User talk:Mitchazenia/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive2
Archive This 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.

Contents

A lot of answers

1) The WPTC newsletter is a newsletter we are planning to send out to all WPTC members. Currently, you are not signed up, but if you do, you'll receive one each month. It basically gives information on what is happening with the project, as well as some worldwide tropic information.

2) I'm glad you redirected Tanya. Unfortunately, there's probably not enough information out there to justify having an article on the storm. If you want to work on a storm, you should work on an existing storm that has lots of info out there, but doesn't have that much on a Wikipedia article.

3) I saw it. It's ok. Not good, not great, but OK. A lot of the writing isn't apropriate for a TC article. You can't say "Way outside of the season". Also, you can't number the possible storms, because no one ever said they were storms. With the exception of having separate sections for all storms, it isn't very different from the season article. However, I'm glad you're focusing some of your efforts on bettering existing articles.

4) There's no need to have Frances in Emmy's article. If you were to publish it as it is, it would likely be merged, given the low quality of it. No offense, but the writing isn't that good. Also, what is the reason for making an article on Emmy/Frances? If it is the impact section, then you need to make the impact section as good as possible. You need sources for everything in the article. Inline sourcing makes fact checking very easy. I wouldn't publish it until it looks good. Compare the article to Hurricane Irene. Irene was also a fish storm, but the writing is excellent, and it is now an FA.

One more thing, you can delete Matthew and Edouard from the LNBS, as both have articles and both are already finished. Bonnie also has an article, so that can be removed. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 14? is. The way you make a newsletter is by getting a group together and organizing one. For organizational purposes, you should join the Wikiproject, just so an active contributor such as yourself doesn't get forgotton about. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think 14's ready yet, either. You need a lot of information to justify making an article. Also, you don't have to be active in the Wikiproject. You do work on tropical cyclone articles, though. The Wikiproject is mainly a way to get the TC editors together, even if they don't go there at all. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
9) Yea, sure.
10) More information is needed. Just to let you know, I copyedited it, I didn't rewrite it (though some parts I completely rewrote). The impact section is only one paragraph long. Why should there be an article on this when that one paragraph of impact can go in the storm history?
11) I don't know if that's dumb, but you should work on an existing article. There are a lot more articles that need work than storms that are needed. You should pick a random retired storm that doesn't have much on Wikipedia and write as much as possible. We don't need an article on Erika. We do need, however, more good articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

12) That could be your biggest problem there. If you want to make an article, you should work on something newer. Old storms generally don't have too much info. You should pick a storm in the last 10 years. That way, you have a lot of data. The only problem is there aren't too many notable storms since 1996 that don't have articles. Here's a few suggestions: Leslie (2000), Fay (2002), or Hanna (2002) 13) Kyle could use a longer storm history and more impact. Also, it needs a copyedit. 14) I would say yes, but eventally. The articles in 2003 and 2004 currently aren't the best of quality, so the existing articles need to be bettered before adding new ones. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Iris already has an article, but that would be a great storm for you to add to. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, this is the newsletter.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:2004 Article expansion

Well, since we should wait to make articles on all the storms, maybe we could make a List of 2004 storms, like the 2005 AHS. Sound good? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 16:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. But do you have your regular email setup on wikipedia. If you do, you can go to my userpage and the press the E-mail this user link on the left side of the screen in the toolbox. Sound good? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. Just have to ask my parents. They might say no; So don't be alarmed. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't, too many programs already on the computer. But do you have Windows Messenger? It might already be installed on your computer; that's what happened with mine. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 17:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry again. Parents... >:( I hadn't actually made a screenname, I just had the program, but my parents won't let me make a screenname because they complain that I use the computer too much (I love WIkipedia). So we can iether communicate through regular emails or talk on one or both of our talkpages. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 17:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. So what should we specifically talk about; the possible creation of a list of 2004 atlantic storms? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I've never used Template:X9, how does it work? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 17:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Shall we move it into its own article? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 18:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Now we need to remove the list from the main article and write a summary. Plus, if it's ok with you, I think I'm gonna start Tropical Storm Hermine (2004). íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 15:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

1995 Ace Table

I reformatted it (link). It was going left to right then up and down, which is bad form, because it is hard to follow. In a sorted table, you should go ftom top down then left to right. Exception being if the table has many more columns than rows for formatting reasons, or other context. TimL 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A possible job for you

Please take no offense by any of the following. I was just looking over at the Simple English Wikipedia, and it is really lacking in hurricane articles. I notice some of your writing is a little simplistic, and you are interested in article creating. The articles are about done here, but there's a world of articles for you to make there. You are too valuable of an asset to have waiting around here, as what we're mostly doing is making small changes to get articles to FA class. Looking at your passion for tropical cyclones, you should consider it. It will need to get done eventually, and I'm sure there would be other people around here to help out there. I mean no offense by this, but your writing is a little too simplistic for here in places. On the Simple English Wikipedia, your work would be extremely appreciated, and you can write on just about anything about tropical cyclones, provided you use a spell checker. Give it a thought, and let me know what you think. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hink means that here, whatever you're trying to do has mostly been done, and right now you're left with storms that shouldn't really have an article to do. Hence, it may be a better idea to help the WPTC expand into the Simple English Wikipedia. NSLE (T+C) at 01:07 UTC (2006-06-06)
Exactly what I meant. A lot of articles are needed there, but none are really needed here. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You're helping, but not extremely much. Working there would be a tremendous help, though. Yes, you would have to create another account. Once that occurs, you can make articles galore. You could Sub-WPTC if you wanted to. Just be sure to do the important storms first (retired ones) before moving to lesser notable storms (like anything in the LNBS). If you are to do this, be sure you use a spell checker, and make sure the writing makes sense, but not too complex. Iris is OK, but could use more impact. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you would want to make another WPTC, you should bring it up on the WPTC talk page first. This way, you could get help if you want. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I brought it up there. You should put your input in here. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tips to good article writing

I'm going to be blunt. Your articles and LNSB aren't very good quality. The writing is generally poor, the sentence structure is generally poor, and you don't go into enough information. Because of that, here's some tips I gave out a few weeks ago to write a good hurricane article.

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) 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Aaaannnnddd....? You can still follow the other suggestions. If you want to make that an article, you have to add a lot more. If you can't add any more, then don't make an article. It's as simple as that. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: 1987

Nice, but next time, be sure to not copy and paste, and don't let the images go on top of each other too much. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kate

It's not good. Let me know when you have inline sources for the whole article, as well as more than the sources you are using. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you say. When you type, you need to type clearly. Please retype what you just said so I can understand what you said. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, you're going to need more sources, and you're going to have to use inline sources for the entire article. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If there's not enough information, then why would you bother making an article on it? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The impact should be the biggest part of the article. If you're having trouble having more than one sentence there, then there shouldn't be an article. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Three sentences is too short! You need more like three paragraphs, and that probably isn't going to happen here. Why can't you add to an existing article, instead? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding more to that, but you have to do a better job than that. You need to learn to start typing better. I had to completely rewrite the 1907 page, mainly because the sections were stubby and uninformative. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I might as well butt in at this point. The storm history can be lengthened a lot - use the NHC archive and the CHC archive are useful sources there. Also the CHC bulletins may well contain some impact information. Seeing as Newfoundland was the primary area of impact, a Google search for "Hurricane Kate" Newfoundland generates some worthwhile sources (I see a CBC story about it high up for example). Changes in post-season analysis are not worth mentioning at all - compare Kate to Hurricane Irene (2005).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still not that good. I don't know why you would pick a storm with no impact and no deaths to make an article. You should pick a storm that actually did something. I'll just copy and paste what I wrote in someone else's talk page. Please calm down with the article creating. There isn't much need for new articles. We need more good articles. If you can make a good new article, that's fine, but you're not putting enough effort into them. It would be more advantageous to put the effort you are using into an existing article.

Archiving

If you are going to archive a talk page, be sure to add {{archive}} to the top of the page to alert editors who may be unfamiliar with the archiving process here that they should not edit that page. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/t/User_talk%7EMitchazenia_Archive2_9c04.html"