Talk:Hurricane Ike/Importance

Importance

No way does this qualify for "Top" importance. That is reserved for extremely notable storms that everyone will remember for years. Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Mitch: these are worthy of Top importance. This storm isn't even close to that level. High importance is already pushing it. Plasticup ^T/C 01:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Of those, I would say only Katrina and possibly Mitch deserve Top-importance. However, as for Ike, I agree with High-importance due to its deaths and damage in multiple countries. This is one of the big-name storms (retirement is a given and this will be remembered on a regional basis for a long time), but will not be considered one of the legends. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

not begrudging you, CC, but you are correct Mitch was a doozy. you neglected to mention Hugo and Andrew. here are a few more points for you users to research: one, cyclones and typhoons have an international effect. they are not only American storms. two, as in movie grosses, you have to figure in today's dollars when evaluating hurricanes from decades ago, etc. three, this page is riddled with holes. you guys just don't get it. I can pull apart most of the "facts" that you present. they are not true. not even close... go back and read about the topics you are attempting to address. four, let's not have the bureaucratic nonsense that is prevalent on most wikis. just because you can create task forces does NOT mean they even do anything at all!! alright, let us see whether you actually address these issues and there are only three of you guys who think in this very narrow and incorrect fashion. Assuredly (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't think that the most intense storm in the Atlanic basin is of Top importance to the Tropical Cyclones project? Plasticup ^T/C 01:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No one really remembers Wilma other than those who were affected by it (and meteorologists) same goes for Rita. They were sort of blocked out by Katrina. I'd say it's the most notable storm ever due to the everlasting coverage of it. Ike will probably fall below Top importance, but remain in high due to it's damages. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the damage is really $27 billion. People keep quoting these estimates by risk-reinsurance companies, not knowing that those are the levels of 95% exceedance probability. When the dust settles the real damages will likely be around $10 billion. Plasticup ^T/C 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

They were quite close with gustav, the estimated damage was $10-20 billion and the final damage actually was $15 billion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to wait for the TCR on Gustav as well. Plasticup ^T/C 02:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

here, this is a tiny summary of the case. it is without dispute that recent articles get more attention by dint of the fact they are new. also, no one will object to the fact that Katrina was the worst hurricane. or that Andrew was the second worst (unless damages from Ike top it). I don't know why you guys can't be more logical. you don't need a high number of casualties to have a huge national or international disaster. you only need billions and billions of dollars of damage.

Third World countries are going to have higher casualties. look at the 9.0 earthquake in Thailand. now, to illustrate my point: if the same scenario were to happen and there were almost no casualties, damages would be what is next looked at when categorizing the event. well, also the fact that it was an 8.9 or 9.0, whatever it happened to be. now... I am stating the obvious, the damage is between 15 and 35 billion dollars, let's wait it out and see what it turns out to be. lastly there is a BIAS on here with "self-appointed" experts. you guys are not knowledgable enough. perhaps I am, but I have other things to concern myself with. that leads to my last point, stop assuming that people who spend less than one to two hours a day on Wikipedia (and I daresay that some of you spend seven hours a day) are not correct. the End Assuredly (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Amount of damage" is not the criteria that makes a storm "High" importance versus "Top" importance. Long-term international prominence or other extreme significance to the project is what makes an article "Top" importance. Explain how this storm will be over long-term international prominence. Plasticup ^T/C 14:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

not quite sure why I am allowing so few of you to rile me. look, there are only three, I repeat three of you. you THREE do NOT speak for everyone else. I think I see why many people are tired of spending a little time on Wikipedia. additionally your arguments are very faulty. yes, I can point out the holes in them, but enough of this for one day. Assuredly (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We may only be three, but you are one. And you aren't making a good case. Plasticup ^T/C 14:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it four. This hurricane had a big impcat on the Turks & Caicos, plus added to Haiti's misery before it hit the US. It's possibly the 3rd most expensive Atlantic hurricane ever... It may not stay at top importance due to the apparent low death toll, that remains to be seen, but the amount of damage warrants it being so at the moment. This is the most powerful 'cane so far this season, it's certainly the one at the front of everyones minds, the one people will be looking up for news and information. It warrants Top Importance for the time being. We can always downgrade it at a later date if deemed appropriate. - JVG (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not Top-importance. The impact was severe, even extreme in some cases, but it wasn't as catastrophic as, say, Katrina. Wait for the TCR to come out and go from there. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I hate to spend much time anywhere where people who say "your arguments are very faulty but I'm not going to waste the time discussing them" win. Even ignore that it tends to piss me off, rationally speaking, if you won't point out the holes, they can't be fixed, and many perceived holes historically have been wrong or much smaller than believed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To whom are you writing? Plasticup ^T/C 23:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

guess what? JVG has agreed as well. since when do you guys decide things? pc, you are from Bermuda. are you inept? do you not know the impact of severe hurricanes on the West Indies, Cuba, etc? I happened to notice many of your "edits" have little merit. I did make some of my points; you users just are hard of hearing. wait for a TCR? how about no?? because by then you will say that it has already been decided. plus add the $5 billion in Cuban damages to the total. Assuredly (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the personal attacks, please. Focus on the issues, not the people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuredly, there are only 26 Top-importance Tropical cyclone articles. There are only 16 Top-importance Tropical cyclone storm articles. Hurricane Ike, while devastating, is not one of the 16 most important storms of all time. It doesn't compare to Typhoon Tip, or to the Great Hurricane of 1780, or to Hurricane Katrina. It is an order of magnitude less important than all of them. The long lasting impact of this storm will be minor to moderate, and probably confined to the Houston area alone. THAT is my reasoning. I have defined the category of "Top importance", and I have explained why this storm does not fix into it. You need to do the same. Plasticup ^T/C 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

this could take a while, pc. I will attempt to make one point now and others later, I guess. the Great Hurricane of 1780 was severe; it isn't clear if it affected the US. there is some thought it had an impact on Florida. you and I could argue whether each of the 26 deserve to be there. Ike is going to be seen as much worse than Wilma. you are quite wrong about Ike's impact. it has greatly affected much of eastern Texas (Ike's size was as big as the state), not just Houston. also it impacted Louisiana and Cuba, not to mention off shore drilling. one reason I don't like the ignorance I find on here sometimes is because people don't want to learn. you guys won't listen to any new ideas; you are incapable or unwilling to accept that your arguments are quite baseless. as I mentioned before there are endless debates about such things as who gets into sports' Halls of Fame. the same thing is prevalent on here. at least be understanding enough to hear what others are saying. Assuredly (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuredly, please don't talk about what you don't know. The Great Hurricane was the deadliest Atlantic hurricane of all time. Wilma was the most intense Atlantic hurricane of all time, as well as the second or third costliest. Ike might not even be in the top ten costliest. If you don't mind me quoting you, "one reason I don't like the ignorance I find on here sometimes is because people don't want to learn." I'd hardly call it ignorance when two of the top contributors to the project disagree with you. Juliancolton and Plasticup both know what they are talking about. We don't know what Ike's long term impact is going to be, which is why it should not be higher than high-importance. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

this is beyond silly, Hink. I never said the 1780 storm wasn't one of the worst hurricanes ever. if you want to have a debate: tell me how it rivals Katrina. Wilma is also deserving of its status. you are completely in error about Ike. it will be one of the top 8 in damages. I agree there is a chance that it might have damages of less than $16 billion, but most likely it won't. you are VERY wrong about waiting and seeing what the figures turn out to be. by then you will have some new "trumped-up rationale" as to why it doesn't fit. go ahead and make your points; I still say you are in error. by the way, if you want to discuss music, let's do that too. I probably am more of a music expert than you, but that is beside the point. feel free to quote me, but please get my points correctly.

I am not trying to be obtuse or pick arguments. I just think you guys are living in a fantasy world. you might need to go outdoors more often. unplug your computers? Assuredly (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Importance isn't just about impact. Wilma is of Top importance because it is the most intense storm ever recorded in the Atlantic basin. Tip is of Top importance because it is the largest tropical system ever, anywhere. There are lots of ways to be important, and damage is only one of them. And please stop the ad hominem attacks—they aren't helping anyone. Plasticup ^T/C 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

trying to inject some humor in this dour situation. I am not attacking. you know, I think you probably have no experience with debating. I never said Tip wasn't of great importance, did I? you know, I guess I want to hear your thoughts on Hugo and what importance you assign to it? I NEVER said that impact was the only thing to consider. yes, if you go reread what I said about earthquakes and the Richter Scale, you would know that. BUT YOU did not even notice how you are attempting to move the argument all over the map. you can't do that, pc! stay on one point. you can't say that Ike affected only Houston and then jump to discussions of size and intensity. by the way, Ike was a huge storm, so it meets the size criteria too. not too mention it was a Cat 3 and 4 storm. I don't know what you expect me to tell you to prove to you that you are wrong. how about asking me specific questions? your logic is suspect so far. Assuredly (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

besides, Ike was one of the largest hurricanes. answer that one, alright? also can someone tell me why all of you are expert? I disagree with most of your assessments; am I an expert? maybe. Assuredly (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I go to a music university, and have been playing the piano for 17 years, so I am more of a music expert than you. But that's besides the point. "Ike is going to be seen as much worse than Wilma" - that is the primary reason it should not be top-importance right now. Wilma was the costliest Atlantic hurricane in Mexican history, and it was the third costliest hurricane in US history. More importantly, perhaps, was its meteorological history. Ike caused very severe damage in Texas, yes, but we don't know its place in history yet. Ike's met. history was nothing special. The NHC never said if it was the largest or not, so we don't know yet. Again, we have to wait for the post-season review. So far, it doesn't look like Ike is even in the top five for costliest US hurricanes. That is the primary argument. Feel free to quote this, but you should not try and change our words around. We are arguing that Ike's historical record is not known yet, and what we do know is that it was not in the top five of anything. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hink, come on! I have been playing piano longer than that, try something else. by the way, if you want to talk to me, tell me how to reach you. I am almost fed up with Wikipedia. don't you have instant messaging? Assuredly (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, Wikipedia decisions must be made on Wikipedia, so they can be archived and talked about by whomever wishes. There is a clear consensus that the Tropical cyclone WikiProject does not wish to have Ike at top-class. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

since you want some good reasons HERE GOES. IS anyone listening? 1. Ike's size: one of the largest ever. 2. its impact on a huge region (namely Galveston, Clear Lake, and other parts of Texas, Louisiana, the Turks and Caicos, Cuba, and other areas). 3. its enormous effects (still to be determined, but will be very substantial). 4. monetary damages (American damages and in other countries). 5. so far I have counted five people who care enough to comment on this topic. you five are not the decisionmakers necessarily. 6. I have already said that just because someone can create a kangaroo court style entity, a Wikipedia project, or some other cadre DOESN'T MEAN a hill of beans. you guys could totally rig things or make well-meaning errors. 7. pc, using Wikipedia principles to bash people won't work. you can't do that. you are violating the SPIRIT of the whole entity!! 8. I think I have more, but that will wait for now. here, if you want, ask me specific questions. I don't know why I have to solicit debate on here. you are the ones in error, not me. why am I asking you for more questions? could it be that you don't really conduct affairs correctly on here?

I am asking you guys to realize that most of you spend many hours on here. realize that other people aren't on here as often, HOWEVER they might know more about the topics you work on than you do. I can see I would have to bust out phDs or things on here to get any of you to pay attention. how lame. Assuredly (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we all have to acknowledge that no agreement can be reached. There are two reasons that we could all be disagreeing with you. a) we are "totally rigging things" and are forming a "cadre" or b) you are wrong. I hope that you have given each possibility it due consideration. Plasticup ^T/C 04:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

pc, you aren't getting it. you addressed none of the EIGHT reasons I gave, or at least seven. also while you are at it, if I were to show that you are on here so often because you want some recognititon, then what? does that throw the whole mess into some perspective? I don't pretend to think that people can agree on everything, but you aren't even trying to understand illustrations / points / matters under discussion. Assuredly (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "it was big" so what? Lots of storms are big. This wasn't the biggest and probably wasn't even close. 2. It's impacts aren't that big. 3. "Enormous" effect is likely over-inflated. I have seen dozens of these and the initial estimates always come down. 4. Same as #3. 5. We are all decisions makers—all of us. That's what this encyclopedia is about. 6. Off-topic. 7. Off-topic. 8. Off-topic. The only real argument you are making is that it did a lot of damage, and we have all show that damage alone is rarely worthy of "Top importance". In this case it certainly is not. Plasticup ^T/C 04:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe how mistaken you are. how many million people have to lose electricity for you to think something is gigantic? 3 million? maybe 17 million? calling something off topic doesn't mean it is, sorry. you haven't addressed evacuations. so let's set up a scenario here: you have 2 million people evacuated and only four casualties (not with Ike - this is an example only). how many people have to lose their homes (I mean totally destroyed) to make it a very large or huge storm? maybe you are thinking 200 thousand homes have to be obliterated, right? no, how about 450 thousand? see how empty your arguments are? that is WHY WE use damage reports. this is why monetary damages are useful.

now here is why I don't agree with waiting until the final assessment (TCR) comes out. you guys could say, oh, it has to have damages of $40 million. see? this is called "rigging". I want some straight answers guys. assess for me Mitch. also Hugo. while you are at it Wilma. also remember that monetary damages change with inflation. then you might see how Ike fits in. NO, Ike wasn't just huge, it was one of the top three or four in size, ever. oh, I also want to know why storms have to make the TOP FIVE to be of great importance. that makes zero sense. why is it top five? why not top 11? see? again, this is an error-prone project you have going. I admire that you want to be unbiased but you are way off base. oh yeah, pc, here I have an illustration that you might finally understand. you are someone who is not in favor of page-protection, why? yes, there will be some good contributions, but if a page is vandalized often, how often does it have to occur before you totally page-protect an article? see, we have a fundamental difference here. you are making everything relative to your experience and not considering anyone's idea. Assuredly (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop quoting specific figures. Not only are they not accurate, they are not relevant. Top importance is reserved for extremely notable storms that everyone will remember for years, even outside of their impacted region. This storm doesn't come close. It is a Frances, not a Katrina. Plasticup ^T/C 05:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are done. well, I will at least address your point or lack of one. yes, Frances was a major storm, even one of the top 10 - 15 of all American hurricanes. that doesn't compare well though with Ike and some other storms. to say that the seventh, eighth, or eleventh most costly storm doesn't compare with the top one is inane! what criteria are you using. I can appreciate that you are very interested in meteorology. this doesn't make you a professional weatherman. I am not saying don't learn and get great knowledge, by all means continue your interests and hobbies. I noticed you didn't mention your thoughts on Mitch, Hugo, or Camille, why? I wanted to hear your input on them and how they "stack up with the great storms of all time". I am saying if the damage figures from Ike turn out to be $16 billion or $25 billion, or even more, let this be a little lesson that you don't have your facts correct. one thing you didn't consider is point of landfall and the size of the population in the eyewall or worst-area impact. by that measure and all others I have already stated Ike qualifies as a top storm and one of the top ten of all time, maybe even top six. if it ends up being top four, are you guys going to jump on A NEW bandwagon called let's get more recognition on Wikipedia for Ike? this is quite stupid in my view. Assuredly (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems rather absurd that you're arguing that WikiProject Tropical cyclones's priority assessment is wrong, given that it is purely an internal measurement that does not mean anything in the long run outside the WikiProject. In any case, 1) Ike is a large storm, but it is not Typhoon Tip, so "size" is not really that remarkable of a characteristic. 2) Ike's impact is similar to several storms in the region, such as Jeanne and Gordon 1994, which have been assessed as High-Importance for a long time already. 3) "enormous effects" - so far, loss of life has not been enormous (< 1000 deaths in a developed country, or < 10,000 deaths in a developing country), and 4) damage totals have not exceeded the $50 billion (current USD) mark we decided on previously as a rough benchmark for Top-Class. 5) The five people who have bothered to reply to you are indeed not everybody, but they are the most active of the WikiProject whose assessment you're trying to change. This storm might warrant High-Class importance now, but until we have more available data, I do not consider that it merits Top-Class. I guess that makes six of us, then. That said, the difference between both is academic at best. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

oh wow, at last someone bothered to link me to said suspect info. but thanks. however $50 billion? that is way too high a figure. I think $20 billion is much better. I did take note that even you sided with my points on that page you linked me to. this isn't so much about me being right as it is that I am defending the rights of the masses (even if I may happen to be a genius) against pseudo-intellectuals who don't even know enough. better stated, the people you mentioned (the five)... well, one agreed with me. another one is from Bermuda and you would think he understands the absolute terror that must be felt to live on an island and have a hurricane visit (whether it is major, top, mid-size, or whatever other dimension). suffice it to say I have been in one of the TOP hurricanes and I will not just let you guys dictate things or spout foolishness.

in reply or summation: the casualty count is a factor but that is Third World biased. not a good enough criteria. effects: I think you should go take a few polls and find out that you are incorrect. in conclusion I am not debating the merits of a weather "court", which I think you guys are trying to establish in some fashion. however while I praise your dogged diligence to get every thing (dot and tittle) correct in extremely minor or low-level value articles, I am somewhat castigating you for your failure to get the big picture on things. anyway, go ahead and be misled, I didn't think I could prove my points to people who are not aware enough in my opinion. it isn't so much that you can't see my point, you are just unable to backtrack once you have made up your mind on something. science is not best served with the approaches the few of you in this group (with the exception of the one or two people that have concurred) employ.

I think if I was trying to be more brief and get a couple of main points across, I would say this: let's take the basic premise here that you have categories. top and high are the main two, I gather. if you use as many as many as six criteria to decide which storms go where, can't you see that you are creating headaches and muddling through something? I was suggesting keeping it to 1. size 2. casualties / monetary damage ($50 billion is way too high, by the way) 3. point of landfall 4. intensity. NOW how can you argue against that? I would like to hear about ten or more views on that NARROW question. the four criteria. Assuredly (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop drawing out this losing debate - it is disruptive and lame. As a project we agreed to the importance levels, a while ago, so you shouldn't disagree with it so much. Have you ever considered your account of the storm might be biased? Ike is so far out of the league with Katrina. Let's compare them. Damage: About $15 billion to $25 billion vs. $81.2 billion for Katrina. Deaths: 100-200 (of which less than 100 in US) for Ike vs. 1500-1800 for Katrina. Meteorologically: Ike and Katrina were about the same size, but the NHC never made any sort of comment that Ike was the largest anything. However, if the TCR says Ike was the largest TC at US landfall, then that could change things. But they haven't yet - we have to wait for the TCR. Also, Katrina was a Cat. 5 at peak, while Ike was only a Cat. 4. So what looks to be the most important factor for Ike would be its damage, even though it was 25% to 35% of Katrina's. However, we don't even know its damage total yet, which is why that factor is hard to assess. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Assuredly, you are not a member of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones, so you have very little say in how we assess and grade articles. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure any specific hurricane articles should be in the Top importance--that should be reserved for articles covering hurricanes in general, IMO--but as it is, Ike is hopefully going to be the worst hurricane of the season, but it's not the worst hurricane of its decade, or even half-decade, it's not the most damaging hurricane to hit southern Texas (or even Houston I believe) or any other place it hit. It's not in any way the biggest or baddest thing--and I'm not sure if Tip or Wilma, as meterologically important as they are, deserve top rating for that alone, either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry to say, but that is poppycock. no hurricanes are Top now? come on. Julian, I don't participate in half-baked things. Assuredly (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop, Assuredly. Your edits resemble vandalism and personal attacks, and you're being disruptive. Some storms, Tip, Katrina, and Wilma, deserve top importance. Ike, as severe as it was, was not unprecedented, meteorologically rare, or catostrophic. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Julian, try to listen. I can prove you are incorrect if you would like me to. yes, Ike did have a few rare qualities. unprecedented would mean that it was in the top position in a category. how crazy is it to say that an event or occurrence has to be the preeminent one to merit great importance? incidentally, Julian, I think I can find plenty of people who find you "disruptive". Assuredly (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think from a size perspective and a damage perspective, we can go high with this article. I do agree that top articles should represent the 10-20 most important events within a subject. The death toll won't be in the top 10-20, and the size of the storm was only the 22nd biggest in the Atlantic basin since 1984 based on ROCI. Its intensity wasn't up in the top 10, though it did have the lowest pressure for a category 2 hurricane in the database. Climatology, it was a unique track. Overall, I think high is a better fit than top. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I daresay this is the stupidest argument I've ever seen here... and I'm the one who started the Zeta argument, so I know dumb arguments. Everyone needs to shut up and write the article, rather than arguing about its bloody IMPORTANCE. If the effort that was put into this section was put into the article it would be featured by now. --Golbez (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

mhmm, Golbez, maybe I can explain to you why I feel the Importance issue is critical. see, first, who cares if an article is featured. I will clarify that point. I agree that it is desirable to gain attention, but every user who reads or contributes to the Ike article or the talk page for it should be MORE EMPATHETIC. the crux of me and a few others on here making a big deal out of this has to do with how blase WE feel a large part of Wikipedia has become.

as to your Zeta conflict, you should not start a dumb argument. second, I believe many users (particularly the tropical cyclones project) are much more interested in counting how many times they can touch an article or what number of edits they can perform. I even tried to get them to admit that they are addicts to such practices, no success though. Wikipedia has gained worldwide attention BECAUSE it seeks to eradicate the status quo of horrid journalism. it doesn't pay its contributors so it has taken commercialism and materialism (a thorny topic) out of the mix. I personally have talked to Jimbo Wales. he is not happy with the "Monday morning quarterback societies (my terminology)" on Wikipedia. the Wikipedia PRINCIPLES are not blather. they are not trivial. they are not to be trifled with and ABOVE ALL else THEY ARE not around to bash other users (whether they are conscionable regular Wikipedians with years of experience or "newbies"). are you guys getting the point? Assuredly (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

About 90% of what you said has nothing to do with this argument, and is rambling about some structural failure in Wikipedia. You didn't manage to explain why it's critical, you just mentioned something about talking personally to Jimbo and some baseless stuff about edit counts. MOVE ON. That goes to EVERYONE, not just you. Come back in a few weeks when the furor over the storm has died down and this topic can be approached with a firmer historical perspective. --Golbez (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew (Golbez), if you don't want me to call you Andrew, I won't, by the way. look! this is simple to explain. if people were to do as you say and stop the debate, here is what would happen. yes, I know Wikipedia has Crystal Ball as one of its principles. but I will pull out my own crystal ball. I think people would try to say, we had Ike at midlevel or high importance and you did not object or do anything for weeks or months. that is what I have been saying and yes it is a general or systemic failure of Wikipedia to allow this nonsense. it is much the same with people trying to do away with things like patriotism (for one's home country), American pride, or what have you in favor of global "respect" and placating anti-capitalists, animal rights people, or whoever else. I agree people should be allowed to have those views but they can't barbarize the rest of us. just because Wikipedia is neutral should not make it an receptacle of artifice. no matter what you think, noble Wikipedians can't allow that sort of travesty. I do value your point that articles containing current events bring out the rabble-rousers, BUT I am not one of them. I would like to point out that I have been on Wikipedia longer than almost everyone who has contributed to this page, well over 2 or 3 years. you don't see me campaigning to be an admin; I think some of us non-admins are as valuable. a concluding point: millions of people are still without electricity. to all of you people who think Ike wasn't a super huge and vicious storm (Top level), visit them and ask what they think, alright? Assuredly (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuredly, STOP! I don't know what you're trying to get out of this argument. Your opinion is biased, and there is a clear consensus among the WPTC members that Ike is not among the most important tropical cyclones ever. I left a message for you on your talk page. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

huh? I explained to you, Hink, what is happening here. the tropical cylones project creator, when he started the group (task force) could not have envisioned the actions of its members. now, you don't want me to accuse you of not being newsworthy, of creating tempests in teapots, of editing just to see your actions in print, etc. so get on the ball and actually do things that are noteworthy.

I am not denigrating the tcp or others like it on Wikipedia, but I have stated and will again, "because you can create projects, it does not mean said tasks are efficient or needed". clarifying this, I am saying you should put more emphasis on more recent storms than seeking to be exhaustive and researching several hundred. another point, so far as I can tell only about 12 members of the tcp write on this page and it could be only 9. you seem to have other priorities so stop challenging users who think it deserves more importance. I have never said Ike is approaching Andrew's damage yet. if it does or tops Andrew are you going to jump off your sliding position that Ike is of major to high importance? Assuredly (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to disrupt this talk page. Plasticup ^T/C 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

pc, don't be guilty of censorship. here is my point you have only the talk pages for Tropical Storm Allison and TS Thelma as being of high importance. additionally only SIXTEEN hurricanes meet your criteria. now, how do you know that only 16 and not 25 should be rated high? I think if I had hours of time to contribute to the cyclones or storms projects, you would be valuing my input. I have contributed more to the Ike page than you have. Assuredly (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been over for quite some time. Everyone considers it to be resolved except you. You have proven time and time again that you cannot be reasoned with, and I am afraid that you simply have to live with the current consensus. Sorry. Plasticup ^T/C 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

does the tropical cyclones project ever poll members and those who aren't as to its findings? I have stated that I feel too much weight is given to storms from decades ago. 365 daysz (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there aren't enough writers on this article. If you (collectively or individually, members of the project) can't understand that some priority should be given to making the piece better, then I question the direction of said project. Also by archiving in a fashion that reasonable people could consider to be both heavy handed and an improper use of talk pages, you are squelching both creativity and contributing to the article not being as strong as it should and can be. Notatallyouknow (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mister Puppet.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)