User talk:HERB

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguations

Nice work with the hurricane disambiguations. I added {{hurricane disambig}} to just about all of those articles, but I've hardly looked at them since...they need a good cleanup. You may want to go over to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones to explain what your overall plan is and get some feedback on it. Jdorje 06:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I went to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones and wrote my comment about disambiguations and some typhoons (I think Maemi is a notable storm). --HERB 13:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hurricane template

For category talk pages, use {{hurricane|class=}} to avoid classification of the page. See Category:Unassessed hurricane articles. Jdorje 03:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I've done the work to avoid classification of category talk pages of typhoon seasons. HERB 05:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MOSDAB#The disambig notice. Thanks Stephenb (Talk) 09:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Babe

Your article on Typhoon Babe is currently a Start-Class hurricane article, and is being proposed for a merge. If you wish to to keep the article, you should state your thoughts on the article's talk page, or consider expanding the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Gustav

There is no reason to bold certain hurricanes. It implies that some are of more importance than others. And the recency of a hurricane also does not require bolding. See WP:RECENT. Ward3001 (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laying pipes

Hi HERB

You may have noticed I undid a few piped links you have created. Like [1]

While piping is often using when dealing with disambiguation pages, or the occasioanl hidden pipe - when dealing with listed items that may eventually go on to develop into individual articles, it can make sense to leave them as unpiped links to REDIRECTS.

Cyclone Wanda clicks through to Cyclone_Wanda#Cyclone_Wanda_(1974) anyway. Nothing else is really known as "Cyclone Wanda", and perhaps one day there will be enough information that Cyclone Wanda can be developed into its own page. If all the Cyclone Wanda links are piped links, that means some other editor (or yourself) will have to go back and undo each and everyone of those pipes. Not only have you spent more energy actually creating pipes, but there is a potential to create futher work for wikipedians. And wikipedians don't like extra work (or do they?)

Just so you know I'm not just taliking out my ass, there is a dot point at WP:PIPE that mentions this. Linking to redirects is a useful tool. Redirects are there for reasons beyond helping redirect searches.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: See also links

You've been changing the See also section in a lot of pages. Those links you've provided are also all redirects, but much longer than the ones replaced. (Also if they didn't have en dashes before, they should now or they will probably be moved by someone anyway.) Besides, I don't think you're supposed to have hidden wikilinks anymore.

I found it here: Piped links. Those should become articles in the future so it is better to use redirects (the shorter ones). Potapych (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piped links are allowed. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 16:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for comments

Thank you for comments. I learned some Wikipedia rules from some Wikipedians: disambiguations, piped links, etc. I'll study them more.--HERB (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:2008-09 South Pacific cyclone season

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1945 Pacific typhoon season

A tag has been placed on Category:1945 Pacific typhoon season requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1946 Pacific typhoon season

A tag has been placed on Category:1946 Pacific typhoon season requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello HERB! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Typhoon Designations

I've reverted your addition of designations to several typhoon articles as I'm currently trying to phase those out. Aside from the Philippine name, the JMA and JTWC #'s are almost entirely unnecessary within the article, and only the JTWC # warrants a brief mention in the meteo history. It's about the same as adding "(NHC Designation 01L)" to Hurricane Arthur's article. This is only for the English wiki, however, as in Japan the storms are referred to by number rather than their international name for some reason. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there are descriptions of designations in many other typhoon articles.--HERB (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the "trying to phase out" part :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese people always use international designation (for example, 1408). So we want information of international designation.--HERB (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Designations

The numbers are only used by Japan and nowhere else. This is the English Wikipedia where the main use is the international names. Therefore, the numbers belong on the Japanese Wikipedia and not the English Wikipedia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia and other language Wikipedia are for people of ALL the world. So please do not remove international designation !!--HERB (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haiyan

You seem not to appreciate how disambiguation pages work. They are only meant to be aids in searching, not places for content. So unexplained codes (e.g. "T0121, 25W, Maring", none of which means anything to me) and details about retirement of the name don't belong. They really need explaining (what are the codes?, what season where?) but the disambiguation page is definitely not the place for such explanation, that should appear in the articles. Nor should it contain additional links to any explanation; there should be one link for each entry, one entry for each article linked.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Typhoons

The numbers are different between every country. They're not only using the JMA designation. They're only used within Japan and nowhere else. As for their use in the annual report, I can say the same about every agency. Most warning centers list their internal numbers within storm reports, it has no weight on the situation. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine and dandy. We know they exist, yes. But are they useful to us? No, not at all. They're known almost entirely by their International Names which are issued by the JMA. The internal designations have no use on Wikipedia when people are searching for the storm by its name, not number. A quick google search will show just how useless they are. Searching "typhoon 1409" yields 189 hits while "typhoon rammasun" gives 3,610,000 hits. They're not used by English speakers, thus they have no use on the English Wikipedia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think international encyclopedia - Wikipedia should not neglect the minority.--HERB (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, however. The numbers are perfectly fine to be used on the Japanese Wikipedia, but the vast majority of users on this Wiki have no knowledge/need for them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is the English Wikipedia. But English Wikipedia is regarded as the international Wikipedia, because English is the most major language. So I want wikipedians to write various information about typhoons in English Wikipedia.--HERB (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) came up with a reasonable compromise, in my opinion. You can keep the international designation, but only as a brief mention in the meteorological history of articles when the storms are named, not in the lead. It would be something along the lines of "the JMA assigned designated the storm as Tropical Storm Rammasun (1409)" or such. This would be the only mention of the number since, as I've stated many times, it's essentially useless on the English Wiki, but I'm honestly tired of fighting you over this and I just want this to be over with. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming what CB said. I agree there is no real point to the number, just as there's no need to include AL02009 or whatever in Atlantic articles. Since most basins number TD's, then we usually mention it in prose what number storm it was (like TD 2 or whatever), so that if we want to include the number in the WPAC, it's best to do it in the MH, not in the lead. There, it just clutters the opening and would likely overwhelm the reader. The reader doesn't really know or care what those numbers are, just what the typhoon is named, since this is the English wiki. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs), Hurricanehink (talk · contribs), thank you for your advice. First, I updated Typhoon Rammasun (2014): described JMA designation not in the lead but in the Meteorological history.--HERB (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HERB. I agree with Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) here. But, I was thinking you can put the JMA's designation for only important and notable storms like Haiyan, Thelma, Tip etc. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Please stop adding links that are already in the references. Thank you.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 16:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But I want to add JMA designation to External links. --HERB (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Talas (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Typhoon Talas (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Typhoon Talas (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. N-C16 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Talk:Hurricane Tina

Talk:Hurricane Tina, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Hurricane Tina and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Hurricane Tina during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. CycloneYoris (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, issue was already solved with a simple redirect. No need to delete the page anymore. CycloneYoris (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Typhoon Nock-ten (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Typhoon Nock-ten (disambiguation). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Typhoon Nock-ten. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Typhoon Nock-ten – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about hurricanes and tropical storms

Hello. Can you offer your expertise in the discussion located here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Tropical storms and hurricanes: codes and numbers? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, HERB. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Typhoon Trix (1952)

Hello, HERB. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Typhoon Trix (1952), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]