{{hurricane}} I would have waited until September 1. But I think Frances has made it clear that it's going to do something eventually. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) I kinda like the infobox, but what would we have in it after the storm's gone? Nuke it? And should it be put in all major storm articles? --Golbez 05:02, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC) :I'm more worried about people littering images around that are going to be of no use once the storm's over. We're not going to want the storm track image in a week, people. -- Cyrius|✎ 11:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Getting ready == Okay, it looks like Frances will come pretty close to me just like Charley. I will try to get some NEXRAD picture again, when it comes ashore. Awolf002 03:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Where are you, now? I'm in Tampa. Mike H 03:15, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC) Lakeland... Having fun, yet? Awolf002 03:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I sure am glad nothing's come towards me this season. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) :We're on the other side of it so we're functioning as normal. If school closings need to be added to the article, the University_of_Central_Florida have canceled classes for the rest of the week, and not only have the University_of_North_Florida canceled classes, they have asked all the students to evacuate the dorms completely. Mike H 12:23, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC) ::Please, no school closings. That information's too low-level ''and'' of transient interest. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::The information can be removed after the fact. This stuff affects tens of thousands of people and needs to be reported. Mike H 18:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC) ::::Wikipedia is not a news site. It's just very very up to date. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) :You're right. Let's report the important stuff — and after the fact. Awolf002 14:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) I heard this morning that Polk County will suspend school, Friday. This thing is pretty big and will send us tropical storm winds over here, regardless of where it's going. Awolf002 13:04, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Oh, yeah, definitely. My point is that Hillsborough and Pinellas won't be on the brunt of the storm, even when it passes over the state. It seems like it'll head to our north. Like Hernando and Pasco. It's not much to the north but it's enough to spare lots of damage. Mike H 13:06, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC) Right. Still, cross all the fingers you've got!! Awolf002 13:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Hey! What about me? I'm heading to Disney World on the 9th. I hope nothing happens on my vacation --Tornado Kid 17:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) (a.k.a. WikiPediaAid) Mmhhh... The NEXRAD picture does not look very instructive right now. We might just want to use a visible pix for the point in time when it makes landfall in FL. Or something completely different Awolf002 19:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::That's because the center's on the edge of NEXRAD's effective range. It shows up, but not very well. Between the radars in Miami and Melbourne, I think we can get a decent image if Frances holds together. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) Okay, the Melbourne radar seems to show some nice resolution of the center. I will concentrate on that one tonight. Awolf002 15:09, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Note that the eye looks enormous because it is. NHC says 70 nmi. The other radar to watch is the one in Miami, although it's a bit further from the expected landfall location. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Storm forecasting thread == Here's an ongoing real-time forecast discussion thread on Frances from the storm chase community: Http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3436_Stormtrack == Storm Track == I vote to remove the predicted strom track! It's always out of date, and now the caption and picture are out of sync, too. Let's not confuse people! Awolf002 13:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) :The storm track can be described in the article itself (and can be changed much easier). Mike H 13:37, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) I would prefer to leave it. For me, the more pictures, the better. --AAAAA 14:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Just as long as people are uploading over the old image and aren't uploading to new file names, I'm not going to argue against it. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Keith Edkins == I only updated because you hadn't changed the time. I thought it was odd that most of the positions and speeds were the same. :) HOWEVER, some aren't, and that's confusing me. Check the diff between you and me; some of my numbers (obtained directly from the NHC) don't match your's. Where did you get your figures from? --Golbez 15:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) ==First-hand accounts== Just wanted to check with everyone about this, since I know it might bother some people a little. My entire maternal family is Bahamian, and we've been getting cell phone calls periodically from family telling us what's been happening in the islands. Do you mind me adding in the basic facts from their accounts, even though I can't link to sources? One of my uncles is a hurricane tracker, so it's not like it's coming from completely useless sources, but I want to make sure I don't start adding in information when people might only want information that can be linked to on-line or some such. Maybe it's a ridiculous question, but I figured it's worth asking. (For the record, the only edit with first-hand accounts I've made so far is here.) Beginning 21:24, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) :Don't see any reason why it shouldn't be - it could be argued that it's original research, but I won't muck with it. We'll have to see what a more veteran Wikipedian has to say on the subject, though. --Goobergunch 21:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::I think this is tricky. I laud your intentions, but Wikipedia is not a news site. It tries to select information from trusted and (at least in principle) verifiable sources, in order to compile all human knowledge. Maybe it's okay to add those if clearly marked as "unverified reports"? But I would expect those sections will be "edited" out as soon as news comes through other more trusted sources. Just my 2 cents. Awolf002 21:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::I'm aware of the intent and that it's not a news site, but I figured since the page is clearly marked as an "ongoing event", updates on the situation might be worthwhile and completely appropriate. I've since sourced as much as possible, so no "unverified reports" disclaimers should be necessary. I also removed some things that I know to be true from everything we're hearing, but which I can't find actual articles on (I'll check the Nassau papers in a day or two to see if they're fully back yet). Thanks for the input. Beginning 22:52, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) ==Landfall== At the moment, landfall looks imminent at West_Palm_Beach,_Florida. I know the "be bold!" thing and all that, but I wanted to get input. Anyone think it should be changed? Mike H 19:28, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC) :*glances at radar* Sounds good to me. --Goobergunch 19:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) Well, the western eyewall is now over the coast between Ft. Pierce and West Palm Beach. But I think the NHC will call it landfall when the center of the storm is over land. So not yet... Awolf002 01:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Max Mayfield, director of the NHC, said on CNN ''I believe'' (it may have been Larry King saying that Mayfield said it) that landfall occured just north of West Palm Beach. Not a conclusive source, but something. So far as I know, landfall occurs when any portion of the eyewall passes over land. --Golbez 01:51, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) Okay, then the next Hurricane status update should tell us officially. Awolf002 01:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I was wrong; CNN just said landfall only counts when the CENTER of the eye is over land. Isn't this storm completely screwed up? The eye is 50 miles wide and the storm is moving 5mph. The eye will be over areas for up to 10 hours! --Golbez 04:34, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) ::Looks like it doesn't matter anymore. Looks like the center's on shore, or damn close to it. As for being in the eye for a long time, the NHC forecasters have commented on it in the discussions. "those in the path of the center will experience the calm of the eye for a long period of time." -- Cyrius|✎ 04:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::CNN reported that the NHC reported at 1am that the center was on shore; since there is no specific update on the website, though, I haven't updated the article. I want specifics. --Golbez 05:24, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) I switched it back to Fort Pierce a while ago. Mike H 05:25, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) I just now looked at the talk page and saw you all had a surprisingly democratic system going regarding content. I uploaded the landfall radar image Bigpicture0457xx.png for historical purposes... it's actually a pretty neat graphic, but if you decide on something else that's cool. But hopefully it works for you. Timvasquez 05:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I think that's a very good graphic to keep once the storm is over. Mike H 05:29, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) Just check with the picture copyright policies of Wikipedia, since your picture has not the "normal" copyright for US governement generated graphics, which makes them free for '''every''' use. Awolf002 08:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I think that's a very bad graphic to keep because it's non-commercial only and we have adequate public domain substitutes. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::Ok, ok, I updated it to public domain. Awolf: this is not a government-''authored'' image; please see resources on copyright protection of value-added derivatives of government works (e.g. here -- there are industries such as GIS built on this principle). In any case I've removed the image until you all decide what you want to do. Timvasquez 16:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::It didn't have to be PD. It's just that we try to avoid licenses with restrictions who can reuse Wikipedia's stuff. It's part of that "free encyclopedia" thing. GFDL would have been just peachy, and there's several others that are acceptable. It's a nice image, and since the licensing seems to be sorted out I'd rather use it than NOAA's single radar views. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) : Right, it is a great picture but it had restrictions mentioned. If we can have it under GFDL, that would be nice! Awolf002 22:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Evac map == I think we should keep the evacuation map around, but only one that shows the highest amount of evacuations; I'm not sure if the one up there now is a more recent one than the original. It would be useful to show just how many evacuations there were, and less so as a news resource. But I'm not sure if the one there now shows the full extent of the evacuations. --Golbez 05:59, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) :The one that's up now is from the 3rd. If nothing else, we need to clarify that it's not up-to-date at all. Beginning 16:31, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) == Historical record vs News== When this article has stablilized and become history, we should use many different versions of Image:Hurricane_Frances_track.gif (a pesky gif, should be converted later on too), to illustrate the path as it was expected before and during the storm. {{User:Sverdrup/sig}} 15:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Which ones? There's 47 of them on the NHC servers at last count. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::this one is good, I think. {{User:Sverdrup/sig}} 17:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Track == If someone can come up with a GFDL/PD historical track for Frances, upload it over Image:Hurricane_Frances_track.gif. The image has been removed because it contains the forecast track which is, surprise, no longer relevant to the article. On the other hand, a historical track would be quite relevant. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==Territories Affected== The box currently lists both Florida and the "East Coast of the United States" as affected territories. However, since Florida is part of the East Coast, this reads a little awkwardly to me. Can we change the East Coast part to something more specific? Also, I believe that it was never anything more than a tropical depression beyond Florida, so if the East Coast line is simply referring to the rains from what was left of Frances, maybe it's not necessary to begin with? Beginning 13:21, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) :Heh, "simply referring". Inland freshwater flooding is the most dangerous and damaging part of a hurricane. Tropical_Storm_Allison got its name ''retired'' solely on the basis of causing heavy rain as a tropical depression. :Frances caused heavy rainfall in a large number of states, as can be seen from the HPC's advisories on the storm. If you want to list every individual state that received excessive rain separately, go ahead. I just thought it would look silly to do it that way. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::Not to mention a bit inaccurate, since Ohio and western North Carolina are far from the coast. --Golbez 17:53, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) ==UNISYS== Is UNISYS public domain? Their track maps are awesome. -E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast :According to their copyright policies: ::Authorization is hereby provided to you to copy documents published by Unisys Corporation on the World Wide Web provided such copies are used for non-commercial purposes and solely for use within your organization. This authorization is specifically conditioned upon including all legends, copyright, proprietary and other notices which appear herein on all copies you make of such documents whether they pertain to Unisys Corporation or another party. :So I'd say no to public domain, but yes to fair use. Care to link? --tomf688^(talk) 21:31, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC) Thanks, Tom. Well at least we can link to them. I was hoping that they were public domain so that we could replace the track maps on the induvidual hurricane articles (such as Frances) with the UNISYS track maps. Oh, well. -E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast 1 May 2005 :No I think you misunderstood. I'm pretty sure we can use them as long as we put {{fairuse}} and cite. Wikipedia is non-commercial. --tomf688^(talk) 20:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC) :by the way: you can sign and timestamp your comments by typing in --~~~~ == Personal report == Should we have the personal report here, or does that smell too much of original research/essay? --Golbez 19:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC) :Sounds like good information; perhaps it could be integrated into the article somehow. --tomf688^(talk) 19:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC) How can we make sure those reports are accurate and "encyclopedic"? Maybe, people who like to contribute those should be directed to Wikinews? Awolf002 20:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC) I was unsure about this as well, I made sure of the exact times/happenings in the humanity section. And I added a warning before the section. If anyone has any ideas for how the information could be placed into the article better, that would be great. Deleting it wouldnt be good at all as it has useful information such as the number of people evacuated, the complete backup on the interstates, when and what aid and recovery was provided after the storm, etc...Thepcnerd After reading over this section again, would wikinews not be a valid source for the information as well? Thus directing someone to wikinews would just be a time extending formality. Thepcnerd 06:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC) == Maps == Is there a point to having TWO track maps? --Golbez 21:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)