User talk:Columbia719

Welcome to Wikipedia, Columbia719! I'm Editor1769, and I've been assigned as your mentor. All new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! Editor1769 04:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've been editing tropical cyclone articles. Are you new to the site or have you been around for a while? If you're thinking of sticking around, there's a group of editors that are organized under the tropical cyclone WikiProject, which is a directory for all tropical cyclone-related articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited as an IP address since February. Today, I decided to create an account so I can edit the semi-protected articles. I roughly know the behavior of editors on these topics. I know the basics of this site. I'll probably stick around for a while, depends on how interested I am in these topics. Also, I will join the WikiProject. Columbia719 (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, glad you decided to take the plunge! Is there any aspect of tropical cyclone editing that interests you most? For me, it's mostly the more historical storm, seeing what are those benchmark storms for a given area, rather than whatever is the latest storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retired and record-breaking storms. I want someone who can develop them to and keep them at high-quality articles. It would make reading their articles easier. Columbia719 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. Lately I've been working on Hurricane Camille. Over the last month, another user and I have expanded the article, making sure it is properly cited has the right amount of information everywhere. But check out what it looked like a month ago, when there were still several sections that were way too short, or unsourced. There's also the List of retired Atlantic hurricane names, which is the directory page for all of the retired storms. If you go on the talk page, you can see how good the articles are in the assessment table. Blue means a featured article, while yellow means C-class and needs work. You can see that a lot of storms need work too! Sometimes older storm articles are in better shape, partly because there's not as much information to have to cover. That means a lot of new retired storm articles are in need of work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I found out when I was editing as an IP editor. I don't know too much about writing high-quality articles, but if someone can help me, I'd be more than welcome to start writing. By the way, the assessment table is outdated. It is missing the 2024 storms. Columbia719 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hah they were missing, weren't they? I just added the 2024 storms. I'll happily help out if you're interested in working on the important articles. Are there any older storms that stick out as needing work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! First off, yes. There are tons of storms I could list that need some work, but I'll only list some. Hurricane Georges is one of the biggest articles that needs work. There's so many unnecessary split articles and some information is not complete. The images are not of the best quality, too. Some older storms (e.g. Hurricane Greta–Olivia) have better quality pictures than Georges. Another contender I'd say is Hurricane Jeanne. So much information is missing that I had to use search engines to find answers. With such an active community, I expect better treatment of these storms, considering how important they are in tropical cyclone history. By the time I leave this site, I expect all articles on retired or record-breaking storms to be of satisfactory quality.

I'll probably not be able to develop all of these articles alone; I don't have complete knowledge of how high-quality articles are written. Assistance would be very appreciated. Columbia719 (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georges is a great example of what needs to be done. Over the years, a lot of the more impactful storms ended up having a ton of sub-articles, most of which were in mid-tier shape, while the main article suffered. Recently, there has been a push to merge these articles back in. You mentioned Jeanne - there used to be a specific sub-article for just the impacts in Puerto Rico, which then got merged. The problem is that a lot of people are hesitant to add information to articles because new info needs to be sourced, and that scares some people. Then there is the issue of wanting your additions to flow with the prose that is there. And then you might realize that some articles sound like they were written by a 12-year old - there's a decent chance they might've been, since Wikipedia has no age limit! So when you notice articles that have poor grammar, that's probably one of the easiest things to fix. It just gets trickier from there. Of the ones you mentioned (Georges, Jeanne, and Greta), Jeanne definitely needs the most work. I did a bit of work a few months ago, but then got distracted with Camille (it happens!) And the section that probably needs the most work is the section on Haiti. Getting good information outside of the US can be tricky at times, especially in a country as poor as Haiti, but there are some good options. ReliefWeb is a directory that organizes reports from nongovernmental agencies, and this link here is about Jeanne's effects in Haiti (but unfortunately also has info on other events too like the 2010 earthquake). Sometimes you might get good journal papers, like this, which you might find on Google scholar. Or if you're looking for something easier, Georges could be a good focus, as you could help bring up a discussion to merge some of the sub-articles. Plenty of options and tons of work to do! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I'll need help developing these articles. A newbie won't do a good job on their own. For now, I'll probably work on cleaning up Jeanne since there are sections that barely have a couple of sentences. Merging the subarticles first might be a good idea, as it would be easier to manage their sections. By the way, how does one get a article to be high-quality. I don't know much about that. Columbia719 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink, in case you looked over my reply. Columbia719 (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the reminder, I saw it yesterday and was busy and forgot to get back. Jeanne could be a good start. You mentioned merging the sub-articles, but considering what's left (met history and Mid-Atlantic effects) I don't think either are a priority compared to what needs to be expanded most (Haiti and Florida). To get an article to high quality requires having all of the information on a given storm in a given area, organized in the best possible way. Those are two different problems, since just getting the information requires a fair bit of research. Storms in the United States are a bit easier than, say, storms that affect an area that doesn't speak English (say, Hispaniola, where they speak Spanish or French). So if you start with Florida, I suggest implementing more information hierarchy. Start with meteorological effects in the state, like the highest recorded winds, the storm surge, the rainfall, and tornadoes. The second paragraph should have all of the statewide impacts. The number of deaths in the state, total damage, number of damaged/destroyed houses, power outages, that kind of thing if you can find it. After that, go area by area, starting with the worst impacts (usually where landfall was), and then the rest of the state. Does all of that make sense, hopefully? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I wanted you to finish your work on Hurricane Camille before I start working on Hurricane Jeanne. I'm not very confident in my writing and organization skills, and I still want some assistance on improving the article. Columbia719 (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about Camille, I'll be working on that one for a while, and I can multitask. I was working on Jeanne earlier this summer, so I have a fresh take on what's needed for that article. And as for confidence in your writing skills, that's everyone until they start getting used to it! No sense saying you can't do something before you even try. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was hesitant because I did not want to overwhelm you with more work, but if you're okay with it, I'll do my best. I'll start by merging the subarticles into the main article, then I'll check the sources to ensure they verify the text they're supporting. Columbia719 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, you shouldn’t just merge sub articles without checking and making sure they meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability. An article does not qualify for a merger if the sub article has valuable information that ends up getting deleted. In the Effects of Hurricane Jeanne in the Treasure Coast, you didn’t provide adequate information to add to the main article, so I will add it back. If you want to merge an article, the article being merged must have its information added to the main article. Just deleting it is not the same as merging. Thank you. WeatheredAviation (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I preserved the information in the Treasure Coast article during the merge here. I didn't spend 30 minutes doing nothing. I did check whether the information would be worth preserving, which was a little since the majority of information in that article was either mentioned in the main article or was uncited. If you believe there is cited information that wasn't added during the merge, you can add it to the main article. Columbia719 (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way, there is a discussion about merging Jeanne's met history. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. Analyzing sources is taking longer than I thought. I just decided to merge the content then analyze the sources. Will that be okay with you? Columbia719 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink, are you still there? Columbia719 (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, hold on a second! Don't just merge the articles. There needs to be a discussion first about merging them, especially since one of them is a good article. But as I said before, the problem with Jeanne's article isn't the sub-articles, it's the lack of information for Haiti and Florida, neither of which have sub-articles, and they don't need one either. They just need someone to write those sections properly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll propose it in the discussion. Columbia719 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need, there's already a proposal for merger for the met history, and I don't think you need to worry about the effects in the mid-Atlantic. That's a decent article, and might end up being needed in the end when everything else is fleshed out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. I believe there is some room for more information, considering the main article duplicates a section in the subarticle, specifically Delaware and Maryland. The main article is also missing significant information present in the subarticle. However, I'll hold off on merging it until you're okay with it. Columbia719 (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha mind blown, I had no idea Effects of Hurricane Jeanne in the Treasure Coast even existed! That should definitely be merged. It's way too short and poorly formatted, and there is a lot of overlap with the main article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll still check the article to transfer any information that is not duplicated and worth saving before merging the content there, unless you're okay with merging it yourself. Columbia719 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the page also made Effects of Hurricane Frances in the Treasure Coast. Columbia719 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The big thing that I wanted to focus on with Florida, either with my own editing or for others, is to make sure the section is in decent shape, since that's where a lot of the damage was. Good idea transferring the information, just make sure you put it in your own words intead of copying directly. The same might need to happen with the Frances sub-article, probably not needed considering the shape of the Hurricane Frances article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very significant to the local communities of the Treasure Coast, as minimal information was reported on in the main article. What is your reason to delete it? It is perfectly fine to have an article like this. WeatheredAviation (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatheredAviation:, hi, that was my fault. I was encouraging Columbia to work on Jeanne. I didn't even realize there was an article for Jeanne's effects in the Treasure Coast, since it wasn't linked in the Florida sub-section. Furthermore, considering how short the Jeanne article is (and how much of the impacts were also in the state), and how much overlap there was between the Treasure Coast and the main section, I didn't even suggest doing a proper merger. Apologies for that. But thank you for your work on Jeanne. There has been a push in recent years to not have as many sub-articles, especially when the main articles are incomplete. That's partly why I suggested merging the content. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but in the meantime I will leave the Jeanne article up because there needs discussion on why to merge it. The information included in the main article was only a tiny fraction of what actually happened. There is however a similar article on Hurricane Frances that I suggest be merged. In other words, the article would be Effects of Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in the Treasure Coast. Most sources state “Frances and Jeanne” rather than just one of them as they affected the same area in three weeks. So I think that would be a proper way to sort this out. Thanks. WeatheredAviation (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subarticles should be merged if it would be inappropriate to split it off. I understand that the main article is missing a significant amount of information, but the missing information is usually added to the main article instead of being split into a different article. Columbia719 (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of “appropriate information” versus “inappropriate information”? The article is well sourced and provides valuable information. Since the information was not added to the main article, I made a sub-article. Also, you MUST have a discussion on the article’s deletion in the talk page of the article. If you do not, it could be flagged as vandalism since the information was simply deleted randomly. WeatheredAviation (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I said inapprorpiate, I meant when there are reasons where an article should not be split. The article is not well sourced; there are uncited claims and paragraphs, some of which are cited in the main article. Subarticles are appropriate when the information would be too large to incorporate into the main article. When information is missing from an article, is it of common and best practice to add the information into the article instead of splitting it, provided that the information is not too large. The Treasure Coast is not the case. It doesn't even have 1k words. All of the information in the article should be merged into Hurricane Jeanne. A discussion woudn't have been necessary since the article isn't being deleted, but merged and redirected, and the merge would have likely gone uncontested had a discussion took place. Vandalism is, from Wikipedia:Vandalism, "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". "any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia," including boldly merging an article, "is not vandalism." Any experienced editor would not assume I was vandalizing. Columbia719 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Taking that further, you could easily have an Effects of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season in Florida, since there were four hurricanes that affected the state within a month. But even then, there are dedicated articles to each of the four storms affecting the state, and none of them are in particularly good shape. Hurricane Charley might be the best of the four, in terms of completeness. But Frances and Jeanne are both lacking. Frances in terms of Florida aftermath, and Jeanne in terms of Florida preparations and overall Florida stats (how many power outages in Florida, how many destroyed/damaged houses, etc). Whether there's a sub-article or not, more info is needed, and generally that's better to add into the main article, with sub-articles being split off if they are too long. Merging incomplete effects articles into incomplete main articles is often useful, and part of the bold/revert/discuss cyclone is figuring out how to manage everything. The goal is having the info there, and I think everyone is on the same page; the tricky part is doing it right. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging WeatheredAviation (talk · contribs) too. Sounds like we have two users interested in storms from the same season. A good solution might be creating Draft:Effects of hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in Florida. Seems like everyone just wants to make the encyclopedia better here, and dare I say, maybe even there could be a collaboration?! :P I'll happily help out if y'all need, but I agree that deleting information is not the solution, but also neither is calling the merging of an article as vandalism. Just making sure we're all staying civil here. I feel kind of bad because I set a lot of this in motion by not even knowing about the Jeanne sub-article at first! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I just got frustrated at first because I spent weeks on those articles. I would love to collaborate on making a Effects of Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne article! ;) WeatheredAviation (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be okay with this draft. I don't believe merging Hurricane Frances and Jeanne's effects in Florida would be appropriate. I prefer if their Florida sections were expanded instead. Columbia719 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what we are saying. We are saying merging Effects of both hurricanes in only the treasure coast. They left a permanent impact and are infamous throughout the treasure coast. Also, no offense, but you only have 70 edits and don’t exactly have authority to rule over entire articles. WeatheredAviation (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if the information is in a sub-article or the main article, there is still information to be added, such as the number of homes damaged/destroyed by each storm, power outages from each storm, and examples of storm damage from both storms, such as structures damaged by Frances that were destroyed by Jeanne. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I will absolutely add those figures when I am confident that information won’t get deleted WeatheredAviation (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's even worse. A Treasure Coast article would not improve the incomplete state of their main article. There is nothing wrong with merging them. Also, please do not escalate this by accusing me of ownership. Experience is also not determined by edit count. Columbia719 (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is the main article incomplete though? What is the treasure coast sub sections doing that makes the situation worse? WeatheredAviation (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this to the Jeanne talk page to discuss what's needed in each article, OK? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said "minimal information was reported [on the Treasure Coast] in the main article" and "The information included in the main article was only a tiny fraction of what actually happened." These are signs that the main article is missing information. Wouldn't it make more sense to expand the main article instead of creating a subarticle? Columbia719 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sub articles are important because there is enough information that a new article is needed. That is the whole point of a sub article. Also, yes, lets move this discussion elsewhere. WeatheredAviation (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Columbia, unfortunately by saying "there is nothing wrong with merging them", you aren't acknowledging the work that WeatheredAviation put into the article, and as part of the bold/revert/discuss cyclone, we are now at the discuss portion. How about I move the discussion for what's needed onto the Jeanne talk page? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their work is not being erased. It is simply being added to a more appropriate article. I don't understand what's wrong with that. Anyways, I wouldn't mind moving the discussion, as long as I can express my statements. Columbia719 (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move this discussion to the talk page on Effects of Hurricane Jeanne in the Treasure Coast? That makes the most sense since we are talking about that article WeatheredAviation (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hurricane_Jeanne#To_do - here is where I put the discussion. As there is still a legitimate debate whether the Jeanne sub-article is needed, I suggest that we either discuss that separately, or, if you're OK WeatheredAviation, turning the combined Jeanne/Frances Florida sub-article into a draft until it is finished. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about me? I'm not okay with the draft. Columbia719 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so opposed to the creation of the draft though? WeatheredAviation (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't address the problem of the main article, nor will the topic benefit from it. Splitting significant portions of information from the main article degrades its quality. If makes finding information harder, as readers would have to move between many articles to completely understand it. All that hassle would be saved if the main article was expanded to include that information, no subarticle needed. Columbia719 (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lionrock doesn’t yet have a consensus for merger, and the Dean merge is going to take a lot of time merging it right, making sure that once the sub articles are merged they there’s not too much info in any one section, making sure links get updated, whatnot. I’m also on vacation this week so I won’t be able to do anything major for a bit. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked you, I forgot you were still working on Hurricane Camille. I'll wait until you finish your work on Camille, and I hope you have a wonderful time during your vacation. Columbia719 (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea, Camille still has like seven tabs waiting on my desktop computer. If I get access to a computer I might try and do a few small edits here and there. Feel free to give input on any of the proposed mergers. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll try to polish the article a bit before I resume my copyediting on other notable storms. I also did comment on the Dean article, saying I'd support merging all of its sub articles. I updated its test page in preparation for the merge. But yeah, I'll wait until you return from your vacation and finish your work on Camille before working on other articles. Columbia719 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about Jeanne, how did that turn out? I know one county had a billion in damage, that’s probably the area that’ll need most explanation. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't touch it yet. I didn't want to do it by myself and I wanted you to finish Camille first. Columbia719 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camille is gonna take a while, so please don’t wait for me. I can help with copyediting or providing sources, but I don’t want to write Jeanne, not if there are a few other users interested in doing it. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could help you with Camille instead, That way, you'll have less work on your hands and I'll be able to do something more productive than copyediting. Columbia719 (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camille will require going through 50 page documents and newspaper articles over the last 56 years, with some of the aftermath lasting up til 2020. Jeanne was only 21 years ago and is in need of more work than Camille at this point. Your call though. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds quite tedious. However, I prefer doing hard work with assistance instead of medium work with no assistance. I'd be less willing to burnout knowing that someone is helping me. Columbia719 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get that :) Then in that case, can you go through the met history, and make sure there’s not too much jargon? Also make sure it’s all consistent with the reanalysis data. I don’t think there’ll be much more met history stuff at this point, it’s already pretty thorough, so that’s a good place to start polishing. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually working on the lead when you were writing, but I will go through the meteorology history section when I'm done copyediting the lead. It shouldn't take long. Columbia719 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. How does it look? Columbia719 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is regarding the following question: Should WikiProject Weather encourage the use of infobox collages for weather with standalone articles? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I hope you’re doing ok. It’s good to walk away from Wikipedia every now and then, especially if you get frustrated by lack of progress, or you hit resistance. That’s the norm when you’re working with other people. If/when you come back (really hope it’s when), I suggest focusing on what you can do directly. Infobox images in an article are pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of an article, so I suggest not bothering with them. It’s for a similar reason that I rarely bother with current seasons and current Storm articles. Everything changes too quickly, and there is little time for reflection. Not that I want to tell you how to edit, everyone should do what they want to do, that’s the beauty and chaos of this website. The tough part is getting everyone on the same page, which is usually impossible, and rarely worth the effort. I’d rather work on important articles that are being ignored, since those have the biggest bang for my buck (or edit). Again, hope you’re doing ok. The real world is on fire (especially in America) and a lot of people are on edge, but at least we still have an encyclopedia that everyone can view… for now. Take care. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had to attend a wedding. That's why I took a break. I'm as fine as I was when I left. I don't really care about the images too much. They're starting to affect me a little less. Columbia719 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was unnecessarily too wordy the see also section with comparisons to Milton which you have already undone may havw not been necessary to me so I have undone this so please you can put your edit in your user box (if you want) so anyways have a nice day. Hypercyclone 2 (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether they were necessary to you, MOS:SEEALSO says, Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. 13 links is not a reasonable number; that is too many. The section also repeat[s] links that appear in the article's body, which is not encouraged. Furthermore, many of these links do not appear to have been added using editorial judgment and common sense, with no elaboration on how these topics relate to the article. As a result, I have removed them, and I will remove more so the section follows MOS:SEEALSO. Columbia719 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just I didn't knew that before so the links in hurricane milton see also section there are 8 links instead of a lot. Hypercyclone 2 (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address all the problems. The storms linked are not given an explanation on how they are related to the topic of the article or ... in the same defining category. Furthermore, the see also section repeat[s] links that appear in the article's body. I've gone and made these edits. Columbia719 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why every time when I do a edit in any tropical cyclone see also section and and more links you remove it not just the part I and others added but every link why just please they may not been necessary to me. Hypercyclone 2 (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is removed. Only the links that do not follow MOS:SEEALSO are removed. You should read it. Columbia719 (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit on Hurricane David, I suggest you don't worry about other people changing images, especially not changing it back. They really aren't worth the effort. There are so many other more important things that need to be done, like writing and expanding articles, not wasting time quibbling over images. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm not working on writing and expanding, I check my watchlist to make incremental edits. Changing the lead image is example. Most of the time, I don't worry about it because the image is satisfactory. This is not the case. Usually, I compromise with people, provided that their compromise is satisfactory. However, there are some images that would not be acceptable to use in some situations such as the one in Hurricane David. I try to correct them, but some people revert it because they don't understand the reason, and making numerous failed attempts to communicate with them ticks me off. If it's really minor, I let it go. However, if the quality of the image is noticeably affected, then I'd reason with them on why said image would not be beneficial. What makes me a bit annoyed is that a lot of people are changing the lead images of articles, unaware of the damage they're doing. I wouldn't be editing these images had there been less people changing them. I'd argue that some discussions are worth the effort and time to participate, but there's a select few that aren't. This isn't one of those. I don't know what to work on the Camille article at the moment considering that you and I haven't been online a lot because of real life and didn't spend a lot of time editing. Columbia719 (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if you want to spend so much time on the images, I can’t stop you lol. As for Camille, there’s still lots that needs to be added to the article, mostly aftermath. Recently I was trying to figure out was how many parishes in Louisiana were declared disaster areas. And if you look on Camille’s talk page for the to do list, the met history could still use some work, not sure if you’re interested in trying to do either. Otherwise I’ll keep trying to slowly chip away at it. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Columbia719. I saw that today you have twice reverted edits on Typhoon Hagibis. If you are getting into disagreements with other users about images, then you need to have discussions, not revert. Please see WP:3RR - "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period. A series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a single revert." As you are only on revert number two, this is only a warning and a heads up. I suggest spending less time worrying about lead images and perhaps more on other parts of building articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to start another discussion, but considering that his rationale is based on factual errors, I thought it would be better to correct him. No warning needed, I'm well aware. Columbia719 (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've only had an account for a month, I wasn't sure if you knew the rule. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. I'd have done the same thing if I were you. Columbia719 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello colombia It's hypercyclone 2 im not in my account But anyways why are you doing this to ever article to almost every tropical cyclone article With everything In any see also section deleted in everything Why is that? I had a hard And horrible week, Have a nice day. 68.200.247.40 (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Columbia, sorry for the delay. I saw your message but had like 20 tabs open, and wanted to take the time to write back. As for the Irma merger, you're right that it's going to require reorganizing, but I don't want to add that to my queue. I'm not even joking, I think my computer is starting to lag because of all of these tabs, which is why I'm trying to wrap some projects up, rather than taking on new projects. There are several articles I worked on over the years that have fallen behind/apart, and many other articles that I wish I could devote the time to fixing up, but there are just too many storms, and too little time. Before Camille, I was startnig to work on Hurricane Jeanne, and before that, I was working on a few of the retired 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, not to mention wanting to fix Hurricane Isabel back up to featured article status (that was one of the first big projects of mine), Hurricane Floyd (another project I worked on way in the past, and would like to fix up again), Hurricane Mitch (another project of mine, another hugely important storm), and Tropical Storm Allison (feel like I'm repeating myself, but I worked on it and then the article didn't keep up to par), to name a few ongoing/future projects. If you want, you can leave a message, maybe on the Irma talk page, reminding that the merger still hasn't happened? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I keep forgetting about the Camille task. I oughta start working on it, but my procrastination is making that difficult. Also, I don't think it would be best to multitask right now, as it appears that you're having some trouble managing multiple projects at a time. I believe you should put my favor on hold, as it likely won't be the best for you and your browser to work on that right now. You should make a note of it somewhere where you can check, along with your other projects, then store the projects for later. Columbia719 (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with managing multiple projects at a time is that the sustained effort gets diluted. Especially if there isn't a pressing motivation to focus on a singular thing, it's easy to jump from task to task. That's why I'm trying to get Camille done. There's no time limit, other than maybe for the 60 year anniversary in 2029. But if I don't finish it in the next few weeks, I'll likely lose all motivation for finishing it ever. That happens sometimes, and I hate having forever projects on my to do list. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm suggesting is that you only work on Camille for now. That is the most important task you have right now. The best way you can deal with forever projects is to not think about them. They're not important right now, they don't matter. File them somewhere you can access, they can be done later. To help manage the workload, don't think about the whole task. Only focus on the steps you are doing. You're less likely to burn out. For example, if you're working on the Gulf Coast preparations, devote your entire attention to that task only. Do not think about the bigger picture, just the task you are working with now. Columbia719 (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but few sources work that way. A lot of sources talk about the preparations, the impact, or the aftermath, and sometimes a new source will bring up a new bit of information I need to research. Camille is my primary focus now though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, there are two ways you can deal with it. You could make a note of the extra information in the source, extract the content relevant to the task at hand, then put it aside for another task. Another method is to focus on extracting all the information in one source and placing them in their appropriate sections, although the latter might make you more likely to burn out. It really comes down to preference. Columbia719 (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh I've written enough featured articles over the year. I found the best way is to attack it from a bunch of different ways. I usually start by focusing on a specific area, then go to another area, and then to another aspect. Right now my focus is the aftermath, and that covers the entirety of time from 1969 to the present. Until a few days ago, that was the part of the article that gave me the most anxiety, since any sources talking about the aftermath would then have to be integrated somehow. Now that the aftermath has a bit of structure, it'll be easier adding information to almost any part of the article now. It's past the halfway point, so the hardest work has been done. Now it's about finishing it right. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit! You're on track to completing the task. Keep it up! Columbia719 (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Reference #2 needs a link Columbia719 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The MWL ref now has a link btw (not my doing). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Sorry for the wait by the way. I became so tired that I could not focus, so I went to sleep. I'll try to resume my work today. Columbia719 (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh eesh, just saw your main user page, sorry, I had my page window open when I took my dog for a walk and wrapped up the message before seeing what you wrote. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you're back, could you take a look through Camille? It's come a long way since the current collaboration started, adding 29 kb worth of coding. If you're interested in doing the work, the article might be ready for featured article candidacy in a month or so. That'll require all of the prose being as good as it can be, for the references to work and to be accurate, and for the images to be aligned properly, to look right, and to be cited. Any of those things are important, and would be worth a co-nomination once the article is at FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try my best. I'll start with fleshing out the sources, one citation at a time. The amount I get completed depends on the amount of free time I have currently. It likely won't take me a day, but I'll at least get something done. Columbia719 (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just know that any of the sources relating to the met history might be out of date, or in need of replacing, since the whole met history was written back in 2009, before the reanalysis. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll compare the source to the reanalysis to determine whether something should be included or not. Columbia719 (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding the rainfall map back in? It’s useful to cover the blank space pretty much anywhere. But it’s standard to have in almost every article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright nm, I got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there again, I saw you changing a few infobox pressures around. I just wanted to make sure you knew that infoboxes should list the minimum pressure according to the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre, so like the Bureau of Meteorology in the Australia region. Sometimes the infobox lists two values, one in 10-minute winds (which is the local RSMC) and in 1-minute winds, which is JTWC (usually). Wasn't sure if you knew that or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm using the values provided by their respective RSMC. The infoboxes do not list their JTWC pressure readings, so I'm doing the task of listing them using the JTWC ATCR website. Columbia719 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, that's what I thought, just making sure. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: What do you make of my revert at Cyclone Orson? Columbia719, it's also important that the infobox agrees with the rest of the article ... especially for featured articles like that one. I don't edit that much in the cyclone area; I just happen to have Cyclone Orson on my watchlist. Graham87 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I'll incorporate the information into the article accompanied with sources. Columbia719 (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all good now from my point of view. Graham87 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Columbia719 (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, not sure if you saw (since you were too busy worrying about "see also" sections :P ) but Camille is at GAN. You won't be eligible to review it, but I hope you're still interested in seeing the project come to the finish line. The good article nomination is an important step, getting a fresh set of eyes and identifying what needs to be done. At this point it's a review of the first quasi-finished draft of the article. That doesn't mean we're done yet, and there might still be work yet to do, but I don't think anything else major is actively needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning on reviewing it anyway; I still don't believe I have the experience to. I'm still interested, albeit not as strongly as I started joining due to personal reasons and project drama. Whether I'll stay on this site is a matter of time, but I'll do my best when I'm around. Columbia719 (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you're trying to do too much. Your edits to the "see also" section seems like a crusade. I think you should focus on one thing and stick with it. That's how I've worked over the years, and it's how I have several featured articles to my name. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that. It's the other stuff. It's not easy to balance personal stuff and an online encyclopedia. Columbia719 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Personal stuff comes first. You can't pour from an empty cup, as the saying goes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Since there's not much I can do with Hurricane Camille, I'll prioritize any project you're working on until I'm experienced enough to develop my own. Columbia719 (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then looks like Hurricane Jeanne is next, since that was next on my list to fix up! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I might need some detailed tips on how to manage these articles though. I'm not getting the hang of it. Columbia719 (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the trick is knowing what needs to be expanded, and what needs to be copyedited. A lot of articles are in various stages of completion. Jeanne, for example, has a pretty good section on Puerto Rico, because there used to be a separate PR article that has since been merged. However, the sections for Dominican Republic and Haiti are really bad for a hurricane landfall and for 3,000 deaths. And there is practically nothing for the Bahamas. There is plenty of good info out there, but none of it has been incorporated into the article yet. Do you want to try one of those three countries and seeing what you can come up with? For starters, the article needs a good working reference for Jeanne's TCR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll start with working on the current sources. I'll try removing unreliable sources before extracting missing information from the sources into the main article. I'm not sure how I'll work with the Florida section considering the soon-to-be-merge draft created because a user wasn't happy with their article being merged. Columbia719 (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with working on the current sources is you don't even have the tropical cyclone report! Start with this and make sure it's linked, since right now it doesn't appear in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll start working on it. Columbia719 (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm losing interest. I can see why no one is working on these articles. I don't want to edit Wikipedia anymore. Columbia719 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, you never really got into any article writing, instead you focused on infoboxes, the see also section, and images, none of which really matter that much if an article is woefully incomplete. I get not wanting to edit, but if this is over Otis or one of your other recent interactions, I think you’ve completely missed my advice of focusing on something smaller. I won’t beg you to stay though, so if this is it, I wish you the best. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. It's over other problems on and off site. The Otis problem was pretty disappointing but I'm not too annoyed over it. I might stick around for a couple days but I don't know whether I'd want to continue. If this is how participants will react in the future then their behavior is incompatible with my intentions. I'll try to get something done, but I can't guarantee it. Columbia719 (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, the more obscure and older a topic is, the less likely you’ll encounter anyone. That’s why I like working on older articles. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll start avoiding people. Columbia719 (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles that a lot of other people are editing probably doesn’t need the attention. You noticed that Camille was in a shitty state, but thanks to a bit of editing, now that article is in good shape. The same can happen with tons of older storms. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. My personal problems are still there and I'm not sure if I can handle them while editing this site but I'll still do my best. Columbia719 (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. I've had personal issues over the years on here, and I wouldn't be surprised if I've rubbed a few users the wrong way. I'm trying to do better over the years, and part of that is talking about the stresses (whether on or off wiki). Information is under attack and the US is borderline a fascist dictatorship. That's why I understand you being frustrated dealing with other users on Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind but I'm going to tell you about another hurricane editor, who made lots of edits, and occasionally got into conflicts, was blocked for a bit of time, and then came back more productive than ever, while working on some niche topics, and sometimes some contentious ones too, but that user has learned how to continue despite all of that. I think that happens for a lot of people. They get used to Wikipedia, and they run into obstacles, leaving them an option of leaving forever, or kinda figuring out how to manage one's editing habits. Hope you can figure it out :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you made a comment about needing detailed tips on how to manage the article. Check out my recent edit - this was a very brief pass through the US section, but I realized there wasn't a good damage total. Good thing I already had the reference from the Camille article for the damage total. Then I used the TCR for the US deaths - thanks for getting that link in the article BTW. Then I moved some of the information to the appropriate sections, made sure the deaths from the TCR got a mention, and moved the Delaware flood pic to the Mid-Atlantic section. The edit maybe took me about 10 minutes. I wasn't going to fix everything in the article, there's just too much to do, but there were some small fixes that were easy to do, which already make the article a lot better than it was. That's a good editing strategy, doing small edits here and there, until those small edits add up over time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]