User talk:Hurricanehink

2002–03 Australian region cyclone season 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. Z1720 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hurricane Frances, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hillsborough River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you mind taking a look at the draft to see whether it is ripe for a GAN once moved into its own article? If so, then please feel free to merge it with the 1945 Outer Banks hurricane, perhaps while changing the latter's title to 1945 Florida–Outer Banks hurricane. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Thank you! On another note, I find that going through others' work and making minor edits (i.e., reworking prose a bit, finding errors, and so on, as I did in the Frances/Jeanne articles) almost helps me more than starting on my own from scratch. I appreciate the others' work, while the process of refinement—so long as I leave the core of others' work intact—allows me to perceive issues of my own that I might otherwise have overlooked. Also, right now I am considering moving the 1878 draft into its own article, so please feel free to review it and point out any issues you see; I want it to be GAN-worthy as soon as I upload it. As always, I appreciate your aid! CapeVerdeWave (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: So does 1878 look GAN-worthy at this point? If so, then I will turn it into an article, but let me know first. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Good catch re: Canada! I have amended that portion to read one death in Galt and three in Brampton, but the Canada total still comes out to 10 when added up. Also, a paragraph in the Haiti section mentions 16 deaths: 11 in a church plus five bodies elsewhere. Does the death toll look better now? CapeVerdeWave (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Do you know someone who could fix the coding issues with the template that messed up the LDH gusts (now removed)? If possible I would like to experiment with the code myself. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from 2016 Sri Lankan floods into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).

When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Obi2canibe (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: my mistake, I added a dummy edit, added the copied template on the talk page, and I'll try being more careful in the future! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

1984 Pacific typhoon season 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Jeanne is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Jeanne has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, already have a question! I noticed when cleaning up Cyclone Fani that both UTC and IST were being used, I changed the IST time to be less complex (i.e. saying "in the morning of..."), but kept the UTC. I know the UTC is being used because that is what the sources and warnings use, but MOS:TIME says I should use IST, which I would do, accept that other cyclones are using UTC in those contexts, which one should I use in these cases, or should I do something completely different? For reference, most of the UTC occurrences are in Cyclone Fani#Meteorological_history. Thanks, – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Dude, see List of Philippine typhoons, i remember the question you asked me which is have you made an edit in an article that you were proud of, that did not involve the lead of an article? If you had atleast one, then maybe i was wrong. And yes, on the “List of Philippine typhoons” article, i had numerous edits on THAT article. So basically, you are wrong. Mickomicks (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mickomicks: - great, maybe that's a good place to start editing that won't lead to edit wars. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I have recently moved (or renamed) the Mactan-Mandaue Bridge Page to Sergio Osmeña Bridge to help distinguish it from the other Mactan-Mandaue Bridge which is the Marcelo Fernan Bridge Mickomicks (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Hurricanehink, anyways, I have a question, should every typhoon lead article, say this

Typhoon Insert name here known locally as Insert PH name here by PAGASA,

As an example, So should every typhoon article with a typhoon name from PAGASA, should be like this? Mastercane F X (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming "Instagram famous" with your adorable post about editing for the 25th anniversary of Wikipedia. Best wishes for your career and new partner. Bearian (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I just came to say hello

Also you’re a legend for creating articles so many people rely on!! ~2026-35124-5 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any advice for finding sources with material that I can use to expand Cyclone Hudhud? As I said on the WPTC page I want to get it to FA but it still is a bit short for a storm that caused that much damage. HurricaneZeta^C 18:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, some further questions, I think I've fleshed out the elsewhere section and expanded some of the other sections too based on your suggestions.

• I looked at Cyclone Chapala and the met hist is significantly more fleshed out. I understand the jargon but I'm unsure on how to properly (para)phrase it while also complying with WP:CLOP, so it's currently very barebones.

• @HurricaneZeta: - As for Chapala and the fleshing out the article, you need to ask questions like you're a journalist. Who/What/When/Where/Why/How. Who is affected, what happened, when did it happen, and where... that's all easy. It's the why/how with tropical cyclones that is really tricky unless you have a good understanding of how storms work. For starters, how did Hudhud form? Right now, you mention that it was a low pressure area. You should cite it to the prelim report, including all advisories where the info is already in the prelim report. However, there is a bit more info out there. You say that the JTWC began tracking the system on the 8th, but on the 6th they first mentioned the system in the STWO (significant tropical weather outlook). [out the advisories on this page]. As for no close paraphrasing, that's a good thing to keep in mind, because the advisories and reports are often complex. However, you can still mention stuff, such as the meteorological conditions that favored Hudhud forming in the first place. That would be low-to-moderate wind shear, good outflow, building deep convection, and warm waters. Those are pretty common ingredients for intense tropical cyclones, but it's important to mention. Also, why did it move the way it did? That would be the ridge to its north (per the first JTWC advisory). Be sure to use the rest of the JTWC advisories to expand the met history, as that's probably the single biggest thing you're not doing enough of right now.

• The lead section as well isn't the same quality as the other parts, any suggestions?

• @HurricaneZeta: - As for the lead, don't worry about that until you expand the article. It's very much on the short side. It doesn't feel like a $11 billion storm, not with how few examples of damage there are. Are you finished your search for information for impact? Did you see this source? It has more about effects in India. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm not completely finished with the damages. About these reports, I don't know how I can phrase them in prose without it seeming like a numbers dump, since the impacts in the reports are sometimes just raw numbers. Any examples or suggestions for how to do that properly? HurricaneZeta^C 02:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Find ways to include information together when it makes sense, but not so it's a numbers dump. Something like:

"Across Andhra Pradesh, Hudhud caused a variety of damaging impacts. The storm damaged more than 27,000 power poles and 8,006 km (4,975 mi) worth of transmission lines. The outages left 73 villages unable to communicate for up to two days. The cyclone also damaged 40 drinking wells, including 7 that were destroyed, with 39.4 km (24.5 mi) of water lines damaged."

• That uses the info from the report without regurgitating the info, and without copying it exactly. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it does, thank you! HurricaneZeta^C 21:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Alright, I expanded the Andhra Pradesh section, how does it look now? I couldn't find much more information to add beyond expanding from the existing sources, so I think that section close to meeting the comprehensiveness criterion. Additionally, does it go into unnecessary detail about the damage to the university and the zoo now, and is there any close paraphrasing? I encountered some phrases that I couldn't paraphrase further (like the roofs of all 16 canteens were stripped, and the walls of six structures gave way. vs. Walls of six buildings collapsed and the roof of all the 16 messes on the campus were blown away. in the source). I might be overthinking that, but it is also required to be free of it for FAC, so better to double check HurricaneZeta^C 00:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• How do I discern what goes in Impact and what goes in Aftermath, and how can I expand on the latter?

• Nothing in aftermath is misplaced, so that's good. The only thing in impact that seems out of place is mentioning that flights were suspended beforehand. That's preparations (note the "beforehand"). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• How long should the Nepal section be - does the current length with the main article link suffice, or does it need to be a bit longer to adequately cover what happened? 2014 Nepal snowstorm disaster isn't in the best shape so it might not be a good place to point readers for more information unless I improve that article.

HurricaneZeta^C 23:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• I thought on multiple times that the avalanche article should get merged (see Hudhud's talk page). I would focus on non-avalanche Nepal impacts first. Right now, you have:

• "On 14 October, the remnants of Hudhud caused severe avalanches and blizzards following a merger with an upper-level trough"

• That jumps right into avalanches, but first, you should talk about how a tropical cyclone led to snowfall. How much snow, what was the peak, that sort of stuff. Were airports closed because of the snow/freeze? Was there any rainfall from Hudhud in Nepal. Also, the info you have now isn't the most useful. You have "By 18 October, 384 trekkers had been rescued from Mount Annapurna" and "with close to 400 having been rescued." Be specific when you can. You don't need to update everything for the reader. It's been over 10 years since the event, so it should feel like everything is cataloged and organized. I hope this helps! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hurricane Frances, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 19 March 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey Hink, just wondering if you can resolve a dispute between @FourNoddlers and I. They've been mass adding the clear template to storm articles, supposedly to prevent text sandwiching. However, many of these articles have already been featured - so it seems that text sandwiching was clearly not an important issue in the first place. Their edits introduce a large amount of whitespace which negatively affects the flow of the article. I've tried to talk to them, but they haven't been listening. SolarisPenguin (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Camille has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 Jason Rees -- Jason Rees (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I saw that Camille got up to GA and you nominated it for FAC. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be asking this on the FAC page since I don't know if it's part of the specific criteria for it so I'm just gonna put these here. I have a few questions that I think should maybe be resolved, sorry if this is a bad place for them.

• The third sentence in the lede says "The third named storm of the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season, Camille" etc. I've seen some dust-up about similar sentences in other articles not having any source later on, is that in the article later on? Do we need to add it somewhere?

• In the Mississippi section there's a sentence "About four hours after landfall, an anemometer in Columbia recorded sustained winds of 114 mph (183 km/h)." The observation wasn't technically sustained winds of 114 mph, it was a "fastest-mile" of around 120 mph which was then converted to a 1-minute sustained wind estimate of 114 mph. Do you think we can leave that as is? I don't know how to explain all that in a concise manner for a sentence in the article right now.

MCRPY22 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hurricane Ivan, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomfield, Ohio was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Hurricanehink, I am Mastercane, but in my new alt, SPCMastercaneAlt2, I lost my account's password, but I have to retire from Wikipedia for 2-5 years, I am sorry, but I have to. SPCMastercaneAlt2 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink I am working on getting the 1926 Miami storm up to GA status or better; it would be a fitting FA sequel to Camille, obviously. But I see that the Florida section is a bit lengthy. Do you think it should be pared down or split into a Florida draft? The page as it stands, though unfinished (I am still working on the "rest of Florida", with more to go), is already longer than the 1928 and 1944 FAs, for instance. I think the article is a bit overly detailed at this stage, so maybe some sources or prose can be trimmed, and if need be moved into another draft. Another issue is that I could not find images for the Bahamas, so I had to use photos from Florida instead. Also, I had some trouble subdividing details into paragraphs, given the amount of unique information (i.e., about death tolls, unpreparedness, socioeconomic angles, the land boom, and so on). Maybe the "warnings and preparations" can be merged with the Florida section. Feel free to give the draft a quick look as time allows. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Thank you for the feedback; I have already made some edits. Do you think the Florida (or other) section(s) can be less 'descriptive' and more quantitative? In other words, should it give more statistics rather than go into depth about singular impacts? For example, instead of giving damage examples, should it say more about the number of buildings destroyed, rainfall totals, etc. than it currently does? Or is a balance fairly well maintained as of now? How should I proceed? CapeVerdeWave (talk)

@Hurricanehink: Is there anything else I can do to rewrite the draft, notably in the Florida section? Perhaps I still stress narration too much (i.e., fluff such as boat or tree damage, or a few blurbs), rather than statistics. When I focus on the latter, however, I tend to neglect prose, so the article sounds dull. Also, some depiction is needed to illustrate the scope and nature of the damage outlined by numbers. So I am in a bit of a bind without further feedback. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Organizing paragraphs is tricky; I often misplace tidbits, because aspects of the storm(s) overlap. Sometimes I try to write impact-specific paragraphs (i.e., for wind, surge, rain [i.e., flooding], tornadoes, and so on), but sources do not always indicate or discriminate between the causes of damage, as is the case when covering the impacts from the 1926 storm in Miami Beach, where wind and water blended together. Also, how does one deal with lines such as: "Over 60 people were rumored to have been fatally pinned beneath fallen buildings in the towns of Dania, Hallandale, and Hollywood.[64]" Does this belong to an aftermath paragraph—e.g., the death toll—or does it fit into a Broward County paragraph in the impacts section? To simplify matters, should I do holistic paragraphs for specific areas, listing deaths, damages, meteorological data, etc. together? CapeVerdeWave (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Yes, how do I integrate my sandboxes? I am intrigued. Please show me. (As an aside, is the impacts section looking a bit better now, however unfinished it is?) CapeVerdeWave (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: As an aside, do you think the meteorological-history and impact sections of the 1947 draft are too lengthy? This time I have endeavored to provide less "fluff" and more data (1926 will need a similar overhaul), but maybe I am adding too much detail—the opposite extreme—given that the draft is a main article. Finding a balance is still elusive. Anyway, I am interested in hearing more feedback. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick question: Can you have several FACs at the same time? GiftedIceCream 15:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@GiftedIceCream: usually no, but under very specific circumstances you can request to open a second one at WT:FAC. ^EF⁵ 15:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

As a followup, if you have one FAC, and it's going well, you can request to open a second one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Gaston (2004) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 Aviationwikiflight -- Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am currently working Draft:Cyclone Koji (2026) right now and one big problem I find with the page is that its met history is far too short. To fix this issue I have been looking for past BoM advisories for Koji, but I have not found any thus far. Would you know of a place that displays all of the past advisories for Koji? (I am also planning on expanding 2025–26 Australian region cyclone season eventually as met histories for other cyclones could really use the expansion). Jpuxfrd (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jpuxfrd: I'll jump in here on Hink's behalf, since I am one of the main TC editors for the SHEM. Anyway a group of editors have archived the BoM advisories using archive.today while the JTWC ones, which are generally useful for fleshing out the MH, can be retrieved from this website, which @Chlod: operates on our behalf. Otherwise, the BoM have issued a preliminary report on Koji here.Jason Rees (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

You reached out to me 13 days ago on the 9th about creating a username and joining Wikipedia, after noticing my "helpful edits". I think I will, especially how I have just added a topic on a talk page, but it's a big thing that I don't feel 100% sure about. I think what might be putting me off is that so far I've only made minor edits and might feel out of place alongside the improving articles to the next category of quality talk that I mostly see here. Also creating an account for a website is just a big thing for me in general.

But I've come today to talk about a document that I came across. The document in question (scroll down to Les cyclones du sud-ouest de l'océan Indien) seems to contain a list of tropical cyclones from 1911 to 1960 in the South-West Indian Ocean basin described in great detail in terms of meteorological history, although nothing about their preparations or impact. I think this could seriously add detail to this article, this article and this article. Adding it all might result in articles being split which I don't know how to do, which is one of the reasons I'm asking you to potentially have it as a task the WikiProject can do. The other reason is that it's in French. While I am learning French and can speak some, I don't feel like I can translate it without making mistakes. I've looked and no participants of the WikiProject identify as being able to contribute with more than an intermediate level of French, but then again I bet the WikiProject encounters sources in other languages all the time.

Apologies if this isn't useful or if I have broken some kind of rule or policy; I'm new to editing Wikipedia. ~2026-43637-7 (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This is to let you know that Tropical Storm Henri (2003) has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 April 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I have nominated Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outflow was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you care, if time permits, to quickly look at this draft and see whether it is a GA shoe-in? If so, then may you please merge it with the main article? Please feel free to give feedback first. (I tried not to get immersed in detail this time, a problem in other drafts such as 1926, 1947, etc.) CapeVerdeWave (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you today for Hurricane Hilary, "about a hurricane that struck California last August, causing unprecedented flooding across the western United States. Hurricane Hilary was at one point a powerful Category 4 hurricane. It caused flooding across Desert Valley, which I actually got to witness firsthand, including an image (not the best, but still relevant enough to include in the article)."! - I have Quatre instants on the same page, - fine video with interviews. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

on Bach's birthday, a story about my joy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC)