User talk:CapeVerdeWave

Are we not aligning the rating in the center anymore?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CapeVerdeWave! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at QAnon that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished up the Tornado outbreak of June 23–24, 1952, Tornadoes of 1949, and Tornado outbreak of February 13, 1952 articles and am currently working on the Tornado outbreak of May 21–24, 1952. Can I please get Grazulis data for it? I would really appreciate it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane related has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted by bot.--47.23.6.178 (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of United States tornadoes from April to June 1954 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States tornadoes from April to June 1954 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 2-3, 1956 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear project member, This message is being sent out to encourage new ideas and feedback on those proposed in regard to the colors debate for WikiProject Weather. For those who are unaware of what's been happening over the last year, I will give a brief summary. We have been discussing proposed changes to the colors of the dots on tropical cyclone maps and templates and infoboxes across the entire weather project in order to solve issues related to the limited contrast between colors for both normal vision as well as the various types of color blindness (MOS:ACCESS). We had partially implemented a proposal earlier this year, however, it was objected to by a number of people and additional issues were presented that made it evident this wasn't the optimal solution. We tried to come up with other solutions to address the issues related to color contrast, however, none of them gained traction and no consensus was generated.

We need your help and I encourage you to propose your own scale and give feedback on those already listed. Keep in mind that we are NOT making a decision on any individual proposal at this time. We are simply allowing people to make proposals and cultivate them given feedback from other project members. Please visit our project page for additional details. The proposal phase will close no later than December 31st at 23:59 UTC. Noah^Talk 03:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to User talk:United States Man could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Words like “suing” make other editors uncomfortable and are not allowed. You had a fair opportunity to voice these objections in the RFC so WP:CANVASSING for editors to overturn it is grossly inappropriate. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to clarify that under no circumstances have I considered legal action against Wikipedia, nor am I interested in "canvassing". I am going to remove my complaint to begin with. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: The original section is here. Please feel free to remove it. I have enjoyed contributing here and do not wish to lose the privilege of doing so. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the recognition, re: editing tornado-related pages. When I see poor grammar or bad formatting or general misinformation, I like to take care of it. :-) Dym75 (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CapeVerdeWave. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 2-3, 1956, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CapeVerdeWave. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tornado outbreak of April 2-3".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the secret is out about that nightmare of a project lol. Help on that list is greatly appreciated if you have the time/energy for it. I worked for a straight month on it and burned myself out a bit. There are thousands upon thousands of newspapers to read and an unreasonable amount of digging for information that may have been lost to time. I think a university or two may have the original survey data from Fujita (which would be invaluable) in an archive but I don't know if it's accessible. Some of the formatting in that list is unique to that page but I did my best to find a compromise between verified research, what can be considered the most accurate, and weeding out blatant errors in a method that shouldn't violate SYNTH. Thoughts and opinions on it are also appreciated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there CVW! Good to hear from you. So there are a lot of options for historic currencies. I’m not sure if there is a gold standard version, but I found this website, where you could convert 1926 British pounds to USD. I wouldn’t suggest inflating it to present. Most articles don’t have that anymore, especially since population and building costs can change over the decades. As for the article itself, there shouldn’t be a shortage of info. Do you need help with any aspects of it? Lately I’ve been editing some lists, trying to have yearly articles like Weather of 2012. I hope we eventually have articles going back to 1800, if not earlier, for the year’s weather articles. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find this newspaper archive from the digital library of the Caribbean, and I found at least one article from DR's main newspaper. I had trouble viewing the newspaper from Puerto Rico, it said I had to be a member, so I'm not sure if some newspapers are free or not. I found that by looking up whatever was the oldest newspaper in Santo Domingo, and happened to find that. I'm not sure if there are other archives, but this one could be a good start. As for the image, I'm pretty sure it's public domain! According to this post from Duke, anything published in 1926 entered the public domain in 2022. So in case you might be working on any storms from that year and find damage pics, if they were first published in 1926, then they are in the public domain now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tropical Storm Jerry (2001) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Jerry (2001) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

''Flux55'' (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Jerry (2001) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1961 St. Petersburg, Florida, tornado has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't have nearly the coverage as most other tornadoes with specific articles. No injuries or deaths and only 250k in adjusted damage for an F2 that struck the northern part of a city of 250k when there are so many that deserve articles before this (I know that's an argument to be avoided for notability, but tornadoes don't exactly have clear-cut guidelines for what is article-worthy or section-worthy)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tornado outbreak sequence of April 17–19, 1970, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Here's a barnstar because after all these years, you're still writing and adding to Wikipedia. Cheers CapeVerdeWave and keep it up - ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that 1932 Bahamas hurricane article looks pretty good! Especially compared to when you first published it... 18 years ago! The biggest thing was expanding out the Bahamas section, which you definitely did, and I think the article shouldn't have much difficulty passing a good article nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea, there is a bot that will archive things and add the GA icon after an article passes the GAN. And it looks like it's been removed from the list of GA nominations. I changed the template to match other seasons, which also has the milestones. If it doesn't get removed in another day (after the bot does the next update), then I'm not sure about how to remove it from the alerts. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about the Wikipedia Library? It still works for me, that's how I've been able to work on storms like the 1911 Sonora hurricane. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's good. And yea, I'm trying to finish up a list of cyclones in the Comoros Islands, after the recent devastating Cyclone Chido. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking if you're finished with the 1932 Bahamas hurricanes? I can review it if you're done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, in that case I can wait til you're finished. I'm trying to finish up a featured topic for 2005 AHS when I have some limited time, so I didn't want to get sucked into another project, hope that's OK! I'm glad you found that Environment Canada source - that's a great archive for older Canadian systems. Here's how I would tweak the Nantucket part:

The storm disabled the auxiliary training ship Nantucket offshore New England, causing the ship to drift 50 mi (80 km) after high seas caused flooding, disabled the radio, and wrenched loose an anchor weighing 1.5 t (1,500 kg). The Nancuket also lost a 3-foot (0.91 m) section of the spar deck, and tossed a motorboat off a davit into the chart house.

I just moved things around, does that still keep the original meaning? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any Scandanavian sources, other than trying your luck with random Google searches on the Norwegian Google for [September 1932 Norway storm]. I tried that and didn't have much luck, and tried checking the Newspaper archive, checking for all countries, but I'm not sure of the storm was newsworthy in Europe. One last place to look for data might be in the raw data from HURDAT. Maybe there were some observations over those last few days in Iceland or Norway. As for the parts you brought up, the first item should be split into two sentences and expanded. The second one should also be expanded. I had no idea what Snæfellsnes was. I wish it said that the storm moved over Iceland. As for the third one:

"The hurricane left residents with a contaminated water source and little food."

And the fourth one could be simpler, talking about the hurricane destroying the churches and flinging the debris a half mile. Your call on the wording, but no need to be specific about how thick the walls are, I agree. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just checking if you're ready for me to review 1932 Bahamas hurricane? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe withdraw for now then, just so potential reviewers don't know that there are changes to be made? I can always review it later when you're ready. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to get around to that, but lately I'm focusing on getting my FAC passed. Any chance you could do an FAC review? I was warned that it might be archived without any input. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK wait what?! I know you've been on here since 2006, but I can't believe you've never gone for FA! Most of your Florida hurricanes that you've redone look like shoe-ins for becoming featured articles. Check out WP:WIAFA - that lists the featured article criteria. The articles need to be well-written, well-cited, not biased, have good referencing, and in general follow the correct formatting that you'd expect in an article. If you're not comfortable reviewing, no worries, we could use your editing skills more as a writer :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I can review that. Sorry, I've been a little busy the last few days arguing whether or not there's a coup going on in the United States. Fun times to be a Wikipedian... anyway, yea, Emily probably needs another few reviews, but it's usually wonky stuff, like verifying the references or images. So no worries about the FA review if you're not comfortable with that. It's a huge help you reviewing those GAN's though - I've reviewed quite a few of George's old season articles, and I'm super impressed by his work, especially since it's almost back to the beginning of the HURDAT era! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright just finished the review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I passed the GA review. Fixing the paragraph issue helped a lot. Considering the article length (5,500 words), a sub-article isn't needed. As for the listiness of the article, it depends how much effort you want to put toward streamlining/beautifying the prose. Also, for FAC, editors care a lot more about sourcing and images. The only one I think is hard to justify is the Bay Street image, which has nothing to do with the storm (since it's a modern day image of the street). Depending on if you can find authorship for any contemporary images, you might have images of the storm from 1926 being in the public domain already. According to Wikimedia commons, the Bahamas public domain status is 70 years after the death of the author, or if it's anonymous, 70 years after publication. Some articles are easier than others to get to featured status just based on images alone, like the 1926 Miami hurricane, because of all of the US damage images. That's not as easy for storms in other areas. If you have a certain article you've worked on that you're thinking of taking to FAC eventually, lemme know which one and I can give you a pre-FAC peer review that specicially looks at the FA criteria. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the stronger case for public domain is with the one from the newspaper clip. It says that the damage was taken by a Mr. Pomeroy. If you can find out who that was from the rest of that article, you might get his full name, and use that to confirm his death was more than 70 years ago. The book doesn't say who took the image, so it technically could still be copyrighted. BTW, before FAC, make sure all reference titles are in title case. (All Important Words Capitalized) I was told to do that for my most recent FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small thing - I removed the clear after the impact table, as that added a lot of white space (and visually it almost looks like an image). Maybe add a paragraph break in the Carib section? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1932 Abaco hurricane you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1932 Abaco hurricane you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1932 Abaco hurricane for comments about the article, and Talk:1932 Abaco hurricane/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1926 Nassau hurricane you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1926 Nassau hurricane you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1926 Nassau hurricane for comments about the article, and Talk:1926 Nassau hurricane/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no point changing templates now, but your close of Talk:2025 India–Pakistan strikes#Requested move 7 May 2025 (2) should in principle have followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure, i.e. the templates you needed are {{RM top}} with the |nac=yes parameter and {{RM bottom}}, both with subst: .

I think you could at least do an ordinary edit and add something like {{small|(non-admin closure)}}.

Bravo for helping sort out this rather messy set of multiple overlapping pages ... :) Boud (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This is to do with conduct by user Dicklyon in moving - I am informing you as you were involved in the move discussion at 1925 Tri-State tornado or 2021 Tri-State tornado. Thank you. Departure– (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a while ago I noticed that you made edits to the Tornado outbreak sequence of May 1896, in which you removed any mentions of the Sherman, Texas and Falls City, Nebraska tornadoes, however, you gave no reason as to why,

if this is vandalism, please don’t do this again

However, if there’s something I’m missing, reply here if I’m wrong about your edits 184.178.82.99 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@184.178.82.99: Those tornadoes belonged to another outbreak sequence, per the definitions here and in the article's second note. There was too long a gap between that tornado cluster and the next. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CapeVerdeWave, I noticed that you introduced new information within the article on Tornado outbreak of February 11–13, 1950 regarding differences in publication data. For example, official records (like NCEI) suggest that 18 people were killed and 77 were injured in the Shreveport tornado, while other publications lead to a death toll of 8 people with 30 injured being included. I am trying to figure out the best way to handle these cases in order to list the deadliest Louisiana tornadoes in this draft article while clarifying these differences in sources in order to make the information more verifiable. If you could help me out with doing this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 23:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisWx: Indeed, old NCEI/SPC data are often erroneous and have not been updated. If possible, I rely on Grazulis or other official reanalyses. (Grazulis is used as a semi-official source by government agencies—i.e, NOAA—of pre-1950 data, and given well-known issues with the official records, I treat him as reliable overall.) Personally, I would go by the article, but specify discrepancies (maybe ranges?). Someone else is better at formatting, however. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you very much for telling me how to go about this and for helping out with the draft. I appreciate you doing this. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 22:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have moved 1971 Mississippi Delta tornado outbreak despite the title having been chosen by a recent RM discussion.

I don't think this is the right way to proceed. The RM result cannot be simply ignored. Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andrewa: You may be right; nevertheless, I thought the change was slight (I removed uppercase Tornado Outbreak), so I went ahead. Normally lowercase is used in these cases. Next time, though, I will discuss changes beforehand and heed RM results. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CapeVerdeWave. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:1961 St. Petersburg, Florida, tornado, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Atlantic hurricane best track § Harvard cite issues possibly stemming from this Template. Also see: Talk:Effects of the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane in Florida#Harv warning on Ref #2. - Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Aviationwikiflight was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of events). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:1961 St. Petersburg, Florida, tornado and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CapeVerdeWave! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As with Tornadoes in Oklahoma, I'm starting another tornado mega-list, but this time I need some major help. I'm reaching out because you frequently edit tornado topics; I'm hoping on eventually taking this through an WP:FLC. Thanks! — ^EF⁵ 15:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: I prefer to work on one tornado article at a time; I would rather finish the Florida draft first. Maybe you could help as well? After all, drafts need to be edited on a frequent basis before deadlines run out, lest the drafts be removed. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the Alabama list so I'll get to helping with Florida now. ^EF⁵ 20:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh damn that's a long time ago to try and find good sources for Haiti. There's a chance you might find some good info by searching in French. I see you already used this source, and that's the kind of source that I expected for the time period. The only other bet will be using older newspaper archives, but it looks like the oldest newspaper in Haiti wasn't started until 1896. Here's an archive, but I don't suspect there will be much for an 1878 storm. The best bet might be doing random searches for French terms like [1878 Haiti septembre ouragan], but I didn't have much luck in my quick glance.

As for 1888, that's looking pretty good! Interesting to see a tornado outbreak so long ago. I think you have a lot of articles that could easily become a featured article. Some of the bigger ones you've done might be fairly doable, such as the 1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane (especially if you merged the Florida sub-article). The tricky parts about getting an FA are the amount of info needed to be complete (which differs depending on how significant the storm was!), how the info is presented, and, most importantly, if it impresses the reviewers enough to get a support. The last part is one of the underlooked parts of the FA process, how to get that support. The article could be in fine shape, but if there are no reviewers, then it won't get promoted. So it helps when you have an article and narrative that you're pretty sure is interesting, and is as good as it's going to get. That might be easier for a smaller article, but sometimes the storms that are too minor just don't impress the reviewers, and the article gets ignored.

Of the articles you've worked on over the years, what do you think is closest, or the best bet, for FAC? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some further digging. I don't know of a specific French newspaper archive. I tried doing some Google searches in French, some variations of [Haiti 1878 tempete deces], the last two words being "storm" and "deaths". I then remembered the NHC list of deadliest storms, which just references the Monthly Weather Review, which only says "a number of deaths" in a few different locations, but no death totals. Maybe do some newspaper searches for those towns, Aux Cayes, Aquin, and Cavaillon, and see if you get any hits for 1878?

And as for other Florida hurricanes, you've done a lot of great work, and so has 12george. Probably any landfalling major hurricane in Florida would make for a good FA, provided you get a good handle on the information. In that regard, perhaps the 1933 Florida–Mexico hurricane is a good start, since it didn't have as bad of impacts as any of the other ones you mentioned. The worst part about the FAC process is having to deal with a lot of nitpicks, and sometimes you second-guess your abilities as a writer. And even if you persevere, there's a chance people still won't review the article. So sometimes it's good to nominate big important storms, to hopefully catch people's attention, in which case 1932 Abaco hurricane is another good bet, since it was a Category 5 hurricane. You noticed, in the 1935 Yankee hurricane, that the "recovery" section can take some time, and that's one of the most annoying parts of writing an article, knowing how much aftermath to cover. Technically the aftermath covers the entirety of the period from the storm to the present day, but rarely is there long-term aftermath (except for big notable hurricanes). I think above all, whatever is driving you to edit, keep that going! It can be a slog at times, feeling like the work is invisible, but just know that at least one person appreciates what you're doing! (me, obviously :P ) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right about the sorry state of information for non-US storms that far back. Nowadays, there would be news from various news agencies and nongovernmental agencies, but back then you'd be lucky to get a mention. Doubly tricky is that it's in a different language. That's partly why I like focusing on certain areas and doing an entire list of storms, like when I did List of California hurricanes. You end up finding sources that talk about a few storms. But that's about the only scenario where you might find a treasure trove of information for Haiti damage for the 1878 storm, unless you wanna try contacting people on the French Wikipedia to see if they have more luck.

And as for your writing style, you're halfway there actually! Anytime you write an article, you have to deal with two things - incorporating the information, and then talking about it in the right way. That means having good informational hierarchy, sentence structure, and flow. An example of a poor article would be having basic list of damage by town, like, "In X location, the storm destroyed 5 houses. In [Y location], the storm destroyed 8 houses." So a stronger way to present the information would be saying something like, "the hurricane destroyed dozens of houses across various towns, including [X and Y locations]." Part of that information hierarchy also includes starting paragraphs with an intro to what the paragraph is going to be about. You probably already do that anyway, but it's good to keep similar information together. And then when possible, streamline the prose.

You might've noticed how many articles have been merged over the years, but in general that information still exists on Wikipedia. It just might be written in fewer words and not go into so much detail. And that's something you should keep in mind for your prospective FAC's, seeing where you can streamline your writing. A lot of writers err on the side of caution and write too much, just like I'm doing right now in this reply :P The trick is, how can you maximize your words for efficiency? It's not usually in the vocabulary, and sometimes, using obtuse words leads to bloviating and longwinded platitudes of mindless verbiage. So with all of that being said, are you leaning toward the 1929 Bahamas one, or maybe one of the others, for FAC? Whichever one you pick, I'll do a formal peer review, and try and point out where/how you can improve your prose. I'm glad to help you with the process. It's the main reason I'm still on this website, because I still believe strongly in the idea of presenting information in the best possible way for everyone to be able to read. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the right track with those edits. It's one thing getting the information in the article, but then it's another presenting it the best possible way. For example, the first edit you mentioned, could be simplified further to:

"A tropical storm was first observed on September 1 about 500 miles (800 km) east-southeast of Trinidad, although it may have formed earlier, possibly as far east as the Cape Verde islands." - so a few things I did here that I want to point out. First, while it's neat the storm formed closer to Suriname than Trinidad, it doesn't matter much for context if Suriname is never mentioned, whereas IMO it might be useful mentioning the proximity to the first place it affected. Second, I personally rarely link HURDAT in met histories, since it is a database that is regularly changing. What's more useful is if you get stuff from the reanalysis that you could use for the prose. For example, maybe HURDAT/reanalysis mentions a specific ship that observed the storm. You can then say "Early on September 1, [X ship] first observed a tropical storm, although later analysis suggested that the storm could have formed as far east as the Cape Verde islands." It's a minor example, but just pointing out ways of maximizing your words in a sentence. I try avoiding passive voice when I can, so it's good when you have stuff like "A ship observed", "the storm destroyed", whatnot. It's tricky for older storms where you don't have a definitive narrative, so you're stuck mentioning what Chenoweth analyzed, which is fine. Here's another part that could use some work, as an example.

"An eyewitness reported that people sheltered on ground floors during the storm, while outside shutters, tiles, tree branches, and roof bits "were flying in every direction", with few buildings surviving unscathed. The observer also noted that "not a boat was left afloat in the harbor", with "scores" of vessels being sunk or "utterly" wrecked, including the harbormaster's launch. Seven lighters and the schooner May Morn were driven ashore, their goods strewn along 2 mi (3.2 km) of coast. Cordage and sails were torn off three larger boats as well."

Here's what I would change it to.

Residents rode out the hurricane in the ground floor of buildings, although few structures survived unscathed. High winds flung shutters, tiles, tree branches, and roofs as debris. In Port of Spain, the hurricane wrecked or sank the boats in the harbor, including the harbormaster's launch. The storm also washed ashore seven lighters and one schooner, leaving behind debris along 2 mi (3.2 km) of coast."

I avoided the quotes, since they're not really that useful as far as quotes, and the information is still citable. Also, it might be an assumption here, but when you mention the harbor, I'm guessing it's Port of Spain, since that was/is the main harbor of Trinidad. Specifics are good when they provide context, that's why I linked/mentioned the port here, but I didn't mention the schooner's name, since the May Morn doesn't have an article. BTW, I found the newspaper article that you already cited from an archive of the Bermuda royal gazette.

So in general, I'd suggest avoiding quotes when you can, avoid passive voice where possible, and streamline information where you can. Your writing wasn't bad btw, it could just use some spicing up here and there, and I think that's the tricky part of where you're at. The hardest part is even finding the drive to write in the first place, and knowing that it takes time to get things perfect, so as long as you can keep that drive going, you'll be able to get your featured article(s) sooner than later! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to point out one problem with writing older articles, versus newer ones. Older sources won't have as much information, by their very nature of more limited reporting/recordkeeping, but also the population. So that means that some storm effect subsections might feel like lists of areas where storm damage occurred, and happened. The trick is to figure out the best way of expressing the information. I think I asked you before, but was there one article you felt particularly proud of, or could be an easy FA candidate? Not that I want to influence your opinion, but I think the 1932 Abaco hurricane could be a decent option, since it was a Cat 5 hurricane that didn't produce a crazy amount of impacts. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane related has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. element 13:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]