shouldn't have done it. I thought the section for Dennis looked too different to that of other retired hurricanes and subsequently decided to edit a couple of others. Then again, if the old texts were more useful they could be used as a template for others. Pobbie Rarr 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Article formatting

Dear Tropical cyclone editor,

As a member of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, you are receiving this message to describe how you can better tropical cyclone articles. There are hundreds of tropical cyclone articles, though many of them are poorly organized and lacking in information. Using the existing featured articles as a guide line, here is the basic format for the ideal tropical cyclone article.

1. Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (mph in non-metric countries, km/h in metric countries), with the other unit in parenthesis. The lowest pressure should be in mbars. Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there.
2. Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
3. Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexible, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be around 3. Storm histories can be longer than three paragraphs, though they should be less than five. Anything more becomes excessive. Remember, all storm impacts, preparations, and records can go elsewhere. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history.
4. Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm.
5. Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals.
6. Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
7. Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
8. Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the {{cite web}} formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense.

Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask.

Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Public" Predictions on Misplaced Pages

Hi there. I remember in high school and college that I used to make forecasts about hurricane seasons, which storms would hit land, how far we'd get down the list, etcetera, etcetera based on pure speculation, and nothing more. The difference between then and now is that at that point (late 1980's and early 1990's), only a handful of people knew I had made such a prediction on the planet and we had it scribbed on a page of some obscure notebook in our own posession that few others were likely to see. Having this type of speculation on the discussion page is much more visible because anyone on the internet can read it, therefore it is "public" for consumption by anyone with an internet connection. Now that Gary Padgett has highlighted wikipedia in his widely-dispersed monthly tropical cyclone summaries, don't be surprised if others use a similar argument or say something similar. If you want to e-mail about this topic, I can send you my e-mail and we can correspond about how these kinds of forecast have been perceived in the past by TPC/NHC (as long as my e-mail address from your personal page is deleted soon afterwards.) It is becoming increasingly likely that someone at NHC is going to view that discussion page, if it hasn't happenned already.

Don't consider this the "National Weather Service" line on the topic just because I'm part of it, and this is not a personal attack of any sort. I just am under the impression that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board, and that the discussion pages are merely about fine points of detail concerning the article itself, not about making predictions per se. In a religious sense, like the Jewish Tanach, not France's Nostradamus. If my impression is wrong, point me to the wikipedia guideline that spells out predictions connected to its articles, and I'll quiet down. There are other internet/weather discussion boards where predictions can be made and shared, without attaching it to an online encyclopedia, and in a safer online environment. I'd hate to squelch your enthusiasm for meteorology...I still have it myself, even at 33 and after 13 years in the NWS. =) Thegreatdr 17:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

John 1994

Good catch. This isn't the first time the two hurricane centers have disagreed with each other: one Central Pacific advisory on Hurricane John gave a central pressure of 910mb, much lower than the 929mb minimum which is currently accepted. Based on this alone, I'd be inclined to go with the NHC, but this sounds like too big a mistake to make (i.e. Cat. 5 or not). Furthermore, you'd think the CPHC would have got the message by now if Emilia wasn't a Cat. 5.

Oh well, it looks like Chacor has kindly sent an e-mail to those responsible so this should be resolved soon. Pobbie Rarr 03:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this to the CPHC:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your help. For now, this will help as we can include Emilia in our article. If you could indeed help to find out the discrepancy, it would be of even greater help. A few tropical cyclone article editors suspect Emilia may not be an isolated case; one of them notes that "one Central Pacific advisory on Hurricane John gave a central pressure of 910mb, much lower than the 929mb minimum which is currently accepted." How accurate his comment is, I am unsure, but I and all the Misplaced Pages editors who do articles on tropical cyclones would like to thank you for your help in this.

Yours,

Chacor

Got this reply:

no problem...and you guys have some good eyes. indeed one of the

Hurricane John forecast bulletins went out with 910mb, however at that same time there was a hurricane recon flight in the storm and they reported back 929mb. those are some of the records we have to review,

but the feeling here is 929mb is probably more accurate than the 910mb....

Just thought I'd let you know. – Chacor 06:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Danny (2003)

You may find it easier to work on Hurricane Danny (2003) in userspace, especially if it's incomplete. In the mainspace, someone who stumbles over it might get kind of a poor impression if they assume it's a finished article. It's also easier to co-ordinate stuff in userspace as you have the relevant user talk subpage to put all your links. If you think you want to do so, move Hurricane Danny (2003) to something like User:Pobbie Rarr/Danny 2003 without moving the talk page. Then, remove {{hurricane}} from the left over talk page, and tag the new redirect to your userspace that's left in mainspace for speedy deletion as a cross-namsepace redirect. – Chacor 11:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)