User talk:FourNoddlers: Difference between revisions

The Original Barnstar

I hope you blanking your page doesn’t mean you’re leaving. Wikipedia is a complicated place at times, so it is good to see people who are trying to make it better, even when facing occasional resistance. When there are so many vandals, sockpuppets, and inexperienced people on here, it’s good to have thoughtful people just trying to do the work. So for that, thank you, I hope you stick around, and keep up the spirit of trying to do the right thing. Cheers, ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Isaac, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Carolina2k22 • (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the leads, @Hurricanehink said that the leads in typhoon articles that have Philippine typhoon names shouldn’t be written down like this. Mastercane F X (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mastercane F X: – people are allowed to disagree on Wikipedia. What I say, doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be that way. That’s why it’s important to get into discussions, rather than edit wars. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk to @FourNoddlers @Hurricanehink Mastercane F X (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He’s talking to the right person. His concerns are about your behavior. FourNoddlers (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having said my position about TC images in your query earlier this month, I thought I would drop by and discuss it, as it doesn’t look like a good representation of the storm (it not having a clear eye). The TCR for it also has the Nov 3 image at its pressure peak: “The minimum pressure observed by reconnaissance aircraft was 933 mb at 1921 UTC and 2101 UTC 3 November.” Regards, 👦 02:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The image is satisfactory because it shows the hurricane as a Category 4. The other pictures would be misleading, as they imply an intensity that the storm did not reach then. The lead should not show an image of a Category 3 hurricane for a tropical cyclone that peaked as a Category 4 hurricane.

My compromise: any image of the hurricane taken around 2001-11-03 12:00 UTC (clear eye) or 2001-11-04 12:00-23:00 UTC for the reasons stated previously, and that there’s visible imagery from GOES 8 taken then. FourNoddlers (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FourNoddlers: Done. Regards, 👦 04:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Feel free to implement it. FourNoddlers (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICH doesn’t apply in this case. Your edits at Typhoon Paka etc add excessive whitespace and negatively impact the flow of the article. SolarisPenguin (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICH absolutely applies in these cases, as the guideline says to a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween im­ages, in­fo­boxes, or sim­i­lar tem­pla­tes hor­i­zon­tally op­po­site each other. The text in the Meteorological history section would be sandwiched between Template:Storm path and the Template:Infobox weather event templates because the lead is too short. If you’re not a fan of the whitespace and want to remove Template:Clear, expand the lead section. FourNoddlers (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lede doesn’t need to be expanded, it shouldn’t be too long. There’s no need for the clear template. I checked myself and there’s not much of a problem with text sandwiching, but the addition of the clear template creates too much whitespace. It’s always worked this way, there’s no need to suddenly change it. Articles with this supposed “text sandwiching” have been featured in the past, so clearly people don’t have much of a problem with it. WP:Ignore all rules applies here. SolarisPenguin (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Text sandwiching alters the length of each line of text, impeding readability by causing undesireable text wrapping and hyphenations. This compacts the text to look crammed and unorganized. It also interrupts the horizontal line below the header title. Template:Clear prevents this, so it is needed. The Wikipedia page on whitespace, Help:Whitespace, says when used sparingly, whitespace can enhance readability and visual balance and that the best way to solve [undesirable whitespace] is to expand the article (with suitable content). Text sandwiching is an issue; the Manual of Style says it should be avoided, and I’m not seeing how it benefits the article and the encyclopedia. FourNoddlers (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page says when used sparingly. Taking up half the page with whitespace is not “used sparingly”, it’s excessive. MOS:LEAD also indicates that the lead should not be too long. SolarisPenguin (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]