User talk:Hurricane Noah/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

MFR Renion data tropical cyclone archieve

can you send me the link to the full season MFR tropical cyclone database ? Thank you. Vệ Thần ^{- Talk} 05:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Final-Fantasy-HH: It's hidden within IBTRACS. It's not easily accessible without being decoded. Noah^Talk 13:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

TFA nom for Hurricane Hector (2018)

I have nominated Hurricane Hector (2018) to be today's featured article for July 31. As the article's FAC nominator, you are invited to comment on the TFA nom by clicking here. Z1720 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Edited comment

Just dropping you a note here that I reformatted your comment just a bit here, to put your comment+signature on one line and fix the spacing. I didn't think you'd object, just letting you know here for visibility. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for Tropical Storm Vicente (2018), about "Hurricane Willa's little brother which caused some significant damage in the area south of where Willa made landfall"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hurricane Hector (2018) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Hurricane Hector (2018) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 31, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 31, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

hurricane hector

hello, Noah! i had a quick question regarding this article and the associated blurb. i was unable to find any explicit mention of hector spending 186 hours at major hurricane intensity in the cited sources. (klotzbach's tweet x post does mention "7.25 consecutive days", but that is 174 hours.) do you know if this was manually calculated from the noaa report? from my reading of table 1 in the report, hector was first recorded as a category 3 hurricane on 2018.08.04 at 00:00, and was last recorded at major hurricane intensity on 2018.08.11 at 12:00, meaning that the records only show hector spending 180 hours at major hurricane intensity. (i am wondering if there was an off-by-one error somewhere.) dying (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dying: Yes, that was manually calculated using the best track. The intensity is considered as being major hurricane until 1800 since that’s when the downgrade took place. Each point listed is a 6 hour period and there were 31 of them which yields 186 hours. Noah^Talk 01:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

oh, wow, are you saying that the standard in meteorology is to assume that a storm is at the intensity determined by the last reported measurement? this seem a bit confusing to me, since this would mean that a storm that accelerates from 90 knots to a peak of 100 knots in an hour and then drops back down to 90 knots after another hour would be considered to have spent six hours at major hurricane intensity if it peaked at 00:00, even though, realistically, it only achieved those speeds for maybe an hour or so. i can understand if such a storm was labelled as a category 3 hurricane for six hours, but i think that is slightly different from stating that it was at major hurricane intensity for six hours. i am not a meteorologist, though, so i will defer to your expertise. dying (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless there is an intermediate point for some reason, yes. To do anything else would be a violation of WP:OR since that would be something not stated in the report. Intensity is usually only updated every six hours when advisories are being issued on an active storm. The reports follow the same pattern. The storm is at a certain intensity for the whole 6 hours unless there is an intermediate point with a different value. Btw major hurricane is Cat 3+ which means the two could be one and the same theoretically. Noah^Talk 02:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

oh, i agree that wp:or shouldn't be violated, which is why i had stated that my reading of the records had only told me that hector was at major hurricane intensity for 180 hours (rather than, say, 181 or 190 hours). it's quite possible that hector actually spent nearly 192 hours at major hurricane intensity, but i can't deduce this myself from the data.

in any case, i am finding the presentation of the duration in hours a bit troubling, as it strongly suggests that the statistic is accurate to within about an hour, when it really is only accurate to within six hours. klotzbach's post used the phrase "7.25 consecutive days", which, i believe, more clearly reflects how accurate the value is. what would you think about replacing "186 hours" with "7.75 days"? this way of presenting the statistic also presumably makes it more tangible to the average reader, who will likely not have a good grasp of how long 186 hours is, but will likely know that 7.75 days is slightly over a week. dying (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

July songs

my story today

Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2020): "While not an impactful storm in any manner, it did pose a threat to Hawaii when its track was unknown. Hector was the longest-lived storm of the season and broke intensity records."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporter interested in connecting over hurricanes

Hi Noah,

I hope you don't mind me getting in touch. I am doing research on hurricane wikipedia for a book project by author Richard Cooke. I would appreciate the opportunity to chat with you about your work on Wikipedia when it comes to hurricanes. User:Hurricanehink suggested I reach out to you. Please let me know if you are interested. Also happy to answer any questions you may have!

Best,

Marcia Bambajuana (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hurricane Noah, I can confirm I chatted with the above user about the hurricane project on Wikipedia. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bambajuana: Thanks for reaching out. I would be interested in sharing my experiences with you. Noah^Talk 19:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate it, Noah! Is it okay if I send you an email? Or let me know what is best! Looking forward to it. Bambajuana (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bambajuana: Sure, email is fine. Noah^Talk 19:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. Mine is marcia (dot) robiou (at) gmail Bambajuana (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Infobox tropical cyclone current/testcases

Hello, Hurricane_Noah,

This page is showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as dependent on a non-existent page but I see no tag on this page although there seem to be other pages that are transcluded to it. You edited the page most recently so I hope you can discover why this page shows up as ready to be deleted and untag it. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: It might have happened when I moved the template and its subpages to the project space. Said template was kept solely for historical reasons and has been entirely superseded by a new template. Noah, AA^Talk 00:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

TFA for Hurricane Willa

Does a TFA set for October 20 work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: Case modified by motion

Hi Hurricane Noah,

This motion does not affect you and you can safely ignore and/or remove this message. You're receiving this notification because you had been a party to the case.

In the "WikiProject Tropical Cyclones" arbitration case, remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") has now been rescinded following a successful topic ban appeal at WP:ARCA. There will be a notification about this at the ArbCom noticeboard shortly.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Storm Daniel

On 11 September 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Storm Daniel, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

hurricane walaka

Noah, i had a quick question regarding this article. i am a little confused by the wording "its closest approach to the French Frigate Shoals", as that suggests to me that the hurricane never reached the french frigate shoals, even though the article mentions that east island in the french frigate shoals suffered a direct hit. after examining the noaa source, i see that this point is when the storm passed a submerged volcanic cone, but i haven't found anything in the source suggesting that this was the storm's closest approach to the shoals. am i missing something here? dying (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dying: Adjusted based on what the TCR states. Noah, AA^Talk 22:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

looks good. thanks, Noah. dying (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2020) as about "a Category 5 hurricane that destroyed East Island, Hawaii. While it didn't really affect populated regions, it did destroy an island with its storm surge."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Needed-Class Weather articles

A tag has been placed on Category:Needed-Class Weather articles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:SIA-Class Weather articles

A tag has been placed on Category:SIA-Class Weather articles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Hurricane Willa, introduced (in 2020): "This article is about Hurricane Willa, the most impactful storm of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. Gosh... what a long and difficult road it has been with this season, but well worth it."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WPTC A

Template:WPTC A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: Idea

So I've thought about the possibility of that in the past, but each time, I have to think that the council idea is just against the Wikipedia spirit. There have always been a number of more active editors, but I don't think that needs to be formalized into a new role. Rather, the tasks you brought up should all be formalized as necessary task forces. A vital article task force? Yes that absolutely sounds like a good idea! Reducing backlogs? That depends what kind of backlog. There are GA review drives occasionally. Is the backlog the list of articles that need to be assessed? Well that just about covers the whole project. As for proposing improvements, we do what we've always done - propose on talk pages (project or otherwise) and implement them accordingly. Sometimes it goes well, sometimes it's like the track map, which is still an ongoing process (and which I want to help getting things in accordance), but why do important things when I could work on random stuff that really isn't that important. Bleh, IDK. I respect and value your opinion, so I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just my thoughts. Hope you're well. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: The council would function more as a task force since it isn't really a decision making body, however, it is multi-facet in nature so I didn't want to give it a specific name like "Vital articles task force". A council doesn't have to be legislative, which would take power away from the people. The definition of council allows for it to be merely advisory, which is what I was going for. The two other roles are essentially what Mil Hist wikiproject has as lead coordinator and coordinator. They would be performing the exact same tasks as well. It's basically any internal maintenance that needs to be done on behalf of the project. If nobody is appointed specifically to handle the tasks, everyone always assumes that someone else is handling it. Backlog drives are effective but sporadic in nature, so I feel this would be the most effective route to keeping things continuously in check. Given we are much smaller, I think we only need two people to handle it effectively. The advisors group is supposed to primarily provide guidance to the newer members, like a mentorship, which is something that isn't exactly there right now. I also thought this group could aid the project by creating guides and writing out common practices (the latter of which would need project approval once done). The newer members who want to learn need to be able to be easily connected to a mentor and our practices in order to learn. Heck, if we really wanted to, we could create a training program for our newer editors. That has been done elsewhere. Just saying. This project honestly has a lot of kinks that need to be worked out in order to get it running smoothly. Noah, AA^Talk 13:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the thing I'm most uncomfortable about is having a coordinator, mostly because, important as it is for certain people to step up (much like you've done with many aspects of the project), I'd hate for that position to be enforced, codified, and thrust onto one or two people. I prefer when there's a whole group of people working on things, kinda independently, kinda coordinated. A lot of stuff happens automatically in the weather project, like people making articles for new landfalling storms (except in the cases when they don't). Normally people are welcomed at some point... normally... and some people might never get a proper welcome. All that being said, I agree with you on many points. There are a lot of minor things that prevent things from being run even more smoothly. Sometimes the solution is a talk page discussion (such as something small and basic like having different entries in the season infobox when the highest winds/lowest pressure are different). And perhaps a training program could be useful, say, if we had a page where people can ask for help. It would only work if there are people willing to mentor, so I'd absolutely be willing to be on that list to make such a project happen.

So TL;DR to do -

Create a project mentor program

Maybe a vital article task force? That can then be the place of focus for the vital article list, which at this point is being written mostly by you and me, where I'm hemming and hawing over whether Harvey is vital enough, at least compared to other disasters around the world.

Would this be done at the WPTC level or weather-wide? I prefer the latter.

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I get that it may be uncomfortable to do so, but large portions of the work has been left ignored for years. You can see some of the tasks that need tackled at Category:Weather articles needing attention. The backlogs are in the thousands even after KN and myself have reduced them significantly. Once these backlogs are down, people need to consistently maintain it which is why I thought we should have specific people to do it. This system has worked in the mil hist project for years which has hundreds of thousands of articles and some of the coordinators there served for multiple 1-year terms. I'd argue it must not be as bad as what you think it is considering they kept up with it for that long. The problem is getting it under control. Keeping it in check would be a relatively minor burden. Also, It would be interesting to see who we could get to contribute to the vital article list. I'm hoping we can get it filled up sometime next year. Yes, we are doing things at the WPWX level. Noah, AA^Talk 20:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite true about so many tasks being ignored for so long. Look, you've been around long enough that you know how things work on here :P My 18 years of editing include some conflicts, disputes, arguments, breaks, and even a retirement or two. I bring all that up because I'm not exactly sure what the secret sauce is to make stuff happen efficiently. I want Wikipedia to be the world's best weather encyclopedia, and that it be kept up to date as we deal with an increasingly chaotic environment. So I support any good faith effort to do that, so long as it remains inclusive, and doesn't become a cabal for decision-making, especially if it's getting shit done that should've been done years ago. So I say go for it, especially if it feels right. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Industrial agriculture: Case opened

Hello Hurricane Noah,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 8, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Otis

I agree it likely weakened a bit before landfall. Otis is a shoe in for Vital articles… gotta love when there’s so many in the same year 😵‍💫 Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Looking at damage images/videos, this likely was a Cat 5 at landfall. Brand new high rises got absolutely gutted. It may have actually been a peak of 150-155 offshore and weakened before landfall. Noah, AA^Talk 15:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Bad Pre-Mature RfC Closure by BilledMammal (Keraunos RfC). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry for the hassle, this is about the RfA of 0xDeadbeef. Fermiboson (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice

Hello Hurricane Noah, the arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: Willa and Lane

Hey Noah. So I don't think either article is at serious risk of FARC, considering their high quality writing and comprehensiveness. Just because an article is featured, doesn't mean it has everything, or it's perfect. It's certainly worth some effort to expand and maintain them, for sure, but one person can't do everything. I've worked on so many articles over the years, and at this point, I'm not surer I have the time or desire to improve every last one of them, not when there are other projects that I wanna spend my time on. Remember, this is a hobby for all of us, and we have all different things that we want to see get done. You want to maintain 2018, just as I'd like to see the List of Pacific C5 hurricanes maintained, having worked on a few of them over the years.

My more recent focus of editing hasn't been to any one particular season, but rather working on some global, broader articles that I hope become the standard, for others to copy in the future. Once I have individual yearly weather articles going back to 2000, I'm going to create heat wave for each year from 2000 to 2021. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: This is more to do with Cat 5 FAs being up to par for when Jova and Otis have to be added to the topic. The other articles should be up to par so that way that the topic will be fine other than the two that need added. Other editors will consider any TC FA without relevant academic coverage to be lacking in comprehensive coverage. I'm trying to spend time looking for the other involved articles for that topic when I get a chance. Noah, AA^Talk 13:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yea Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs), I think Jova will be an easy one to get up to par. Otis might be a bit difficult, and that could ultimately take down the topic, considering how much info there is (and is going to be). It's one of the reasons why I prefer working on older topics, so the flow of new information has long stopped (for article stability purposes). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello! Would you be able to change your signature to [[User:Hurricane Noah|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>]], [[Associate of Arts|AA]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Noah|<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b>]]</sup>? Your current signature is longer than the 255 character limit per WP:SIG; this version will display the exact same thing in fewer than 255 characters. Thanks, HouseBlaster^talk 01:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hurricane Bud (2018)

Hello Noah,

Thank you for your help with Tropical Storm Hernan (2020) over the years. I noticed as I scrolled down your talk page to leave this message that you have quite a bit on your plate but wanted to ask about one other thing.

I know a lot of WPTC project members, especially yourself, put a lot of effort into making the 2018 Pacific hurricane season (forgive me for not linking anything) a FT. However, I looked at your FA nomination of Hurricane Bud and noticed how you were forced to withdraw due to school work back in January 2021. I wanted to know if you wanted to collaborate and bring the article up to FA status now that some time has passed. I don't think I'm quite experienced enough to do it by myself, but I believe bringing this final article up to FA status would help finally seal the deal and make 2018 EPac a FT in all aspects, as well as free you up to focus on other WPTC areas. I also have learned from Hernan that having another editor to split the workload is significantly helpful.

What do you think? JayTee⛈️ 01:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@JayTee32: I likely wont have the time. I'm about to be going into final exams for this semester, then I will be working full time for the holidays, and after that in my final college semester (I am a graduating senior). There are tons of sourcing issues that would need to be addressed before even attempting another FAC. I did most of the work in my high school and early college days when I had the time. Noah, AA^Talk 02:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry to hear it. Best of luck with your studies; I’ll hope to here from you when you have more time to dedicate to the article. JayTee⛈️ 04:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Weather articles with incomplete B-Class checklists has been nominated for deletion

Category:Weather articles with incomplete B-Class checklists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: Merge proposals

Hah I've been there many times about feeling sorry/awkward over merge proposals. Yea, on one hand, there is a good honest effort to merge some of these shorter articles, which are probably too short to exist as a fully fleshed out article. On the other hand, by merging, it is getting rid of the work that editors did some time ago. At the same time, no one owns an article, and some of these GA's are from well over a decade ago, with minimal expansion or changes, and with minimal potential for further expansion. The last aspect is what's key to a lot of these recent GA's. A lot of the low-hanging low-notability articles were merged a while ago (ones that were truly fish storms with minimal impact), and now we're getting to the slightly less low-hanging articles. As you've noted on a few of the proposals, the mergers would improve the quality of the season articles, which is why, by and large, I'm usually a proponent for merging. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Specificity for GAR

If you’re going to go through the GAR process, you need to be specific about the issues. With one, you were, and it’s a simple fix which doesn’t appear GAR worthy. The other three do not. Research the topics and be more specific. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thegreatdr: Sorry, I've been used to being quite unspecific since that's how most FARs and GARs have been operated on past articles by various editors. I have seen rationales in the past like "there must be updates by now" or something similar. If you do intend to work on all of these articles, I will give as much time as you need. Im not well-versed on any of these topics and the technicality makes it somewhat difficult for me. Every GA in the weather project is going to be checked before everything is said and done, just so you are aware. I did notice a trend in who was writing which types and thus why I quit reviewing broad-topic ones. I went through and did all History of X ones and that's when I noticed. It's honestly probably better that I stick to the ones that I am more familar with like storm articles. Noah, AA^Talk 00:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of user rights request

May I ask why? I would be willing to action this myself, but I would hate to see you make a hasty decision. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  03:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve honestly become quite disenchanted over the years and have found it increasingly difficult to be here. I have tried to find other ways to contribute but to no avail. between the lack of time, contributions seeming like work, and dealing with various types of drama, I feel I would be better off stepping aside entirely once I have gotten my affairs in order. Hurricane Noah (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Wikipedia isn't supposed to work. You've seen half of the shit online, and how bad people can be at their worst. You actually give a shit, which is admirable, and I've always appreciated. I hope you reconsider leaving the weather WikiProject. I spent a lot of time discussing, contemplating, and implementing mergers, for similar reasons, to help guide and usher in the behemoth that is managing weather articles on Wikipedia. There is simply too much. So here's a floofy widdle kitty cat. Stare into its eyes. You don't want to disappoint the kitteh, do you?! The kitty doesn't want you to leave! And neither do I.

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I want to leave forever, but I have had enough of WP for a while. I likely will be gone until at least May if not longer once this GAR wraps up. Hurricane Noah (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

GARs.

Hey. I know it's required to notify the writer about a GAR, but frankly, I stopped believing in the good article and featured article process years ago. My focus is to get the info right rather than to an arbitrary level, you know? I appreciate the notification though. Mitch32^{(it's you I like.)} 01:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

And also, yea, I completed all of the mergers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Thanks. Btw when I am doing these discussions, I am reviewing 200 articles at one time. Im not just looking at specific cases but rather at an entire set of articles to see how they all stack up. I have looked at the entirety of tranches 4–6. Noah, AA^Talk 21:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense how you've picked out the low-hanging articles that were borderline to obvious cases for merging. Of course tropical storms and depressions are likelier to have shorter articles, which are all later in the alphabet. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: awards

Big oof, the thought of going through and trying to figure out every article I've worked on would give me more anxiety than I think I'd be able to handle, mostly because I feel like half of my old GA's will likely be delisted, and that's how I'm probably going to come across articles I haven't even thought of for decades at this point. With my limited Wikipedia time these days, I'm trying to do a few key projects (climate lists and such, Hurricane Hilary), welcoming new users, assisting users when I can (and hopefully not fucking up climate tables like in Minneapolis), and contribute to discussions. I do like the idea of encouraging and incentivizing users to write articles though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: This makes it easier. You have 294 articles at GA status that aren't either FA or delisted GAs. I believe there is a similar count for GARs somewhere since it is shown for people reviewing a GA. I made a rough guesstimate for your points and used that to adjust everything. Noah, AA^Talk 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Holy shitballs. No new GA's since 2020, and my first one was Matthew back in 2006 (which, big oof, definitely isn't up to GA standards). That's a bit of a trip down memory lane, wow. Yea, I guess no excuses.

1. Yea, I'll make the page for awards. I'm done editing for the day, so I'll try starting on it tomorrow.
2. Confirmed, a lot of my old GA's are sub-par.
3. Tropical Storm Chris (2006) can/should be merged
4. I gotta find the time to do more than one GA every five years.

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Awards/Hurricanehink - there we go! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I'm working to get the barnstar-esque images created for the various ranks for the userpage templates. Noah, AA^Talk 22:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Weather/Awards#Leveled_awards All levels/awards are operational now and can be found there. Im not a GFX artist but I did the best I could. Someone else with more experience could probably do better images some time if they wanted to. Noah, AA^Talk 03:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yea great job on those, they're fun, looks great. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: Button

Not to press buttons, but that's a lot of edits for one of those small minor technical things that we often forget about but adds up to the technical debt that will eventually need to get taken care of. It's those small edits that help Wikipedia function, so I appreciate you doing that. Right now I'm trying to get California tornadoes in good enough position to be able to nom it for FLC. I gotta get the numbers to add up, then check Wikilinks, and then get someone from severe weather. Who in the tornado project would be a good person to ask, IYO? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I think ChessEric would be good to ask. Also, thank God for AWB lol Noah, AA^Talk 13:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Hurricane Noah :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers to being about to graduate! Especially how you were able to balance wiki'ing with school. Given your successes here on Wikipedia, I'm sure you'll find more success in your life. Keep up the great work! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Thanks for the beer. I'm officially done with all my classes. Every grade is in finally. I should have performed better in some classes a few years ago and regret that but one can't change the past. I managed to get all As and A-s from SP22 to now which took some effort but helped to improve my GPA. I likely will work a few years professionally and then try to get an MBA. Noah, AA^Talk 00:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Nicely done! I expect sooner or later, you'll become too busy to do some major editing on Wikipedia, in favor of real life stuff. But hey, I've been editing since I was a junior in high school. And speaking of, I was just talking to Jason Rees (talk · contribs) about picking up your efforts where you left off, that is, article mergers. I think a lot of the lower hanging fruit has already been merged, at least among storm articles, but the next place that'll need to be tackled is storm sub-articles. Take Hurricane Isaac (2012), which wasn't retired, and is only 4,600 words, and is sitting as a C-class article. It's been 12 years, I don't think there's suddenly going to be a lot of new information. Its only subarticle that could maybe stay is the tornado outbreak, but there's no reason for FL or LA. Now that you're back, what do you think? :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I might have time periodically but I'm going to try and finish the novel I have been wanting to write for the last couple of years but haven't seemed to have the time to tackle. I think it is a good idea to look over sub-articles and see what should be axed. Noah, AA^Talk 21:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh hell yea! Definitely take that time to finish some writing projects. I've written various stories and musicals over the years, and obv it's such a different style than Wikipedia writing, but they both weirdly go hand in hand. Your writing needs to be clear and have a purpose. And of course, it takes time to achieve greatness, but that effort is worth it if it's a passion project. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2023–24 South Pacific cyclone season buttons/doc

Template:2023–24 South Pacific cyclone season buttons/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Current storm infobox

What are we using right now for current storm information if we don't have the infobox? ChessEric 19:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Current storm information isnt allowed to be included period is the gist of what was said. This would include the current infobox, text, and watches/warnings templates. It violates WP:NOTNEWS and MOS:CURRENT. Noah, BSBA^Talk 19:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

When was that decision made? ChessEric 19:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday at AN/I. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editors removing formatted citations for bare URL citations. I opened the discussion over an external link issue and as non-weather editors looked at it, they all started pointing out how the "current" section for tropical articles violated NOTNEWS and such. Basically, a discussion for a minor-level debate (using external links over formatted citations) evolved into a removal of current/ongoing storm info once non-weather editors were involved. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Gosh dang it. Leave it to non-weather editors to pull this crap. They must have forgotten that we also have a current events template or they want to get rid of that too. ChessEric 20:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes Improvement Time!

Hello there! I am sending this alert to all members of the WikiProject Weather and editors who have recently edited in the realm of tornadoes.

There is a large and important discussion ongoing, with the goal to completely overhaul and improve the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The previous improvement attempt back in 2022/2023 gained almost no participation. This alert is being sent out so these discussions hopefully gain a reasonably-sized participation, so the F5/EF5 tornado article, one of the most viewed weather-related articles on Wikipedia, can be improved for all readers!

If you wish to participate, please visit: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Bret (2023)

This article: Draft:Tropical Storm Bret (2023) was declined by you and 2 other users, but I think it is certainly large and notable enough to warrant an article. It has over 20,000 bytes and almost 50 references with impacts from Aruba and Venezuela listed. With the things founds, the season article would not really be able to accurately give all information about this system. I went to the help desk, and they said to speak with someone who reviewed the article, so I came to you.

Regards, Shmego (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Shmego: The issue at that time was that the draft was a persistent target of sockpuppetry. The default stance is to decline the draft when the one submitting it is a sockpuppet IP/editor. I dont see why an earnest review cant take place now, but I don't have the authority to do that or move the page over the redirect. Noah, BSBA^Talk 18:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. That is a fair policy that I was unaware of. There is also no resubmit button now, though.

Shmego (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Alert: PD-NWS Violations

This is an alert being sent to all active editors on the WikiProject of Weather and any editor who has recently editors weather-related articles.

Editors on the Commons have received communication from the National Weather Service that the Template:PD-NWS, which is often used to upload weather-related images, is incorrect. There will be a discussion starting on the Commons Copyright Noticeboard within the next few days to determine how to manage this issue. Under the current PD-NWS copyright template, images on any NWS webpage was considered to be in the public domain unless it had a direct copyright symbol and/or copyright watermark.

One National Weather Service office has confirmed this is not the case. For the next few days, it may be best to not upload any image from an NWS webpage that was not made or taken directly by the National Weather Service themselves. Once the Commons determine how to move forward, editors will recent a new alert. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I am going to append this additional warning to @WeatherWriter‘s message: the National Weather Service emailed @Rlandmann today and clarified that the upload process does NOT automatically release a photo/video into the public domain. I strongly advise you not to upload anything under a PD-NWS tag unless it is specifically produced by the weather service. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

PD-NWS Violations Update #1

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an update to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

For starters, no "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred. All that means is the template is not formally deprecated and is still in use. However, Rlandmann, an administrator on English Wikipedia, has begun an undertaking of reviewing and assessing all images (~1,400) that use the PD-NWS copyright template.

What we know:

• Following email communications, the National Weather Service of Sioux Falls has removed their disclaimer, which has been used for the PD-NWS template for decades. This means, as far as the National Weather Service is concerned, the following statement is no longer valid: By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others. Currently, the PD-NWS template links to an archived version of the disclaimer. However, the live version of the disclaimer no longer contains that phrase.
• See this deletion discussion for this point's information. NWS Paducah (1) failed to give attribution to a photographer of a tornado photograph, (2) placed the photo into the public domain without the photographer explicitly giving them permission to do so (i.e. the photo is not actually in the public domain), (3) and told users to acknowledge NWS as the source for information on the webpage. Oh, to note, this photographer is a magistrate (i.e. a judge). So, the idea of automatically trusting images without clear attribution on weather.gov are free-to-use is in question.
• The Wikimedia Commons has a process known as precautionary principle, where if their is significant doubt that an image is free-to-use, it will be deleted. Note, one PD-NWS file has been deleted under the precautionary principle. The closing administrator remarks for the deletion discussion were: "Per the precautionary principle, there is "significant doubt" about the public domain status of this file (4x keep + nominator, 5x delete), so I will delete it."
• Several photographs/images using the PD-NWS are currently mid-deletion discussion, all for various reasonings.
• As of this message, 250 PD-NWS images have been checked out of the ~1,400.
• The photograph of the 1974 Xenia tornado (File:Xenia tornado.jpg) was found to not be in the public domain. It is still free-to-use, but under a CC 2.0 license, which requires attribution. From April 2009 to August 2024, Wikipedia/Wikimedia was incorrectly (and by definition, illegally) using the photograph, as it was marked incorrectly as a public domain photograph.

Solutions:
As stated earlier, there is no "formal" rulings, so no "formal" changes have been made. However, there is a general consensus between editors on things which are safe to do:

• Images made directly by NWS employees can be uploaded and used under the new PD-USGov-NWS-employee template (Usage: {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} ). This is what a large number of PD-NWS templated images are being switched to.
• Images from the NOAA Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT) can be uploaded and used under the PD-DAT template (Usage: {{PD-DAT}} ). A large number of images are also being switched to this template.

For now, you are still welcome to upload images under the PD-NWS template. However, if possible it is recommended using the two templates above. I will send out another update when new information is found or new "rulings" have been made. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

PD-NWS Violations Update #2 (Key To Read Third Section)

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an new update (2nd update) to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

On the Commons, an RFC discussion is taking place to figure out how to manage the template. No "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred, so nothing has changed. That is not a surprise as the RFC is still ongoing.

What is new?

• The entire Template:PD-NWS has been placed inside a "License Review" template, which is viewable via the link aforementioned.
• Most of the photographs which were uploaded to the Commons originally under the PD-NWS template (approximately 1,500) have been reviewed. Out of those ~1,500 images, only about 150 are requiring additional looks. Most images have been verified as free-to-use and switched to a respective, valid template.
• As of this moment, approximately 50 photos have been nominated for deletion (results pending).
• A handful of images have been deleted (either confirmed copyrighted or under the Commons precautionary principle.
• One image has been kept following a deletion request under the PD-NWS template.

How to deal with new photos?

Given all of this, you might be wondering how the heck you use weather photos while creating articles? Well, here is what you can do!

• If the photo was made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (excluding NWS), You can upload it under the PD-NOAA template via {{PD-NOAA}}.
• If the photo was made by the National Weather Service (NOT Third Party), you can upload it using the new PD-NWS-employee template via {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}}.
  • If the photo originates on the Damage Assessment Toolkit, you can upload it using the PD-DAT template via {{PD-DAT}}.
• If the photo is from a U.S. NEXRAD radar, you can upload it using the PD-NEXRAD template via via {{PD-NEXRAD}}.

What about third-party photos?

In the case of third-party photos...i.e. ones not taken by the National Weather Service themselves...there is an option which was discussed and confirmed to be valid from an English Wikipedia Administrator.

• KEY: Third party images of tornadoes & weather-related content can potentially be uploaded via Wikipedia's Non-Free Content Guidelines!
• Experiments/testing has been done already! In fact, I bet you couldn't tell the difference, but the tornado photograph used at the top of the 2011 Joplin tornado was already switched to a Non-Free File (NFF)! Check it out: File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg! That photo's description can also be used as a template for future third-party tornado photographs uploaded to Wikipedia...with their respective information replaced.
• NFFs can be uploaded to multiple articles as well!
• The absolute key aspect of NFFs is that they relate to the article and are not decoration. For example with the Joplin tornado, the photograph: (1) shows the size of the tornado, (2) shows the "wall of darkness", which was described by witnesses, (3) shows a historic, non-repeatable event of the deadliest tornado in modern U.S. history. The exact reasoning does not have to be extremely specific as Wikipedia's NFF guidelines "is one of the most generous in the world" (words of Rlandmann (not pinged), the administrator reviewing all the PD-NWS template images).
• Tornado photographs will almost certainly qualify under the NFF guidelines, especially for tornadoes with standalone articles or standalone sections.
• NFFs cannot be used when a free-photograph is available, no matter the quality, unless the section is about that specific photograph. For example, the photograph used at the top of the 2013 Moore tornado article is confirmed to be free-to-use, therefore, no NFFs of that tornado can be uploaded on Wikipedia. However, the "Dead Man Walking" photograph could almost certainly be uploaded as an NFF to the 1997 Jarrell tornado article as that photograph is the topic of a section in the article.
• NFFs currently on Wikipedia can and should be placed in this category: Category:Non-free pictures of tornadoes.

Update Closing

Hopefully all of that information kept you informed on the Commons copyright discussion process and how you can still create the best articles possible! If you have a question about something mentioned above, reply back and I will do my best to answer it! Also, ping me in the process to ensure I see it! Have a good day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Image you have on your userpage

Hello Its that a Tornado or else.. 77.77.218.177 (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)