text:
Talk:Hurricane Michelle

Todo
I marked it as stub because it has not a single source. However even aside from that it needs some work. I don't like the chronological structure; I'd rather see it split back into Storm history/Preparations/Impact/Aftermath sections. Also the intro needs to be expanded. Overall the content is good so the issues are mostly technical. Jdorje 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Better? Hurricanehink 16:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yep. It could be B-class at this point but I'd like to see more sources first.  Also the impact section could use a summary: maybe in the retirement subsection. Jdorje 19:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, all of the sources were from those two links. That second link has a lot of news headlines, though. Hurricanehink 01:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what should be done with the references then. Maybe separate entries are needed each time a bit of data comes from one of them. Jdorje 01:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Storm History needs to be rewritten. It's filled with typos and broken sentences, and it's not very in-depth compared to other storms of this magnitude. 71.7.210.87 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Juliancolton (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

 * - Jamaica landslides

Pictures
I know you're going to ask for some, so here's a page with tons of them. Am I allowed to use them, because there is no copyright status? Hurricanehink 14:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction:
Did the storm hit cuba with 135mph or 140mph winds? Jdorje 19:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Both, actually. At Cayo Largo, an island south of the main part of Cuba, it was 140 mph, while mainland Cuba was 135 mph. Hurricanehink 01:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * the chronology is a bit confused. The article ought to give one story from start to finish, listing places hit and winds attained in order. As it is the article has the hurricane crossing Cuba, then Nicaragua; then it tells us it crossed Cuba, then headed off to the Bahamas, then departed from Cuba... it's confused. Good, but needs a bit of organizing Friendly Person (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Failed
This article failed because it doesn't seem to cover all aspects of the topic and it has a few stubby sub-sections. A few suggestions would be to add a preperation section detailing how people of the affected area prepared and even possibly an aftermath section would go along nicely in the article. Tarret 00:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Failed
Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (many spelling and grammar errors) (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): (several section too short, such as preparations, Cayman Islands, Florida) b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):  (aftermath in Central America? Any sources from Cuba for its aftermath?)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * (no edits wars etc.)
 * 1) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

 * It is missing metric conversions
 * It is missing non-breaking spaces
 * Wikilinking is poor
 * The article says people were missing, but this is 6 years later. Surely there is an updated death toll, or at least say if those missing were found. The source was only two months after the event.

--Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Any better? Juliancolton (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Not particularly. The article is far from being considered "good". --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * What more does it need, exactly? Juliancolton (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I provided some necessary details in my GA review. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I know, but I can't find any spelling errors. Juliancolton (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * It's more than just spelling errors. The overall writing is poor, and I provided several examples of what could be done. FWIW, the typos are strenghened, strenght, strenghened, untill, strenght, Michelles, and aroundon. Please take time and learn to copyedit yourself before bothering others when the article is clearly not good. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Does wikipedia have a spell check? Juliancolton (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge, but if you download the newest version of Firefox, it has a spell checker included, which highlights any incorrectly spelled words. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane Michelle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/NHR-Cuba.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923101618/http://www.emdat.be/disaster-list to http://www.emdat.be/disaster-list
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312215337/http://www.hidro.cu/hidrologia1.htm to http://www.hidro.cu/hidrologia1.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CV1scaM6?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aoml.noaa.gov%2Fhrd%2FLandsea%2FNHR-Cuba.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/NHR-Cuba.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Michelle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060405004354/http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/f710706ed85f3bb785256afc006e4f92?OpenDocument to http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/f710706ed85f3bb785256afc006e4f92?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060405004349/http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/e2d3e4ae586c2ce885256afd00720b75?OpenDocument to http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/e2d3e4ae586c2ce885256afd00720b75?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060405004342/http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/94987f742181f60b85256afc006ad1af?OpenDocument to http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/94987f742181f60b85256afc006ad1af?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Needed for GAN
The impacts for Caymans and Cuba are on the light side. I'm not sure if the GAN should be withdrawn, but I'm sure there's more info for both areas. Also, the aftermath is pretty light. Florida shouldn't have more than both of those areas (and not saying that Florida should be shortened, just that the other sections should be expanded). ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll try my best to find these soon.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  22:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That should be found before you nominated it. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  02:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll removed the tag for now. Once I found anything for Caymans, Cuba and the aftermath, I'll re-add the GAN tag and start the GA review.  SMB9 9thx   my edits!  05:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Michelle


text:
Medication Administration Record

A Medication Administration Record (MAR, or eMAR for electronic versions), commonly referred to as a drug chart, is the report that serves as a legal record of the drugs administered to a patient at a facility by a health care professional. The MAR is a part of a patient's permanent record on their medical chart. The health care professional signs off on the record at the time that the drug or device is administered.

Format
The actual chart varies from hospital to hospital and country to country. However they are typically of the format:
 * Administrative/Demographics
 * Patient Name (often Surname, First name or similar)
 * Treating team details
 * Allergies
 * Other, variable – weight, special diet, oxygen therapy, application time of topical local anaesthetic e.g. EMLA
 * Prescription Details
 * Drug name
 * Dosage strength
 * Route
 * Frequency
 * Medication indication / Diagnosis
 * Prescribing doctor details, signature
 * Day by day chart where carers/nurses administering medications can sign when medication has been given

Kardex
A kardex (plural kardexes) is a genericised trademark for a medication administration record. The term is common in Ireland and the United Kingdom. In the Philippines, the term is used to refer the old census charts of the charge nurse usually used during endorsement, in which index cards are used, but has been gradually been replaced by modern health data systems and pre-printed charts and forms. The term derives from an early purveyor of recording cards. American Kardex.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Medication Administration Record


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Object cesspool

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with Object pool (done by Tenbaset, thanks). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Object_cesspool
Appears to be a nelogism coined by the author. Could be merged into Object pool by the same author. Tenbaset 01:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge → object pool, per nom. --Mysidia (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge → object pool, per nom. Note that I've already written a poor addition to object pool which covers object cesspools. Even if this article stays, object pool needs to link back to it, and describe why it's interesting. --195.173.15.12 15:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge → object pool - Some things are better in other articles instead of on their own. This is one of those things. Qaz  ( talk ) 04:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I think anyone trying to merge the content into Object pool should not use the phrase "Object cesspool" because it is a neologism (Please see Talk:Object cesspool for my rationale.) and that's why I nominated it for VFD. I've also done such a (rough) merge Tenbaset 08:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed: see Talk:Anti-pattern -- it appears that this article may have been created essentially by original research - citing sources would have been preferable, and the word object cesspool seems to be a neologism/protologism, unknown to major writings on the subject of patterns/anti-patterns, at least.. --Mysidia (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete neologism.--Mpeisenbr 15:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete clear case of neologism. Rd232 18:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Fort Niobrara Wilderness

The Fort Niobrara Wilderness is located in the U.S. state of Nebraska, near Valentine. Created by an act of Congress in 1976, the wilderness is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and covers an area of 4,635 acres (18.75 km2) within Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge. The wilderness lies along the northern banks of the Niobrara River (which is designated as the Niobrara National Scenic River through the refuge and beyond), providing sanctuary to bison, prairie dogs, mule deer, river otter and the bald eagle. A mixture of flat prairie and wooded ravines, there are no maintained trails in the wilderness. Access is only allowed during daylight hours and there is no camping or fires allowed.

U.S. Wilderness Areas do not allow motorized or mechanized vehicles, including bicycles. Although camping and fishing are allowed with a proper permit, no roads or buildings are constructed and there is also no logging or mining, in compliance with the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness areas within National Forests and Bureau of Land Management areas also allow hunting (in season).

title: Fort Niobrara Wilderness


text:
User talk:Calcuttaphile

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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Pharos 01:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Snake charmer image
Hi, Calcuttaphile! I just noticed the image Snake.jpg that you uploaded, and thanks! I do have a couple of suggestions, though. First, the name "snake.jpg" is not very descriptive, and it's very possible that in the future, someone will try to upload another file with that same name. If they do, your image will be erased. So in general, it's best to upload images under more distinctive names. The charmer image you uploaded could have been called, say, "snake charmer and GIs.jpg".

Secondly, check out [[ttp://commons.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Commons]. This is a centralized repository of images and other media. I would suggest that in the future you upload files here instead of on en.wikipedia.org. If something is on Commons, it is available to any wiki project in any language. You might even consider re-uploaded snake.jpg at Commons under a longer name. Please let me know if you would like my help to do this.

Well, that's it. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope to run into you in the future! —BrianSmithson 18:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Calcutaaphile,I would like to know more about you.I am also a calcuttaphile (my name is different though).You can know more about myself in by userpage. Bye Dwaipayanc

Peer review Kolkata
Hi! A request has been made for peer review of Kolkata. Could you please help improving the article? Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayanc 11:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Barber.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Barber.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Kelly hi! 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Armenianjewcalcuttabourne.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Armenianjewcalcuttabourne.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Snake.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Snake.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Bookshops.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Bookshops.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Dhobi.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dhobi.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Grand hotel.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Grand hotel.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Greateasternhotel.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Greateasternhotel.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Calcuttaphile


text:
Atimia

Atimia (Ατιμία) was a form of disenfranchisement used under classical Athenian democracy.

Under democracy in ancient Greece, only free adult Greek males were enfranchised as full citizens. Women, foreigners, children and slaves were not full citizens; they could not vote or hold public office, and they had to have adult male citizens act as guardians of their property and other interests. A man who was made atimos, literally meaning without honour or value, was likewise disenfranchised and disempowered, making him unable to carry out the political functions of a citizen. He could not attend assembly meetings, serve as a juror in Heliaia or bring actions before the courts.

Being barred from assembly would effectively end a citizen's political ambition. Not being able to use the courts to defend oneself against enemies could be socially crippling. It also meant the loss of the small income that jury service and attendance at the assembly provided, which could be significant for poor people unable to work.

Atimia could be inflicted as a penalty by the courts for crimes such as bribery, embezzlement, false witness, and breach of duty as a public officer. A temporary form of atimia was automatically imposed if a debt to the state was unpaid after a certain time, for instance if someone was unable to pay a fine. There was no upper limit on the fines courts could impose and they could well be larger than a person's entire estate. Just as this debt was inheritable, so was the status.

Failure to abide by atimia was seen as an attack on the power of the people, represented by the courts that had imposed it. Failing to comply with atimia could lead to the death penalty.

title: Atimia


text:
User talk:Staypuftman

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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 01:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Alopecia/Baldness Merge
Hi, I have read your comments at Talk:Baldness. I have merged the information in the two articles into Baldness; what do you think? The old Alopecia article is at Alopecia/History1. I have made it a candidate for speedy deletion. Brisvegas 02:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I like what you have done - the piece flows very nicely. The only thing I would suggest is that the comments box possibly be moved/better incorporated into the page. There is that one large white space just hanging out there. Other than that well done - I hope this message gets to you although Im not quite sure how sending messages through wikipedia works.

Take Care Staypuftman 06:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Dental amalgam
Hi Staypuftman. I notice some comments you made on the dental amalgam controversy talk page and Dozenist's talk page and wanted to post a simple reminder to assume good faith and interact civilly when dealing with other editors. I hope you see how accusing another editor of having an agenda against certain information, conspiring to cover up information, and telling the user that "we are going to have a real problem with each other" isn't in the spirit of these policies, especially when I can see no evidence in Dozenist's contributions history that would indicate that he deleted any "source materials" that you posted anywhere. Perhaps it was merely a technical bug? Also, I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy as you continue to grow as an editor. Thanks for your contributions. - Jersyko   talk  22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * All I did was post the research online that I have gathered on the talk page - not even putting it on the real page - and your friend deleted it. He not only deleted it but he covered his tracks and deleted the history of it. Dozenist does not have the ability to delete the history of a talk page.  Neither do I.  In fact, I'm not even sure if Wikipedia adminstrators have this ability (to selectively delete only certain revisions of a talk page).  If you feel that he has done something in violation of Wikipedia policy, of course you are free to report the activity.  Again, however, I will encourage you to adhere to WP:AGF and WP:Civility. -  Jersyko   talk  22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If you take a look at this "dif" page, you will see that Dozenist did not delete any of your comments on the talk page. If he had, the deleted comments would appear either (1) in red on the left column, (2) wrapped in yellow, or (3) both.  While Dozenist does disagree with you in regard to the safety of amalgams, it does not appear that he has deleted any of your comments. -  Jersyko   talk  00:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I do not have the time to engage in a huge discussion right now about how the entire dental community and dental research community (including biochemists, physiologists, etc) currently concludes on the safe use of amalgam restoration, but I do want to address a comment you left me on my talk page: "Did you erase the source material I put on the amalgam talk page before anyone could look at it???" I am glad you brought this up because it needs to be clear I have not nor will I erase anything on an amaglam talk page.  If I did that by accident, then certainly I would apologize, but I have looked at my contributions and do not see any time when I have done that.  Talk pages are free for anyone to talk about their views on the article, and deleting people's viewpoints there is unnecessary, aside from also being very silly. So, unless I am overlooking something, I have not deleted anything on the talk page, and you are more than welcomed to express your thoughts there. - Dozenist  talk  00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The *history* page of a talk page is *not* easily manipulated as you suggest. As I said in my second comment here, I am not aware of anyone, even an administrator, with the power to selectively delete or manipulate a single historical revision of a page in the way you're suggesting.  As you can see from the "dif" page, Dozenist's edit merely added material to the page, he deleted nothing.  While anyone can edit a page and delete your comments, you would be able to see the deleted comments in the history of the page if they had done so.  It appears that you have made a mistake (or possibly there was a technical bug, i suppose), but it is simply untrue that Dozenist deleted any of your comments to the talk page.  Your continued insistence otherwise, however, is somewhat troubling. -  Jersyko   talk  01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * While editing an out of date version of a page might remove prior comments from the page, the removed comments would show up in the edit dif. For an example, see this reversion of a different page: notice that while I edited an out of date revision of the page and thus removed the POV addition to the page, the removed comment still shows up in the edit dif and article history, in the left hand column.  In contrast, the edit dif you're talking about on the dental amalgam talk page does not show any deleted content in the left hand column, but merely an addition, which shows up in the right hand column.  I understand that you have not been editing on Wikipedia for very long, and I'm certainly willing to chalk this up as a misunderstanding, provided that you stop insisting that Dozenist has done something he did not do. -  Jersyko   talk  01:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

bovine growth factor
hi, thanks for your remarks on the talk page... i just responded, asking for more detail.Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/hong-kong-skyline
Hello, For information : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Kowloon_Panorama_by_Ryan_Cheng_2010.jpg

--Julien1978 (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Staypuftman


text:
Rajas con crema

Rajas con crema is the name given to a Mexican dish consisting of sliced poblano pepper with cream (the name literally means "slices" in Spanish). It is very popular in Mexico, particularly in the central and southern parts of the country. It is one of the dishes most commonly served during taquizas (taco parties), together with tinga, mole, chicharrón, and papas con chorizo. Preparation of the dish involves roasting, peeling and slicing the peppers, sauteing them together with sliced onions, and simmering the mixture with cream. Sometimes chicken broth is added for flavor.

The original recipe uses poblano chiles, although there are also recipes that use other types of green chiles. It is recommended that the chiles are quite ripe and very dark, and should be roasted whole over direct heat or on a comal, a popular Mexican technique called "tatemado" (from the Nahuatl, tlatemati) and turned over so that all parts of the fruit are roasted and the skin is blistered. Then they are "sweated" in a bag, deveined, the seeds are removed, peeled and cut into wide strips. Together with the onion, also cut in small feathers, they are sautéed in the skillet and cooked over low heat with the heavy cream. Optionally, tender corn kernels, garlic and/or cheese are added. In some houses they also add quelites, shredded chicken meat or chicken broth.

title: Rajas con crema


text: Template:History of Serbia

title: Template:History of Serbia


text:
Talk:Hurricane Isidore

Structural issues
I know this is under construction...there are still some structuring problems. Jdorje 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The storm path section is very out of place. What is the purpose of this?  Should it be changed to a preparations section?  If so, some information from the impact can be merged in (see Hurricane Ivan for an example). Jdorje 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Patience... That is going to show its forecasts and why it went southward into the Yucatan Peninsula. Hurricanehink 23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Poor Wording
Wording is poor in a lot of places. One paragraph in the storm history doesn't make sense. Metric units should be included. Inline sources would be nice. Jdorje 23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Forward speed
Shouldn't Isidore's high forward speed be mentioned somewhere in this article? 57 mph is very high, as noted on the list of notable atlantic cyclones. 24.59.126.152 18:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It's not particularly important. Isidore wasn't number one or number two, and saying that the storm raced to the northeast is good enough. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources, anyone?
Sources! Storm05 17:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I'll second that need for sources. B class requires at least one source, and I'm not seeing it. -  auburn pilot  talk  03:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * New Orleans, LA report - This should probably be included. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm slowly remedying the situation. Changes have been made to the lead and certain lines of the article to make it sound more encyclopedaic.  Convert templates have been strewn throughout the article, nbsps added, a few wikilinks added, and ten references have been added where the source of the information was particularly obvious.  Any help with adding references would be appreciated. Thegreatdr (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More work has been done. Once the Yucatan section has been referenced, I think we can safely submit this for GAC.  Thegreatdr (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 26, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

 * 1. Well written?: Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Needs more references in the first two paragrpahs of storm history, and most of the second paragraph of Preparations.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: If there are any damage photos, those would be useful.

Just needs a few more refs.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thegreatdr (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 27, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

 * 1. Well written?: Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

Wonderful article, great job! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

About Yucatán
''Hurricane Isidore was one of only four storms to hit the north side of the Yucatán since records have been kept. It was the first tropical cyclone to hit the area since Tropical Depression Greta in 1970, the first tropical storm since 1935, the first hurricane since 1888, and only major hurricane to ever hit the area'' What about Hurricane Gilbert in 1988?
 * Gilbert struck the east side of the Yucatan, not the north side. A picky detail, I realize.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Isidore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003064736/http://www.sergioaguayo.org/biblioteca/Libros/Almanaque2008/El%20Almanaque%202008%20-%20Indice%20y%20Capitulo%201%20Geografia.pdf to http://www.sergioaguayo.org/biblioteca/Libros/Almanaque2008/El%20Almanaque%202008%20-%20Indice%20y%20Capitulo%201%20Geografia.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206051005/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/B3.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/B3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Isidore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917140850/http://www.wfp.org/english/?ModuleID=78&Key=494 to http://www.wfp.org/english/?ModuleID=78&Key=494
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723194010/http://www.climatevarg.org/essd/env/varg.nsf/42ec25f6537f5eff85256dab0048d8e9/b603b3c185bee77485256dab0059aca8/%24FILE/EC%20VARG%20Mexico%20Report%20EC.pdf to http://www.climatevarg.org/essd/env/varg.nsf/42ec25f6537f5eff85256dab0048d8e9/b603b3c185bee77485256dab0059aca8/$FILE/EC%20VARG%20Mexico%20Report%20EC.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.morningsun.net/stories/092402/usw_0924020014.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Isidore


text:
Talk:Hurricane Fabian

Missing
No reference to Hurricane Emily (1987), previous holder of the title Bermuda's Worst Storm (hit during morning rush hour after the population was assured that it was going to miss).

Aftermath, particularly the future of the Causeway, is in desperate need of expansion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.68.108.171 (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

This article is about Fabian, not Emily or all other Bermuda hurricanes. From what I've read, Fabian was the worst storm since 1926, even worst than Emily. Also, I removed your addition of the following as it was unsourced. Officials would afterwards look into the possibility of replacing for the Causeway, a process that is still ongoing. This is a featured article, meaning it should be of the highest standards. Unsourced additions shouldn't be in the article. If you believe it is desperately needed, you should add it yourself with an appropriate source. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Information, source, etc. on replacing the causeway is available —where it belongs— on the causeway's (rather meagre) article.23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "This article is about Fabian..." and yet makes reference to two other hurricanes in the opening section. Prior to Fabian, Emily was considered the worst storm that people had been through (1926 being a rather long time ago), for the reasons mentioned above.  SharkOil.bm:Historical Storms even mentions Emily as the storm "we all remember", while its wikipedia article claims that it was the "strongest hurricane to hit Bermuda since 1948."  Accurate?  You would know better than I, as apparently it was you who wrote it.23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Todo
More impact. Jdorje 21:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Here's a good site of some Bermuda information. Hurricanehink 00:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Would a picture in the above site, any picture in this photo gallery, or any of these pictures be qualified as fair use? Hurricanehink 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I am gonna add one thing to the Todo list-that Storm History is very small.HurricaneCraze32 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Deaths
Wouldn't the deaths from the drowning boat be considered direct? NHC always has them be direct, unless some other circumstance caused the crash (for example, in the 2002 Henri report, one person drowned when his boat crashed, but intoxication was evident and the death was considered indirect). Hurricanehink 12:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, those deaths were direct. I added a deaths table to clarify. — jdorje (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, but some todo
Good job at revising the article. I think this has excellent potential for a GA (even A or featured) article, but to achieve that better, some things may need to be resolved. For example, some portions may require cleanup, and the article may need to be shortened and cleaned a bit more (though not much). Otherwise, the whole article is perfect as it is, devotes plenty of well-stated detail to all aspects (introduction, storm history, preparations, impact, and trivia), and is well-written. It is also very accurate in most areas. If both of that is accomplished, we may well have a GA, A, or featured article. CapeVerdeWave 22:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You do mean "A or featured", yes? :P – Chacor 03:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Edited my mistake. Sorry for the error! CapeVerdeWave 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, glad my hours of work paid off. Curious, what sections in particular need cleanup? The main reason I included so much detail is to give a more realistic feel. Only going through the basics (X houses were damaged, some people were injured, etc.) makes it feel like the hurricane almost didn't even happen. However, excessive parts can probably be trimmed. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If that was the intent, it worked out nicely. Not much really needs to be fixed. The impact section may need to be shortened and made more neat ("clean"), as the long section can induce some portions not sounding smooth when read out loud. The storm history section may also need to be shortened and made neater somewhat. Otherwise, don't remove any details from any portion of the article. Only those portions (storm history and impact) need to be shortened so that the writing flows better, but try to do it without removing any of the details currently in place in those sections. They (those two sections) just need to shortened and organized into smoother writing, and not by much. Other than that, leave the article and the sections as they are, and while shortening and smoothing the flow of the writing in those two sections, don't remove any of the details from them. Just shorten the writing of those two sections and improve the flow of the details in those two sections.

 * EDIT - Actually, looking over the article once more, the writing does seem to flow smoothly enough, so I don't think any sections need to be shortened now. The article is good as it is. The main reason why I requested two of the sections to be shortened somewhat was that I originally thought, along with smoothing the writing flow, that one of Wikipedia's GA requirements for articles is for them to not be overly long-winded. Actually, however, I like the new style Hurricanehink is adopting for this article. Do not shorten any sections. The article is good as it is. Sorry for the change in my thoughts, but after looking over at the article, I've decided to retract my opinion on shortening two of the sections. Leave the article as it is! CapeVerdeWave 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Heh, thanks. The only problem right now is the lack of an impact image. This newspaper article or this one has an impact pic, meaning it would usable due to undefined, but they might be so small that it would hardly be seen if the entire page was used. What should be done? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a good Bermuda link with plenty of (larger) photos before, during, and after Fabian from all over the island in various parts, and plenty of information on where those pictures were taken on Bermuda and what damages they show, as well as what they show before and during the storm. Since these images are copyrighted, is it fine to add some of these to the article as long as credit is given to this person and site? CapeVerdeWave 12:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, since they're copyrighted we can't use them at all. If we asked them and got their permission, we might be able to, but worst comes to worst the pics in the article are pretty good. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, all true. I knew there would probably issues with the copyrighted images that would prevent them from being added to the article. By the way, what happened to the GA nomination possibility for this article? It seems more than B-class, in my opinion. Are you just doing a peer review before submitting a nomination for GA, A, or FA? Just curious. CapeVerdeWave 13:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'll be doing a peer review, and once that's done, I'll FAC it. GAN takes too long, and will probably be shorter if we do peer review right away. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, FAC time. :) Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article
•Please compare in the Impact section the length on Bermuda, compared to those on the Caribbean and the United States. Furthermore, here is the articles description of what the storm was: "Hurricane Fabian was a powerful Cape Verde-type hurricane that hit Bermuda...".

•"a someone" is not a correct grammatical construction. Your claim to the contrary is false.

•There are no boy scout troops in Bermuda. This is a simple fact. Your claim to the contrary is a lie.23:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S.: done for the day)

 * The impact section isn't the only part of the article. The storm history is in ambiguous territory, but because it is in the jurisdiction of the National Hurricane Center, is uses American spelling. If the article was solely on Bermuda's impact from the hurricane, the British spelling would be warranted, though as it stands, it is the Atlantic basin in general. A someone is grammatically correct, actually. A quick Google search of "a someone" yields 653,000 hits. The term "local" in the Aftermath referred to South Carolina, though I suppose it makes sense without it. Please discuss it further before reverting again. BTW, I restored the section so we can discuss it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I am going to assume that your use of google as a grammatical aid is a joke in poor taste. By the way, please try a search of: someone -"a someone", and compare.

 * The "Storm History" isn't the only part either. How about we look at what there is?
 * Introduction: Bermuda
 * Storm History: Ambiguous, with references to Cape Verde, Newfoundland, Greenland and Iceland
 * Preparation: Bermuda (Exclusive)
 * Impact: 8/10 Bermuda, 1/10 Caribbean, 1/10 United States (paragraph space)
 * Aftermath: Bermuda
 * ...ergo it should use American spelling? Another joke, I presume?
 * Out of nineteen paragraphs, fourteen focus on Bermuda. One focuses on the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.68.109.119 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

 * As it has been nearly a week, I am reverting the article. 08:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change; further reversions will be seen as going against consensus and could get you blocked. Wait for discussion. – Chacor 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Hurricanehink and User:Chacor have both refused to enter into the discussion in the past week, and both have been active in that time. Furthermore, you are now in the process of threatening me; I can only assume that it is with the intent of forcing through your personal POV. 00:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * No one is threatening you. We are just letting you know the facts. The Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject has hundreds of articles to deal with, and we prefer to have a similarity among them. If you go for only the spelling, then why not the units? The answer to that is because of uniformity. The WPTC has agreed to keep Atlantic articles in imperial units and, for the most part, American spelling due to the National Hurricane Center's power of authority. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * You refused to argue a counter-point for a week. After that time, I made note of this on the talk page and reverted the article, at which point User:Chacor immediately appeared and started to throw the word "block" around.  That is a threat.  At any rate, you have yet to argue your point. Oh, and please tell me that you and Chacor are indeed different people, thank you.  00:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am done for the evening, so take your time formulating a full argument, including how "someone" has somehow ceased to be a pronoun. By the way, imperial units are indeed used in Bermuda, and the article remains overwhelmingly focused on Bermuda.
 * Yes, Chacor and I are indeed different people. I didn't refuse to argue a counter-point, and furthermore this isn't an argument. This is a discussion. There was no consensus, and given that it passed its featured article candidacy without anyone objecting or mentioning this, the way it was should be kept. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh this is silly guys. Firstly, we have never agreed upon using en-us across hurricane articles, we've just defaulted to it for most storms as other English speaking nations are minor relative to US impact (and our editors are mostly en-us). We likewise haven't really discussed the units. It is sensible to use Imperial (SI) for US-affecting storms and we gain a measure of consistency by applying that to all hurricane articles. However, there is no REAL benefit to consistency in which variant of English to use in different articles; for the same reasons as across wiki as a whole. As US impact was minimal from Fabian and most of the damage was done in other English-speaking countries; WP:ENGVAR would suggest using Commonwealth English for Fabian, Juan and other storms who had primary impact in English speaking countries other than the US.

The grammatical "errors" that the anon is referring to are also real: "...within minutes a someone would call..." is not grammatically correct (in en-gb). On the other hand, "...within minutes someone would call..." is grammatically correct in both variants, why revert it - its a strict improvement. There are two further problem sentences in the first para of Aftermath. When Hurricanehink did the last revert, they stick out. "and left islanders without knowledge" is a sentence fragment (maybe left from an earlier vandal), there is nothing wrong with the anon's removal of it. The final sentence seems awkward. From a en-gb perspective "the road was closed at night" is valid whereas "the road was closed at nighttime" seems wrong, and in my understanding of en-us the first is valid: so why revert? To the anon: the Boy Scout Troop was in Carolina and helped pack the supplies. That said the "local" is superfluous and confusing (local to where?). As an aside the whole thing about radio DJs should be removed - its not got a reliable source; a webforum/maillist/whatever it is isn't one of those.

There is no WPTC policy to use en-us in ALL hurricane articles and nor should there be. Articles like 2003AHS should be en-us, but if I chose to write TS Chris (2000) in en-gb there would be nothing wrong with that - the fact the NHC uses US English is irrelevant, I can "translate" its stuff if I want. Personally, I cannot find fault with the anon's edits (and that is not because I am en-gb). And Hink, what the at the Google grammar? You would have made that point a lot better pointing at a specific website showing that it is used in US english...--Nilfanion (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * No consensus defaults to status quo. Leave it. – Chacor 03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, per WP:ENGVAR:
 * Stay with established spelling
 * If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated.

ENGVAR also says "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." However, this article is not on a topic "specific" to Bermuda. Stay with established spelling, follow the status quo. – Chacor 09:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * There may be no consensus, but we should have one (one way or the other I don't care that much, I just formulated the case for the change above). The two relevant parts to WP:ENGVAR are: "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect" and "Stay with the established spelling". This gives reason (beyond the status quo) to use US English in Katrina, Andrew and Camille; Aus English in Tracy and so on. Individual storms are events in the countries they have an impact, when one country gets an order of magnitude greater effects than any other it is reasonable to say the article has a "strong tie" to that country. In the case of Fabian, Bermuda impact was severe with both US and Canadian impact slight (by comparison). Therefore Fabian has a tie to Bermuda (how strong is debatable).

 * By the way, para 2 of my initial post lists a serious of things that need addressing, irrespective of the dialect used.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, is there any point to this discussion?.Storm05 11:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"I didn't refuse to argue a counter-point..." Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Then do you care to show where it is? As between 21:11, 21 February 2007, when I added my reply, and 00:35, 1 March 2007, I see no mention of Hurricanehink.

"...and furthermore this isn't an argument. This is a discussion. " Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * argue, v.
 * 1. to present reasons for or against a thing (dictionary.com)
 * I. To bring evidence, convict, prove, indicate. (oed.com)
 * 1 : to give reasons for or against something (m-w.com)
 * 1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate (thefreedictionary.com)

 * an argument is the noun form of this, or in other words, "a statement or fact advanced for the purpose of influencing the mind; a reason urged in support of a proposition;" (oed.com) or "a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade" (m-w.com)

"...it passed its featured article candidacy without anyone objecting or mentioning this, the way it was should be kept." Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * When this article passed its featured article candidacy, it also claimed (and, in the first example, still does) that there existed "Bermuda citizens", that "tents, dried foods, and blankets" were "vital" and that "citizens purchased large quanities" (emphasis mine). Featured article status does not negate further change.

"The WPTC has agreed to keep Atlantic articles in imperial units and, for the most part, American spelling" Hurricanehink (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Two points. First, what is the authority of a wikiproject over articles?  Articles do not belong to wikiprojects, nor anyone else.  Second, and I quote, "and, for the most part, American spelling" (emphasis mine).  Not only is your sentence rather self-contradictory, but negates your initial argument for using American spelling.

"However, this article is not on a topic "specific" to Bermuda." Chacor 09:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * What Manual of Style states is "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect." It further notes that this policy has higher precedence than does remaining with the established spelling.  Next in line is to find common words (for example, in this article using "form" instead of "organise").

 * Justification for using British spelling has been provided. What justification for using American spelling is there? 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You totally ignore what I presented above regarding keeping established spelling. This discussion is over. File a request for comment (History and Geography) to get a wider consensus, or leave it be. – Chacor 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"You totally ignore what I presented above regarding keeping established spelling." Chacor 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * How so? You presented a quote from Manual of Style, to which I replied above (from "What Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English states...").  In fact, it is nigh impossible to legitimately claim that I ignored what you said, based on the fact that I replied to it.  Now, shall I make note of the fact that you seem to have ignored everything written here?

"This discussion is over." Chacor 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * No, it is not.09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It is over, involving us. There's no consensus for a change. I'll repeat what you chose to ignore: Please, by all means, file a request for comment (History and Geography) to get a wider consensus. Otherwise, please leave it be. It will not be changed by one person alone when there is significant opposition to it. – Chacor 11:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this discussion is clearly entering the realm of WP:LAME and is a waste of talk page space so please put this to rest. Storm05 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically not, since WP:LAME is for edit wars ;). Although I agree that this discussion is getting old and stale. Let's be frank: neither side will budge, I don't think, so the best way forward is to just leave it alone, or seek wider consensus through an RFC. – Chacor 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary
Personally, I couldn't care less if this article was written in American or Commonwealth English, so why has there been an edit war at all? If there had been another rv cycle I'd have protected the page to stop it getting any worse. I'd just like to comment: The anon is trying to do the right thing by trying to get a consensus here, remember everyone should agree for a true consensus - so one side would have to concede the point for it to exist ;) As this is a simple one-way-or-the-other decision a straw poll makes more sense than an RFC anyway. I've attempted to summarize the positions here: Is this an accurate summary of the dispute? If so, it gives a good framework for bringing in outside comment if it cannot be resolved here alone. Please comment beneath this if you feel I am misrepresenting it.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The majority of the article deals with events in Bermuda. Other regions are covered are covered by the article, with other Commonwealth English-speaking nations, American English (the US and Puerto Rico) and non-English speaking nations mentioned, though with much less significance for these regions. In the article, impact in Bermuda has 8 paragraphs of prose to cover something that killed 4 and caused $300 million. The impact in the US and Puerto Rico is 5 sentences, with one death and $30,000 damage mentioned.
 * 2) The anon says as the vast majority of the articles regional prose relates to Bermuda, Fabian is strongly related to Bermuda. Therefore the "if there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect" clause of WP:ENGVAR (which is high importance) applies, and the spelling should be changed to Commonwealth English.
 * 3) The opposing position is that this article is not entirely about events in Bermuda. In particular, some US impact is detailed; the fact its much less than the impact in Bermuda is an irrelevancy. This means this means there is no local single dialect to use. Therefore we fall through to the "Stay with established spelling" part of ENGVAR which means maintaining the status quo (American English).

I'd also like to highlight a compromise solution exists. The contentious words are favo(u)rable, organi(s/z)e (and its derivatives) and neighbo(u)rs; there are also a couple minor grammatical issues. A rephrasing of the sentences in question to use words and grammar common to both dialects should be practical here. If that is done, the article is effectively written in BOTH dialects, so both sides get their preferred option.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this work for everyone? If so this dispute is over :P--Nilfanion (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Though the article still follows American spelling, I am satisfied. My primary grievance was the use of American English when describing Bermudians.  Of course, what I am not satisfied with was the reprehensible behaviour of Chacor and Hurricanehink throughout all of this.  It may not have been so bad if they had actually provided some justification for Hurricanehink's (their?) viewpoint (or as Chacor ironically described it, "significant opposition" to mine (ours?))..or even tried to, instead of just ignoring the discussion. 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hurricane Fabian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061118103034/http://www.cdnn.info:80/travel/t030911/t030911.html to http://www.cdnn.info/travel/t030911/t030911.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Hurricane Fabian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070326130533/http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov:80/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~529823 to http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~529823
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061008135041/http://www.scmaritime.org/news.php?id=7 to http://www.scmaritime.org/news.php?id=7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070328051303/http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov:80/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~514234 to http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~514234

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Hurricane Fabian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2003/09/15/32288.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Fabian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010064342/http://ftp#fifa.ns1.ensim.hu/ to http://ftp/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010064342/http://ftp#fifa.ns1.ensim.hu/ to http://ftp/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent%7EShowEvent%7E529823
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent%7EShowEvent%7E514234
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?sectionId=49&articleId=7d4369230030012

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
there is no reason for these italics (WP:ITALICS, MOS:BADITALICS): might you fix that in the infobox template? I can't figure out how ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Highest winds	1-minute sustained:
 * - fixed! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hink ... will continue reviewing later today if I catch up elsewhere ... Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hink, your article writing has advanced since these days :) A prose review would be helpful, many of the links are dead, and we need full dates on Royal Gazette publications.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * checking back in almost a year later; are you able to finish up items I mentioned on 4 December 2020? Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  09:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Quite a bit of missing scholarly lit here. Noah Talk 18:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Listing at WP:FARGIVEN due to lack of academic coverage. Noah Talk 21:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Fabian


text:
Talk:Hurricane Juan

Todo
Better organization, copyedit, better intro, references. Jdorje 23:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Images section
Below Aftermath was an Image section. I gave that the ax because it was weird and images like that belonged in the Aftermath section. →Cycl  one1 → 18:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Bettered the intro, workin on Organization. →Cycl   one1 → 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Added preparations and still largely cutting down some of the useless, little, tiny, excruciating details such as where exactly the storm was located at an exact moment. Stuff like that isn't needed! It bores the heck out of readers and makes the article 5 times longer than it should be. Long articles aren't as good as good ones with interesting writing. →Cycl   one1 → 18:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, its definatley still not an FA, but its a tad better than it was. →Cycl  one1 → 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination
I failed this article due to the fact that there are only two references. Some P.  E  rson  20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Preparations
Changed date "...Sunday morning, September 27..." to September 28.

The comment "...By 6 p.m. hurricane warnings were issued..." I believe is technicaly incorrect. The Canadian Hurricane Centre had no official criteria to issue hurricane warnings. Heavy Rain warnings and Wind Warnings did however remain in effect. This is noted in the later section titled "Aftermath"- "...CHC's hurricane warning system has also been improved..."

Since it is true that media reports after 6 p.m. did become more alarming and warned people of the an impending hurricane landfall, I suggest rewording.

"...At 3 p.m. The Canadian Hurricane Centre issued an information statement that Hurricane Juan was bearing down on Nova Scotia..."

citation- http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/juan/bulletins/WT31-281800.txt

142.167.128.110 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Terry H.

GA nom
If I were reviewing this, I would fail it. There are no references for anything other than storm history. The rest of the article could use a rewrite. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything is referenced now. CrazyC83 01:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, better. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Effects outside of canada
Did Hurricane Juan indirectly affect the Northeastern United States (rainfall, rip currents?). In the sat pic shows the outflow of juan producing thunderstorms over northern maine but yet that is not mentioned in the article. Storm05 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Per this unofficial surfing website, the storm produced strong swells and high surf along the ECOTUS. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The circulation never affected the US; the rain was due to an unrelated cold front. It was a pretty small storm. CrazyC83 22:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * For a little while, it looked like an MCS southwest of Juan might have been trying to develop, but it was unrelated to Juan. Thegreatdr 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What the heck?
who did that to the hurricane page! that's not funny!

cat?
An IP recently chaned the category to cat5; I changed it back to cat2 but wanted to verify with someone here that knows about it that that's correct. Revert me if necessary. Thanks, delldot | talk 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cat 2 is correct. WJBscribe 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Death by county
Can we get a death per county list on here? -24.92.43.153 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't normally do that until the death toll at least reaches about 10 to 15, since it can easily be mentioned in the text. CrazyC83 23:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Which version is valid?
I know the article is back to some copyedited version of the article that was not the FA-approved version. Please revert back and fix these tomorrow when it is off the main page. I'm not sure the information added in the past day is even correct, whereas CrazyC83 and Hurricanehink have used credible sources to write this. Good kitty 21:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very unhappy which such a blanket revert. Various editors in good standing have been involved in copyediting this page while in has been the main page featured article. There seems no reason to lose those edits. Those usually involved in the upkeep of the page can check it to ensure the information remains accurate and edit as necessary. But I think a very strong argument is needed for reverting all the recent changes. WJBscribe 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to remove edits that have been made to an article since it has been on the Main Page unless they are vandalism or otherwise degrade the quality of the article. Little has changed in this article except spelling standards, which should have been Commonwealth English from the beginning (since the article deals primarily with a Canadian subject). —Cuiviénen 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't remember exactly but someone was changing the place names in the article, and I don't know if they are correct. It is that version that has been copyedited. Someone should probably check them all and compare them with the sources (especially NHC) or simply go back and copyedit the one we started with this morning. That's what should be done with this current version now. Everytime I see an edit comment in the history that says "so and so is NOT..." I get suspicious. There are so many anonymous IP edits today, I suggest making changes on it once the article is off the main page. That's why these things should be done BEFORE they are put on the main page. Good kitty 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just compared diffs of the current version at time of writing and the last of the 28th. Good Kitty's concerns are unfounded, there have only been copy-editing changes (which are improvements). The only changes which are remotely contentious that I could see are changing "made landfall near Halifax" to "made landfall on the coast of the Halifax Regional Municipality" (in the lead) - that is probably OK but needs a quick verification. The other change is from US spelling to Commonwealth (center -> centre), given the subject nothing wrong with that.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And after 5 seconds staring at a map and the NHCs TCR I can state that the article is accurate in saying the storm made landfall on HRM.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I checked in Google Earth and the NHC report's coordinates are outside the HRM. (The part highlighted in that article.) If they are rounded then the location is on that peninsula outside of HRM. Good kitty 23:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the name would be the Chubucto Peninsula, but I don't know anything about that place. Good kitty 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The text of the TCR states landfall between Peggys Cove and Prospect, Nova Scotia; which are both in HRM (which is a funny entity..._--Nilfanion (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the HRM is similar to our counties and those boundaries highlighted are the HRM boundaries, then it looks like it is too far inland. I put it back to the original and added "former city of". Good kitty 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * HRM = the former Halifax County, with all its municipalities merged into it. Think of it as a consolidated city-county. CrazyC83 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification re currency
Juan resulted in eight fatalities and over $200 million (2003 USD) in damage.
 * Is this meant to be 200 million C$ or 200 million US$? Peter Grey 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "(2003 USD)" should make it clear. – Chacor 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he meant whether 2003 USD is correct. The site provided is a Canadian site, so I would actually assume 200 million C$. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd think that this would have been clarified before or during the FAC nomination, so I'd be hesitatnt to change it. – Chacor 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The site was that of the Canadian Hurricane Centre, which says damage totaled $200 million. I guess no one thought anything of it, so I still think it should be changed. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Landfall
Where exactly on the coast of the Halifax Regional Municipality was it ? According to Enviroment Canada the track of the storm was between Prospect and Peggy's Cove. --3250445 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I put. HRM is an entity mostly unknown outside Canada and is about as long as the distance between where I am and where Hurricane Rita struck. Rita was much bigger and stronger at landfall, but we only received a quarter inch of rain and outside it was a little gusty. Juan was very small and it probably wasn't very bad much past Halifax and Dartmouth. Good kitty 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind WP:LEAD. Appropriate detail for the lede is "HRM", appropriate detail for the body text is the exact landfall location - where is the landfall discussed in the prose?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The original version was much better in that regard because "HRM" is the less familiar term. That term probably shouldn't be mentioned, however I thought the second lede was a compromise until someone changed it back. Now its just missing the copyediting done while all the vandals were modifying the article. Good kitty 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Officially the city isn't called Halifax anymore, while it gains a lot of acknowledgment under this name both in and out of the region it is not correct. Reference to the Halifax Regional Municipality may not be so misplaced. --68.145.177.50 04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

White Juan
I find it interesting that there is not a reference to White Juan, while completely unrelated weather systems as the storms both happened within a year of each other, they mark an period of interesting weather patterns not normally seen in the province. --68.145.177.50 04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Work needed
Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Juan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120134846/http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CTVNewsAt11/20031010/ns_juan_031010/ to http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CTVNewsAt11/20031010/ns_juan_031010/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hurricane Juan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111132951/http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/bulletins/20030928060900.Juan.info.txt.en to http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/bulletins/20030928060900.Juan.info.txt.en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111133039/http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/bulletins/20030928180900.Juan.info.txt.en to http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/bulletins/20030928180900.Juan.info.txt.en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929090451/http://sympatico.globeandmail.com/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate?tf=tgamv3%2Frealtime%2Ffullstory_print.html&cf=tgamv3%2Frealtime%2Fconfig-neutral&articleDate=20030929&slug=wjuan0928_3&date=20030929&archive=RTGAM&site=Front&configLabel=front&hub=Front to http://sympatico.globeandmail.com/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate?tf=tgamv3%2Frealtime%2Ffullstory_print.html&cf=tgamv3%2Frealtime%2Fconfig-neutral&articleDate=20030929&slug=wjuan0928_3&date=20030929&archive=RTGAM&site=Front&configLabel=front&hub=Front
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060922012111/http://deved.meted.ucar.edu/norlat/cases/case_novascotia_juan_edna/edna_juan_comp.pdf to http://deved.meted.ucar.edu/norlat/cases/case_novascotia_juan_edna/edna_juan_comp.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905201015/http://www.canada.com/national/features/elections2003/pei/story.html?id=C4DE5B07-51D8-4463-B62C-E1F6AC5A48DB to http://www.canada.com/national/features/elections2003/pei/story.html?id=C4DE5B07-51D8-4463-B62C-E1F6AC5A48DB
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611122546/http://www.ec.gc.ca/ouragans-hurricanes/default.asp?lang=en&n=946F00DC-1 to http://www.ec.gc.ca/ouragans-hurricanes/default.asp?lang=en&n=946F00DC-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Juan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226162042/http://www.halifax.ca/climate/change2.html to http://www.halifax.ca/climate/change2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Juan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007180359/http://cjonline.com/stories/093003/pag_juan.shtml to http://cjonline.com/stories/093003/pag_juan.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
This older FA needs a good bit of work to get back to WP:FACR. I've tagged several uncited statements. In addition, this article does not comprehensively draw on the scholarly literature. It relies very heavily on the National Hurricane Center and Environment Canada, but does not use the scholarly literature available on this topic. Sources below I accessed freely through The Wikipedia Library:

 * The Role of Anomalously Warm Sea Surface Temperatures on the Intensity of Hurricane Juan (2003) during Its Approach to Nova Scotia, Monthly Weather Review
 * The observed analysis on the wave spectra of Hurricane Juan, Acta Oceanologica Sinica
 * Hurricane Juan (2003). Part I: A Diagnostic and Compositing Life Cycle Study Monthly Weather Review

Or from Google Scholar
 * Forest structure more important than topography in determining windthrow during Hurricane Juan in Canada’s Acadian Forest Forest Ecology and Management (only can get abstract but this looks relevant)
 * Does time heal all wounds? Restoring place attachment in Halifax's Point Pleasant Park after Hurricane Juan The Canadian Geographer.

There is quite a bit more, the above is only a sampling. As the scholarly literature about this storm is currently not used, WP:FACR #1c is not met, and I have some potential 1b concerns, as well. A featured article review will likely be needed here. Hog Farm Talk 21:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Have these sources been evaluated for their inclusion in the article? If not, this article might be nominated for WP:FAR. Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved   -- Vaulter  18:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hurricane Juan → Hurricane Juan (2003) – Given how Vongfong 2020 wasn’t the PTOPIC due to higher pageviews and retirement in spite of less impact, this is similar. Juan 1985 caused more deaths and damage and even though this has higher pageviews, that doesn’t determine PTOPIC. As such there is no primary topic. 108.58.9.194 (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 16:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, and redirect base name to List of storms named Juan.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment As this is a FA, relisting to allow for clearer consensus. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 16:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This is one of the most significant hurricanes in recent Canadian history and by far the most looked for "Hurricane Juan" (recentism isn't much of a factor almost 20 years after the event). Hurricane Juan (1985) averages 25-30% of the views that this page does and is hardly one of the most notable hurricanes in Louisiana history. I don't believe the two Vongfongs are an equal comparison, especially given the greater relative significance of Juan 2003. Vongfong 2020 was a typical typhoon event for the Philippines and Vongfong 2014 had relatively standard impact for a former typhoon in Japan. (honestly not sure why the Philippines requested retirement when other storms cause similar or great damage/loss of life every year) ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This Juan is by far the clear primary topic. 🇺🇦 Chicdat Bawk to me!  11:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per CB - this is one of Canada’s most important hurricanes, but not even in the top 10 for Louisiana. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Juan


text:
Balch Hall

Balch Hall is the only remaining all-female residence hall on the North Campus of Cornell University. Originally, Balch Hall consisted of four eighty-student halls, hence the more former name the Balch Halls, which has fallen out of use. Balch Hall is open only to female freshman and is divided into sections, known as units, each with a Residential Advisor who helps the new students acclimate themselves with the campus. Prior to the 2021-2024 renovations, the building was known for its old fashioned design as each room has a personal sink, or shares a sink with one other room.

Background
In 1920, Cornell founded a committee to research the feasibility of constructing a new women's dormitory to meet the needs of the growing community. In 1922, Frederick L. Ackerman submitted a basic plot for the construction of a dormitory on North Campus and, with approval of the university's Architectural Advisory Board, began seeking donors with the promise that Cornell would pay for up to half of the building's construction. In 1928, the university accepted the $1,650,000 donation of Allen C. Balch 1889 and Janet Balch, a graduate student from 1886 to 1888. When Balch opened in September 1929, it became the third female residential college at Cornell, after Sage College and Risley Hall.

According to legend, Janet Balch insisted that her husband donate the money for the dormitory after attending an event at Allen's fraternity, Alpha Delta Phi. The story goes that Mrs. Balch was offended by the behavior of the undergraduate brothers at an Alpha Delta Phi function. She insisted that her husband should not donate further funds to the fraternity and instead build a dormitory dedicated to the welfare of female students. To this day, as the Balches requested, the dormitory has remained an all-female dormitory.

Opening
When Balch opened in 1929, it was considered one of the most lavish dormitories in the world. The building was intended to provide "gracious living" and to "exemplify the highest traditions of American Womanhood," according to then-president Livingston Farrand. Balch consisted of four distinct units, each with its own dining room. Each of the four halls were decorated differently in "Early American, Georgian, English Jacobean, and modern Gramercy Park".

Women wore skirts, high heels, and hose to meals, and men were not allowed above the ground floor. Dining meals were served at individual tables by waitresses, and residents enjoyed maid and laundry service.

The 1960s
The 1960s saw the end of "gracious living." The social rules around clothing and became more relaxed, maid and laundry service ended, and the lavish, expensive furnishings were replaced with standard dorm furniture.

A two-year renovation in the early 1960s converted the four Balch dorms into two units, and introduced TV and study lounges. The four dining rooms were reduced to two, then one, with cafeteria style service instead of sit-down dining with waitresses. The remaining dining hall was known as "Coop 2000", and served low-calorie, natural foods.

At the end of Spring 2000 semester, the dining hall was closed and converted into a student center, cafe, and lecture hall known as the Carol Tatkon Center. In 2021 the center moved to the Robert Purcell Community Center.

2021-2024: Renovation
Balch Hall began undergoing a "full-gut renovation" starting in 2021. While the exterior will be preserved, all windows will be replaced, bathroom fixtures upgraded, four new elevators installed, and other improvements for accessibility. Rooms will be reorganized, with some interior walls removed, and capacity will be increased from 436 to 470 beds. Old-fashioned "sink rooms" will be removed. Balch is expected to reopen in time for the fall 2024 semester. However, only North Balch Hall will open for the fall 2024 semester, while South Balch will still be under renovation until the fall 2025 semester.

Notable resident
Ruth Bader Ginsburg lived in Balch Hall during her sophomore and senior years as an undergraduate member of the class of 1954. A new residence hall at Cornell was named in Ginsburg's honor in 2022.

title: Balch Hall