text:
Talk:Hurricane Hattie

Article name
I'm not sure I agree with the renaming of this as Hattie-Simone. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones. Jdorje 18:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you go on to do that, you should include its full lineage which is Hattie/Simone/Inga. I'm relooking for the old Weatherwise article that talks about the evolution of the only known storm to cross from the Atlantic Basin into the Eastern Pacific, and back again across the Isthmus of Tehauntepec. I believe it was published soon after the fact in 1962. thegreatdr 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think it is official that Inga was the same storm...probably like Katrina and TD10, I believe there is some doubt that Simone's circulation lead to Inga. — jdorje (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Todo
More content... Jdorje 08:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

References, especially for multi-basin
As pointed out in my talk page, references for this article are quite lacking - particularly any that support the claim that hattie, simone, and/or inga were the same storm. No doubt I'm much to blame here; all i can recall from working on this article is that I wanted to get the track map right with the multi-basin nature of the storm. But I did not do careful research on it; going with the first secondary/tertiary source I found. As I recall.

So, what's the truth? From a brief bit of research it looks like things are actually uncertain and the article is flat incorrect to claim the storms were definitively the same. This book claims without any particular evidence that the storms were not the same, deferring to the ever-upcoming NHC re-analysis for the final word. This book claims they were the same, but as it was published in 2007 (after the writing of this article) and again cites no evidence this is useless as a reference. This book, or research paper, discusses the topic briefly and appears to cite sources supporting both independent and singular cyclogenesis. Tracking down the sources cited in that last might be productive.

Either way however it seems that we will have to cop out and claim uncertainty, preferably with secondary sources supporting each side. Another idea would be to email the NHC and see if they will give a final word on the matter.

— jdorje (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Stamp
The image of the stamp just cleared crown copyright, which is 50 years, from what I understand. The stamp was printed 51 years ago, and placed onto wikipedia last year. We have to be careful with printings/images originating from Great Britain. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, jeez, had no idea it was that close! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane Hattie. 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/20140216194107/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1998mitch.html to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1998mitch.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615212545/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120723114312/http://www.nemo.org.bz/cgi-bin/nemonews/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=285 to http://www.nemo.org.bz/cgi-bin/nemonews/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=285
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615212545/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.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) 23:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Hattie. 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/20140517081242/http://www.sigpad.gov.co/sigpad/archivos/01_PLAN_DEPARTAMENTAL_SAN%20ANDRES_MAYO2011.pdf to http://www.sigpad.gov.co/sigpad/archivos/01_PLAN_DEPARTAMENTAL_SAN%20ANDRES_MAYO2011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526183416/http://www.belizetimes.bz/2009/11/13/hattieville/ to http://www.belizetimes.bz/2009/11/13/hattieville/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705113113/http://www.cdera.org/cunews/news_releases/belize/article_1375.php to http://www.cdera.org/cunews/news_releases/belize/article_1375.php

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) 14:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Cliff song?
I'm not sure if the principal authors here think it's too tangential to warrant inclusion, but it may be worth mentioning that Jimmy Cliff's breakthrough hit was his song "Hurricane Hattie," inspired by the storm. He's a pretty big name in reggae, so this is more notable than most pop culture references, I suspect. Just a thought! –  Juliancolton  | Talk 19:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I've rummaged around looking for a more more exciting alternative image for main page day, but I'm not coming up with much. –  Juliancolton  | Talk 21:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a cute little song! Damn, interesting that Cliff's breakthrough song is named after the storm. I incorporated it into the long term aftermath paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Hattie


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essential Brides

 * 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 04:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Essential Brides
Tagged as a speedy, which it is not iMO. But it does look like promotion (although i edited out the more glaring ad text, and munged the links) and it is probably non-notable. But if it really is the first such buisness in all of Australia (and if this can be verified, it just might be notable. Delete unless verifiable evidence of notability added to the article. DES (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that it does not meet CSD though. --CastAStone 01:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is this chain a market leader down under? Qaz  ( talk ) 04:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dottore So 05:53, 7 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.

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


text:
Talk:Hurricane Janet

Todo
More impact. Jdorje 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Also storm history, preps, and aftermath, if possible. Sources would be nice. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

- I saw this bit while researching Diane. It turns out the British Honduras government had a rebuilding program after Janet. Not sure if that's been mentioned yet. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Monster
Interpreting the best-track data, this was a monster storm! The 914 mbar record, already one of the strongest measurements in the basin, was from when the hurricane was at 155 mph winds. On the next visit, the hurricane hunter plane was lost. There is no way to know how strong this hurricane really was. — jdorje (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It probably didn't get much stronger, because on the next flight that didn't crash, it was at least 10 mph weaker. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 23:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Assessment
Reducing to stub. There isn't much here. --Core des at talk. o_O 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor Janet
She was once the most intense on record, and she just got booted from the top ten. Mention that she was the most intense added to the article. — Verrai 06:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

 * She was never the most intense on record, though the MWR does make some impressive claims (tied for 3rd lowest land pressure ever recorded worldwide, behind the Labor Day storm and an unnamed Philippines tc) which I added to the article (though the MWR should not be taken as fact). The actual numbers are impressive enough: no accurate pressure measurements were ever taken at sea, the only semi-accurate measurement was the 914 mbar measurement from Chetumal (which is not actually on the coast) after landfall.  From the MWR I get the impression that none of the hurricane hunter planes were ever able to find the eye of the storm, with the possible exception of the one that was lost. — jdorje (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Tampico flood of 1955
In an effort to narrow down the number of deaths to a single number, I made a little table of deaths by region. And it don't add up. The 538 number is pretty clearly just the Barbados plus Quintana Roo deaths, ignoring elsewhere. The 681 number is a little trickier, but is pretty close to the number of deaths recorded throughout most of the storm's path - I suspect there must be another 5 or 10 deaths on one of the Caribbean islands to make this total up properly. Interestingly though neither total is even close if you include the deaths from the Veracruz landfall. Hurricanecity claims 300 deaths in Tampico (which isn't even in veracruz) from the storm, but without any primary sources given this is pretty sketchy. In fact the MWR barely makes mention of the veracruz landfall, with just a sentence claiming that the resulting flooding in Tampico was "one of the greatest natural disasters ever to occur in [Mexico]". Continuing to dig, I found this interesting little story, telling about the flood (rainy year+Gladys+Hilda+Janet) and how the entirety of Tampico was underwater; that page claims 10,000-12,000 deaths were caused by the flooding (and thus, caused by Janet, a la Hurricane Floyd or Hurricane Diane which had similar styles of cumulative rainfall). For now I continue to look...but ultimately, my question is: what do we do to this and other articles if supporting background is found that Janet did indeed cause 10-12 thousand deaths? Perhaps this would be one to email the NHC and ask them about. — jdorje (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The NHC storm reports online don't go back to 1955, which probably means they don't have more extensive records than what you see in HURDAT, the Monthly Weather Review article, and their Deadlist/Costliest document from 1996. You can ask NHC, they likely deserve a head's up, but they may not know any more than you do.  Thegreatdr 11:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC
 * I'm starting to think nobody knows. I found a US government document listing all disasters since 1900; it listed 0 deaths for the catastrophic tampico floods of 1955.  Meanwhile all the newspapers of the time claim that it was the worst disaster in mexico's history (Tampico, population 110,000, was completely underwater and cut off from the mainland) and that the death toll mounted "hourly" as the days progressed.  The end-of-season report by Gordon Dunn (which I haven't been able to find) is quoted in several newspapers, saying "For the second consecutive year all records were broken for hurricane destruction" and "a conservative estimate of hurricane casualties is 1518 but probably many more than that number died in Mexico alone from hurricane-induced floods."  All this lends credence to the one source giving 10-12 thousand deaths but I suspect all the authentic sources are going to be in Spanish. — jdorje (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me e-mail Eric. He maintains the costliest, most damaging document that was released this year.  I managed to get Audrey's death toll increased based upon a book published in 1997 by sending the scanned pages over to NHC.  My guess is, though, we'll need a published book source (that includes an actual list of the dead), possibly by an official Mexican government source, if the number is ever going to be changed for NHC purposes.   Thegreatdr 11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A mexican government source would be nice. And while you're at it, ask how the MWR adds up to 681 deaths.  By my count (reflected now in the article) it totals to 687+ even if you boil the mainland deaths down into just the "+".  Maybe 1 and 7 look very similar? — jdorje (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deaths
The figure of 681 deaths for Janet is attributed to the MWR (the 538 value comes from an internal set of NHC "unpublished notes" which I choose to ignore). All values seem accurate enough except for the 500 for Quintana Roo which is an estimate. Stangely though the total does not add up to 681: it totals to 687. And either way deaths from Veracruz and Tamaulipas are not included. If anyone notices something I might have missed from the MWR (an added 5 deaths somewhere would add up, if the NHC isn't counting the 11 lost hurricane hunters in the total), please add it. — jdorje (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One quick thing- I don't like how Hurricanecity is used for the deaths in Tamaulipas. The newspaper archive should probably be able to help, seeing as the MWR doesn't list everything. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Quite. Deaths in Tamaulipas and Veracruz are basically unknown from what I can see - the number 300 given by hurricanecity is suspiciously similar to the 300 that MWR gives for Hilda deaths in Tamaulipas, while hurricanecity claims 200 deaths from hilda for some reason.  The only other source I can find claims 10-12 thousand deaths, but I do not consider that reliable.  Newspapers from the time may also be unreliable, however, but at least they're primary sources.  What newspaper archive do you suggest?  Do you know of a particular online site that's freely accessible?  — jdorje (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 * You bet. Click here Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Wow, that's some interesting reading. I wonder if the flooding ("the worst flood in the country's history" according to one aggrandized newspaper article) deserves a separate article.  From what I've read tampico was already largely underwater from Hilda when Janet came along...then the floods from Janet not only submerged the rest of the city but completely cut it off from the mainland.  Government and international aid came quickly with the Mexican and US military moving in within a day or three to evacuate people in boats and airdrop supplies with helicoptors.  I still see no useful information on a death toll but it will be extremely difficult to separate Hilda and Janet here.  And wherever the information goes, it should make for a very informational "aftermath" section. — jdorje (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

/me goes digging in ProQuest, see you in a couple days and I will have stuff from the NYT, some very useful in fact. Problem is its not publically viewable and I'm not really in the mood to add info myself. Suppose I could download and email to interested parties (I've found a dozen stories relating to Tampico area and a good deal more on Janet itself.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image
I'd swear this page once had a great damage photo. Maybe it was deleted. I've found them again here. Unfortunately, I think they're copyrighted. But I'm almost sure they got these images from a public domain source, though. I just don't know where. We sould at least have a media section that gives a link to these photos, they are powerful. The destruction is absolute. I would be so disappointed if we can't find them in the public domain somewhere. (Other pics here, same site, need to scroll down a bit.) -- § Hurricane E  RIC  archive 01:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Janet. 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 tag to http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=local&NewsID=12859
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203051752/http://www.emdat.be/search-details-disaster-list to http://www.emdat.be/search-details-disaster-list
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402171906/http://www.meteo.an/Include/Climate2/documents/HurricanesandTropicalStorms.pdf to http://www.meteo.an/Include/Climate2/documents/HurricanesandTropicalStorms.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) 23:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Janet. 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/20110516220440/http://www.cdera.org/cunews/news/saint_lucia/article_1289.php to http://www.cdera.org/cunews/news/saint_lucia/article_1289.php

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) 02:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Janet


text:
User talk:Systemf

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 need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 00:53, 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

Universidades y Colegios
I would like to invite you to check out the userboxes that I have created in Wikipedia! If your Collge/University is not there feel free to make create one or let me known and I'll make it (User: Lufthmark)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/Mexico

Hi From A Jaibo
Hey Will Don't get worked up over the 'jaiba' (crab) vs. 'Jaibo' (a Tampiqueño, a native of Tampico) thing, OK? Linguistically, it's an easy mistake to make.

I see you're at the American School here - is your dad working down here or do your folks live here permanently? I have been here three years and still can't get used to it. Eddie.willers 05:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Img 118WP center 00009.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Img 118WP center 00009.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Img 118WP center 00009.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Img 118WP center 00009.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User expat Americans in MX
A tag has been placed on Template:User expat Americans in MX requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Auditor desktop.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Auditor desktop.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:

 * Image:Auditor-cd-label-small.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Auditor desktop.png
A tag has been placed on File:Auditor desktop.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Auditor-cd-label-small.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Auditor-cd-label-small.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Head1 resized earsfixed.PNG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Head1 resized earsfixed.PNG, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Will G. (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Will G. (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Schoolfacilities013.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Schoolfacilities013.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 seven 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. mattbr 08:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Systemf


text:
Talk:Hurricane Cleo

Todo
The impact section is basically a collection of stubs. The intro mentions nothing of impact. Jdorje 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been significantly improved. I think I've done all I can with internet sources. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

GAC consideration
It looks good. GAC it if you want. Juliancolton (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Already have two articles I've been working on that are nominated as good articles right now, effects of tropical cyclones and tropical cyclone forecasting. The GAC for this article will have to wait for one of those articles to clearly pass or fail.  Past experience has taught me that two articles under review at a time is my upper limit.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been GACed. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:00, 3 January 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 January 4, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

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

I have made about 13 subsequent edits since my first visit here, all minor—with most being done to grammar, use of ndash, conversion templates and the dablink towards the top which I shortened. Most of these edits were to keep the article consisent. A very good job, and I am willing to pass this article. Well done. 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. Rt . 14:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tornadoes spawned by storm
I also proposed in Talk:Hurricane Hilda about a category for Tornadoes of 1964 because Cleo spawned seven tornadoes in South Carolina including an F2 in Mount Pleasant on August 29 and Hurricane Hilda spawned an F4 tornado in Butte La Rose, Louisiana on October 3. There were two non-tropical tornado events including an F5 in Wichita Falls, Texas on April 3 and an outbreak that spawned another F5 in Bradshaw, Nebraska on May 5. Just like Hurricane Carla is included in the Tornadoes of 1961 category why not have these two storms in a new category for the 1964 season with articles for 1964 Wichita Falls tornado and May 1964 tornado outbreak?--Kevjgav (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Reanalysed Future
I have read a reanalysed thesis from NOAA on the storm and it says that Cleo joins the list of Florida major Hurricanes. I could be wrong though. LlayReactorUltra (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Cleo. 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/20111031231814/http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NOAA_historic_documents/WB/Hurricane_Cleo.pdf to http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NOAA_historic_documents/WB/Hurricane_Cleo.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) 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Cleo. 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/20070807232431/http://www.fau.edu/40th/alook_time.html to http://www.fau.edu/40th/alook_time.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) 03:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane Cleo. 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/20080205054507/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/gemini/gemini-2/gemini2.htm to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/gemini/gemini-2/gemini2.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.onamet.gov.do/onamet/Ftp/Climatologia/El%20Clima%20Dominicano%20AGOSTO.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207113208/http://srbcm.com/ to http://srbcm.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031000014/http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=1376 to http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=1376
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706235327/http://www.mercy.ch/canada/en/about_e.php to http://www.mercy.ch/canada/en/about_e.php

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) 01:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Cleo


text:
Talk:Hurricane Inez

Replacement
According this page, the name Inez was replaced by Isabel. But I couldn't find the information about it. Please tell me the web site which describes it.--HERB 15:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Todo
Infobox picture is the wrong shape. Impact is nearly non-existent. Jdorje 05:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * (Sigh), I tried to give a little more impact, but, dude, there is nothing on this storm! I couldn't find anything! It's still next to nothing on the page.  →Cyclone 1→  00:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Damn, that sucks. Hurricanehink 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 1966 doesn't have the NHC data online for some silly reason (1965 and 67 do). One minor tweak, alter that pic.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
This article needs to be either remade or merged. The information box and picture needs to be fixed a bit, and the introduction, storm history, and impact sections are not written very well or detailed. If nothing can be done, I vote for a temporary merge. CapeVerdeWave 02:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Huge no on merge. This hurricane was retired. It can still be remade. I doubt many people even check up on this storm. If anyone wants to, they can just do what I've done before. Rewrite each section, section-by-section until it's good. The main problem with this storm is that there's not a lot of information on it. Here's a little info I found.
 * 3 killed and $5.5 million in damage
 * Monthly weather review- 45 deaths in Florida keys, info on other places as well
 * Two Tornadoes in Florida
 * I'm sure there's more, but I don't have time to look through all of Google. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I improved the introduction and storm history sections and added sources. I am going to remake the entire article, add more details and sources, improve the writing, and expand/improve the impact section and try to add a detailed preparations section. Does it already look better? I might change the introduction and storm history sections around a bit until I find the writing and deatails look best. Is that OK as well? CapeVerdeWave 04:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The overall format is a lot better. Good luck remaking the article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I found an interesting radar image I added. Does it look good, or is there a problem with it (e.g., copyrighted)? CapeVerdeWave 03:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice pic. It's Public Domain, as it's part of NOAA (it's mentioned at the top). --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Book info
Here are a few scanned pages from on the effects of Inez in Florida, Cuba, and the Bahamas for inclusion in the article. The first page is page 231 and the last is 234 (I just typed that one out, because scanning it was too much work). This stuff is mostly available on Google Books, so there shouldn't be a copyright problem. Juliancolton (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hurricane Inez. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/ghls/ghlsfloodimpact.html

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 04:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Inez. 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 tag to http://digital.library.depauw.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/putnam/id/52029/rec/2
 * 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) 23:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Inez
HYRDAT database has upgraded Hurricane Inez to a Category 5 (from 130 kts to 145 kts). This article needs sourcing from HYRDAT! TheHurricaneExpert 05 (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Inez


text:
Talk:Hurricane Beulah

Good article review

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Great job Dr.Roth, this article has been here three years and yet has had no one to tackle the work on it. It reaches all Good Article Criteria. Nice job.Mitch32contribs 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tornadoes
If we count the tornadoes from about the 16-17 to the 22nd, the storm would have produced 117 tornadoes excluding those in the Great Lakes, Florida and Central Plains that took place at that time - thus it would rank second. The three tornadoes on the 23/24 since it occurred after dissipation will not count. -- JForget 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Damage
In the infobox it says that it caused $1.1 billion in damage unadjusted, but all of the damage info in the article says that that is in 2000 or 2005 dollars. I'm inclined to believe that the infobox is right. Right? bob rulz (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Town noted on image may be incorrect.
The city name on image under the section "3.3 United States" may be incorrect. It notes the damage and flooding in "McAllen, TX." However, the sign notes the location of the "Palm Lounge," which is located in Brownsville, TX., and is located there to this day. Therefore, it has to be the city of Brownsville, TX. Rockfan (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Death toll
TOTAL - 659

 * Martinique - 13
 * St. Vincent - 2
 * Puerto Rico - 1
 * Dominican Republic - 2
 * Haiti - 0
 * Mexico - 630
 * United States - 11

Downgrading to C-class
Given how much info isn't in the article, how short it is, and the lack of references, I'm boldly downgrading this to just C-class. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Beulah. 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/20130920065153/http://conexiontotal.mx/2013/09/16/sufre-tamaulipas-10-ciclones-en-43-anos/ to http://conexiontotal.mx/2013/09/16/sufre-tamaulipas-10-ciclones-en-43-anos/

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) 01:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Beulah


text:
Martin Kennedy (composer)

Martin Kennedy (born March 24, 1978) is a pianist and composer of contemporary classical music.

Early life and education
Martin Kennedy was born in Wakefield, England to Barry and Ann Kennedy, and moved with them as a young child to the United States. He grew up in Pennsylvania and Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where he attended Central High School. As a youth, he played piano and composed pieces for the Tuscaloosa Children's Theatre, Theatre Tuscaloosa and the Frank M. Moody Concert Hall, winning national awards and recognition for his work. He earned a Bachelor of Music degree in piano performance and composition, as well as a Master of Music in composition, from the Jacobs School of Music. In 2005, he received his Doctorate in Music Composition from the Juilliard School where he studied as a C.V. Starr fellow under Milton Babbitt and Samuel Adler.

Career
After receiving his doctorate, Kennedy became assistant professor of theory and composition at the Department of Music in Arts and Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. He has written extensively for orchestra, chamber ensembles, and solo instruments, working with Tuscaloosa Symphony Orchestra music director Shin-ik Hahm and pianist Molly Morkoski. In 2015, Kennedy was director of composition and theory at the music department of Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Washington.

Awards and recognition
Kennedy's awards include first prize in the '2 Agosto' International Composing Competition, five ASCAP Morton Gould Young Composer Awards, a BMI Young Composer Award, the 1999 Raymond Hubbel award, the Indiana University Dean's Prize in composition in 1998 and 2002, the 2010 ASCAP Rudolf Nissim Prize for Best Orchestral Work, the Suzanne and Lee Ettleson Prize, an Aaron Copland Award, and residencies at the MacDowell and Yaddo artist colonies. He was Composer-In-Residence for the Alabama Symphony Orchestra. His music is published by Theodore Presser Company and G. Schirmer Inc.

Orchestral works

 * Drift (2021)
 * Forest Dark and Stars Above (2018)
 * Siren, blind (2016)
 * Three Pieces for Orchestra (1999)

Concerti

 * Pull Pin and Throw for trombone and orchestra (2021)
 * Violin Concerto (2020)
 * Sonata for violin and orchestra (John Corigliano, arr. Kennedy) (2012)
 * Trivial Pursuits for violin and orchestra (2009)
 * Piano Concerto (2008)
 * Totentanz for violin and orchestra (Franz Liszt, arr. Kennedy and Lara St. John) (2007)
 * Flute Concerto (1999)

Chamber music

 * Dry Falls for two guitars (2021)
 * An Affirmation for chamber choir (2015)
 * Distant Channels for bass trombone and percussion (2014)
 * Czardashian Rhapsody (arr.) for violin and piano (2013)
 * Desplazamiento for piccolo and piano (2013)
 * Trivial Pursuits for violin and piano (2009)
 * Four Songs for flute and piano (1998)
 * These Parting Gifts for two violins and piano (1997)
 * Souvenir for flute and piano (1995)

title: Martin Kennedy (composer)


text:
Talk:Hurricane Celia

Todo
Better impact and intro. Jdorje 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Needs sources. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 00:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of it is done now Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Impact
The biggest improvements needed to get this to B class or greater is more impact. It has enough refs and info for C class, mainly due to the detail given in its storm history section. Figure out whether you want August 1 or August 1st throughout the article. Right now, it's not consistent in this regard. Also, there is a color-filled rainfall graphic for Celia, if you wish to download it. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Metric units are needed in the article. You can compare the article against the B-class criteria we have, and figure out what else is needed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Metric conversions are easiest via the convert template. That should be mentioned, because not everyone is using this template yet, and it has held up some articles on the road to GA.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the metric conversions to the article and slightly expanded the Texas impact section. There is almost no information on its effects in Cuba though... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Damage Total
The NHC has just revised its total to $930 million per appendix B (page 47) of The list of deadliest costliest etc hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"'Celia (1970)—The original estimate of $434 million has been replaced by an estimate of $930 million. The insured losses for Celia according to PCS were about $310 million. In storms of that era (1965-1974), insurance rates of coverage for property were lower than today. In addition, most final estimates of damages were between 2.6 and 20 times the insured losses reported by PCS. Given the low coverage rates, the severe wind intensity and the historical average, the previous estimate of $434 million appears to be a gross underestimate. The new damage estimate is a tripling of the insured losses, which were about $310 million, leaving a new total of $930 million.'"

title: Talk:Hurricane Celia


text:
Talk:Hurricane Agnes

Todo
Sources! Hurricanehink 01:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there's no sources, I've lowered this to start class. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * State College, PA report on Agnes - This should be used. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Here is some stuff for the New York section if anyone wants to do it. http://www.erh.noaa.gov/nerfc/historical/jun1972.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.15.47 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Formed over land?
From the track map, it looks as though Agnes formed over the Yucatan. Is this the case? I think there was an instance of this happenning(sp?)at another point in time.WotGoPlunk 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yup it did. So did Bill in 2003. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 01:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hurricane Alma (1966) formed over Central America. There is ample precedent.  Thegreatdr 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Railroads
I removed this from the article. — jdorje (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The following lines were damaged and not rebuilt by the time Conrail began operations in 1976: *Penn Central Transportation (PRR; originally a branch of the South Fork Railroad) between Ruthford and Lloydell, Pennsylvania, transferred to Conrail due to coal reserves
 * Penn Central Transportation (PRR; originally the York and Maryland Line Rail Road and Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad) from Hyde, Pennsylvania to Cockeysville, Maryland, resulted in the total cutoff of the short Stewartstown Railroad
 * Penn Central Transportation (PRR; originally the Lancaster and Reading Narrow Gauge Railroad) between Lancaster and Quarryville, Pennsylvania
 * Penn Central Transportation (PRR; originally the Colebrook Valley Railroad) between Conewago and Cornwall, Pennsylvania
 * Penn Central Transportation (PRR; originally the Lykens Valley Railroad and Canal Company) between Millersburg and Elizabethville, Pennsylvania
 * Penn Central Transportation (PRR; originally the Frederick and Pennsylvania Rail Road) between Fountain Rock and Frederick, Maryland
 * Penn Central Transportation (PRR; originally the Mifflin and Centre County Railroad) between Reedsville and Milroy, Pennsylvania
 * Penn Central Transportation (PRR; originally the Lewisburg and Tyrone Railroad) between Lemont and Coburn, Pennsylvania
 * Penn Central Transportation (PRR; originally the Bedford and Bridgeport Railroad) from Bedford, Pennsylvania to the Maryland state line towards Cumberland
 * Penn Central Transportation (PRR; originally the Williamsport and Elmira Rail-Road) from Southport, New York to Hepburnville, Pennsylvania
 * Penn Central Transportation (NYC; originally the Penn Yan and New York Railroad) between Penn Yan and Dresden, New York
 * Penn Central Transportation (PRR; originally the Buffalo, New York and Philadelphia Railroad) between Olean and Allegany, New York; the New York State Department of Transportation had been negotiating to buy it for a new alignment of Route 17, but a different alignment was later used
 * Reading Company (originally the Gettysburg and Harrisburg Railroad) between Carlisle Junction and Gettysburg Junction, Pennsylvania
 * Reading Company (originally the Middletown and Hummelstown Railroad) between Hummelstown and Middletown, Pennsylvania
 * Reading Company (originally the Reading and Columbia Railroad) at Columbia, Pennsylvania
 * Lehigh Valley Railroad (originally the Barclay Railroad and Coal Company and Sullivan and Erie Coal and Railroad Company) from Towanda Junction to Dushore, Pennsylvania
 * Erie Lackawanna Railway (Erie; originally the Tioga Navigation Company) from Lawrencville to Blossburg, Pennsylvania
 * Erie Lackawanna Railway (DL&W; originally the Hanover and Newport Railroad) from Avondale to Loomis, Pennsylvania

wiki for the blind
I am 19 years old and blind. I am interested in adding relevant items to wiki that help the blind "visualize" and grasp the subjects at hand. I love the tradition of oral storytelling. I have added a link to a radio story by The American Storyteller.--Trgwilson (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sptimesagnes1972.jpg
Image:Sptimesagnes1972.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The numbers don't add up!
The deaths listed for total and specific places in the text, don't match with the table data listed on the right, e.g.: Cuba: (text) 7, (table) 9... ??? Andy N.

The money doesn't add up either: "The storm was responsible for $2.1 billion in damage (1972 US dollars) in the United States, the vast majority of which came from the flooding.[7] Of this, over $2 billion was in Pennsylvania, and $700 million in New York.[8]" That's at least $2.7billion. Also the intro paragraph says it caused $1.7 billion in damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Camp was YMCA, not Boy Scouts
Camp Shikellimy was a YMCA camp, not a Boy Scout camp as stated in the article. There were nearly 100 campers and about 20 staff evacuated due to the camp's location just below DeHart Dam. The Clark's Valley Reservoir was located less than a mile upstream from the camp. Flooding had cut roads leading into and out of the camp, which would have been destroyed had the reservoir's rising waters topped the dam and rushed into the narrow valley below. This, ultimately, didn't happen.

The camp property was not in Lykens as stated. It was located in Middle Paxton Township between Lykens and Dauphin, Pa.

Attribution? I was a senior staff member at the camp who was on one of those helicopters. The campers were flown to the Harrisburg National Guard Amory. The flight lasted approximately 30 minutes.

This is my first Wiki edit. Help formatting is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocanut69 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There was so much more to Agnes, which is now included
Even though NHC said at the time a baroclinic low absorbed Agnes, surface maps do not show another surface feature, frontal or otherwise. This appears to be one of those times where a TC stacks with an upper low aloft and somehow gets "absorbed" by it, which by this meaning does not mean that the surface low has died. Mariners Weather Log has a long passage concerning Agnes' former surface low, which was added to the article. For what it is worth, NCDC's extratropical cyclone database (the 1965 to 1974 portion I have access to) also follows the Agnes surface low through the end of June, well past where NHC's track ends. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hurricane Agnes. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hidro.cu/hidrologia1.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 04:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Agnes. 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/20110525200825/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1972.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1972.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
 * 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) 21:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Agnes


text: Category:Congressional districts of Massachusetts


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS/archive1

A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS
I've put quite a bit quite some work into expanding this article with details, pictures, and background info. I have been toying with the idea of putting it up for featured article status, but first I need to see if anyone who isn't a physicist can read it. All comments welcome! -- SCZenz 00:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess I don't fit your target audience for this peer review, but I think the intro should make more clear that the reason those theories can't be tested by previous accelerators is because they couldn't make massive enough particles. Right now the two seem disconnected.  Also, right now that sentence seems somehow non-grammatical, or at least awkward.

 * I think it's good that you've kept it on a low technical level, but I felt that many sections were unduly vague. I also think it would benefit from information on what energies it will reach compared to what energies could probe different theories. It might even be a good idea to put together a chart like I've seen somewhere before which color in ranges of energies that various theories would put certain particles with a big line through where the detector can get.

 * On the front of vague statements in general, I rather dislike this clause: in order to record all possible information from high-energy collisions.

 * I also advise against too much jargon, even outside the introduction. For instance, this sentence: Another is the radiation it will be exposed to due to its proximity to the interaction point, requiring that all components be rad-hard could be made significantly clearer by simply expanding rad-hard to radiation hardened, and even better with some small bit about what this means.

 * There's also some capitalization consistency issues; for instance, the article can't seem to decide whether detector names are capitalized or not. I'll give it a more careful read later.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 01:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * But one more thing right now: I don't know if you're at CERN now, but some sharper images (or at least the yellow ones brightened in post-processing) would be great. I'm also not sure how much Image:ATLAS CMS HQ.jpg adds to the article right now.  For a photo that's really just serving for a size scale it's a rather grey and dull.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 02:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, I've tried to address your comments. Some problems that are hard to solve are:
 * New pictures wouldn't be easy to do even if I were still there, because tours of those areas aren't trivial to get and the conditions are extremely non-photogenic there. Perhaps they can be edited, but I'll leave that to someone better at that stuff than me, if possible.
 * The collaboration itself isn't consistent on detector name capitalization. Any suggestions on what to pick?
 * Thanks for your comments! -- SCZenz 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I figured that was the case with the photos. Labs are always difficult to photograph.  I'll see if I can find a copy of photoshop around.

 * I'm undecided on the capitalization. Some are made into acronyms and so that seems to favor capitalization, but Muon Spectrometer seems very wrong.  As you can tell, I can be a real nitpicky reviewer sometimes.  Hopefully we'll get some non-physics folk in here, too.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 03:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to think SCT, TRT, and Pixel Detector are names. Inner Detector might be also.  Tile Calorimeter is the name of the hadronic calorimeter, but I think I only use the latter descriptive term (which should be lower case).  Presumably electromagnetic calorimeter and muon spectrometer are lower case as well.  But does it still seem inconsistent that some detector components have real names, but others don't? -- SCZenz 03:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Hurricane Carmen

Pic
A pic for Carmen can be found here. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1974.pdf Not sure if it is copyrighted or not...Hurricanehink 23:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a NOAA site, it's not copyrighted. I converted it from pdf form and will upload it now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Just because it's from a NOAA site doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. NOAA has a lot of pictures "used with permission" from local counties' libraries...which are not made or owned by NOAA.  See Image:Tropical_Storm_Allison.jpg as an example. Jdorje 01:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Todo
I put this as a stub because it has no info on impact. Jdorje 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Better? Hurricanehink 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Downgraded, impact sections are too short and stubby at times. CrazyC83 04:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * If citations were added, this could be a B Class article. -  auburn pilot  talk  03:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1974 Pic
ARGH! If it wasn't for the fact that GIBBS has pics on a quality of nearly absolute trash from 74, finding a pic wouldn't be too hard. But then again, barely any Carmen satellite photos exist, so I feel lucky...somewhat. Jake52 My island 13:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Nah, good job with finding that image. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

 * OK, I'm confused. What "duplicate"? Far as I know, I've never seen the supposed duplicate and ever if one existed, why was it never added to the article to begin with? If there was a dup., then I'm sorry, but I never found it. And if there wasn't, why was my pic edited out? Hurricane Angel Saki-My own personal NHC 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

 * That's very weird, as it wasn't a duplicate. I left a message on the Commons talk page of the user who deleted it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I found a somewhat clearer image of Hurricane Carmen on the GIBBS gallery.Supportstorm (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Depression #2?
This should have at least been the third, if not the fifth, recognized TD of the season. What's the source of that statement? Thegreatdr (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture
As part of an ongoing upgrade of this article, I have removed the single-line section on the storm's depiction in Forest Gump. It's an interesting piece of trivia, but I don't believe it to be relevant to the article, which should be a scientific account of the storm itself. Feel free to discuss here. – Juliancolton  | Talk 01:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, agreed. It's interesting, but it's more important in a Tropical cyclones in popular culture sort of article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Prose comments from Cryptic C62

 * "Subsequently, it moved ashore on September 2 on the Yucatán Peninsula" The use of both "subsequently" and "on September 2" is redundant. Suggestion: "On September 2, it moved ashore on the Yucatán Peninsula". This also helps by eliminating consecutive prepositional phrases with "on".
 * Good point, done. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "Initially threatening the major city of New Orleans, it veered westward and made landfall again over marshland" Where did it make landfall? "marshland" is very vague.
 * Ditto. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "eventually dissipating over Texas on September 10" Texas is a large state. Perhaps this could be made more specific by including a nearby city or the region, such as "eventually dissipating over eastern Texas on September 10".
 * Done as well. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "Carmen originated in a tropical disturbance that emerged from Africa toward the end of August." Those who aren't familiar with storm seasons might not be clear on which year this occurred. If a user were under the false impression that storms occur in the winter, such a user might think that the 1974 hurricane season spanned from August 1973 to March 1974 or something like that. Suggest appending the quoted sentence with "1974" or "of 1974".
 * Sorry, but I'm not sure I follow. It says it was part of 1974 in the previous sentence. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify: the previous sentence mentions that the storm was part of the 1974 storm season, but it doesn't actually specify the year in which the storm occurred. It is not uncommon for a season to stretch across multiple years. The 1974 NFL season, for example, actually ended in 1975. Fiscal years also stretch across multiple calendar years. Unless the reader is already familiar with the formatting for storm seasons, they may not be certain what year this storm took place in. Does this make more sense? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ehh... no offense, of course, but I think that's kind of a stretch. Readers don't have to be spoon-fed the entire article; they're capable of figuring out these little nuances themselves, I think. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "The storm trekked through the Caribbean Sea" Is "trekked" an accurate jargon word or did you just want a spicy alternative to "moved"? If it's a jargon word, that's fine, but if not, I suggest using a more familiar word instead.
 * Just an attempt to lighten up an otherwise dull subject (to most people). I don't see any compelling reason to change it personally, but I guess if that's what it takes... Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Trekked has several meanings that do not apply in this context, thereby making it somewhat ambiguous. It is also an uncommon word, whereby it is unlikely to be in the vocabulary of non-native English speakers. Because it is an uncommon word, readers may be led to believe that it is a piece of storm jargon and set off on a futile attempt to find the meaning as it applies to storms. Because trekking is an activity primarily for humans, the use of it may be considered anthropomorphic, which is, in turn, unencyclopedic. All of these potential issues can be avoided simply by changing the word to "moved" or by using the appropriate piece of storm jargon (whatever that may be). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only known "trek" to mean simply "a journey", but I changed it to "moved". Rather dull, but you may have a point. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "It moved slowly westward, and associated convective activity was initially sparse." Is there a good article to which we could link the phrase "convective activity"? Possibilities include convection, atmospheric convection, and convective instability.
 * Linked to convection (meteorology). Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "and was named Carmen upon its classification" named by whom?
 * Added. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "Under favorable outflow produced by an upper-level high pressure area, the system gradually strengthened as it moved through the Lesser Antilles" What does the phrase "favorable outflow" mean? Favorable to whom?
 * Favorable to the storm, of course! I think this is clear personally, but I'll change it if needed. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem: When the word "favorable" is used with respect to a person, it is very easy to determine what it means. However, when using "favorable" with respect to "outflow", the meaning is not so clear because storms ≠ humans. What about the outflow conditions made them favorable for the strengthening of the storm? Also, I think you meant to include the word "conditions" after "outflow", for "under favorable outflow" seems a bit off without it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've changed it around a bit, and gone out a limb with a slightly unusual, yet perhaps more applicant, word. I added "conditions" because I agree it sounds better, although the previous wording is also standard. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you may have imagined such a change taking place, as the sentence in question looks the same to me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird... maybe the edit didn't go through or something. Oh, well; redone in any case. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "quickly deteriorating into a tropical storm by September 3" Having a speed-related adverb and a date in the same sentence is a tad redundant. I suggest either dropping the date or perhaps rearranging to "and by September 3, it had deteriorated into a tropical storm. It might also help to remind readers what the storm was before it deteriorated: "quickly deteriorating from a Category 4 hurricane into a tropical storm."
 * Reworded. I'm not sure I need to repeat that it was a Cat 4, though. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "although wind speeds at the time were identical to that of the initial peak, the barometric pressure was slightly higher." Does a higher barometric pressure mean it's more intense or less intense? I suspect the latter, but some readers might not be aware of the inverse relation between pressure and intensity.
 * I added a fancy footnote to clarify this issue. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "Steering currents became increasingly weaker, and Carmen slowed to a drift." What are steering currents? Also, is there any hard data on how fast the storm moved through the Carribean? Miles per hour or some other measurement would be very helpful considering how often this section uses phrases like "slowed down" and "accelerated". The phrase "slowed to a drift" is especially confusing.
 * Currents that steer, I guess... I don't mean to be rude—honestly—but how else can that be explained? Forward speed stats should be easy to find, so I'll add a couple in later. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, if "steering currents" is just an intuitive explanation rather than a buzzword, perhaps it can simply be replaced with "The ocean currents that were steering the storm became increasingly weaker" or some such. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually the atmospheric/weather patterns as opposed to the ocean currents. I've changed it to reflect this. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto above. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it, I hope! Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Better, but I'm not a fan of "quasi-stationary position". I hereby rescind my previous comment that "slowed to a drift" is confusing. I think once there are forward speed statistics, this phrasing is adequately descriptive of the storm's movement, more so than "quasi-stationary" in any case. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * back to the original wording, then. I'll Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The first paragraph of Preparations is not in chronological order: "Mexican officials declared an emergency alert by September 2... The following day, the Mexican Army... the Red Cross began preparations for the approaching hurricane by September 2 in Belize"
 * Reorganized. Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "Despite threatening the United States city of New Orleans, the hurricane's western turn prior to landfall spared the area from the most severe damage." Not quite grammatically correct. In the strictest interpretation of this phrasing, the noun that was threatening New Orleans was "the hurricane's western turn". Here are two possible rewrites: "Although it initially threatened the United States city of New Orleans, the hurricane turned west prior to making landfall and spared the area of severe damage." or "Although the United States city of New Orleans was initially threatened, the hurricane's western turn before making landfall spared the area of severe damage".
 * Yeah, I spent a while trying (and failing) to construct that sentence well. Thanks for the suggestions – I went with the first one, to avoid passive voice. Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "About 60,000 people sought shelter in facilities across the New Orleans region" What kind of "facilities"? That word by itself is somewhat vague.
 * Various shelter facilities. I don't think the article needs to put much more thought into it than that, but if you want specifics, I can look. Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "shelter facilities" is good enough for me. To avoid unnecessary word repetition, how about "About 60,000 people sought refuge in shelter facilities across the New Orleans region" ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems identical except for moving the word a few spaces over. Juliancolton (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "sought refuge in shelter facilities" makes it clear that the facilities were 'official' and intended to be used for this purpose. "sought shelter in facilities" may, in the minds those who remember Hurricane Katrina and storms like it, imply that people were scrambling for shelter in whatever structures they could find. Which is the more accurate connotation? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter, which is more broad and avoids incorrect assumptions. The sources do not, in my opinion, specify that the facilities housing evacuees were actually "shelter facilities". People likely stayed in churches, schools, hotels, etc. Juliancolton (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "However, due to a change in the naming scheme of Atlantic hurricanes in 1979, it was not replaced by any particular name." This is really confusing. My educated guess is that hurricane names are cyclical, but when Carmen was retired, there was no name chosen to replace it in the cycle. I suggest either explaining the naming procedure enough for this to make sense or just dropping the sentence altogether.
 * Correct. I've made an attempt at simplifying the relevant text. Juliancolton (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "Preparations for Carmen were particularly thorough with 1969's Hurricane Camille in recent memory." This sentence seemed odd to me, so I checked out the source. I don't think this sentence accurately reflects what the source is trying to convey. Perhaps something like "Many Mississippi citizens, having experienced the destruction of 1969's Hurricane Camille, quickly evacuated from their coastal homes of their own accord." would be better.
 * The source says "Because of Camille, everybody along the Gulf Coast has deep respect for Carmen", which is accurately rephrased in the article in my opinion. I appreciate the suggestion, but it seems unnecessary to make the article even more dull and the prose less interesting. Juliancolton (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate. "having deep respect" and making "particularly thorough" preparations are not the same. The current sentence could refer to any kind of preparation, such as canned food, emergency generators, walkie-talkies, medical supplies, rain gear, etc. That's not what the source material is about. The source material is specifically about evacuating the area. There's no way for one to be "particularly thorough" about one's own evacuation: one is either there or one is not. The current sentence is also not reflective of the fact that the article in question is only about Mississippi. Whether my suggested sentence is used or not, these inaccuracies should be addressed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article neither states nor implies that individual people were thorough about their evacuations, so there is no accuracy. A community of people can be meticulous in their preparations for a hurricane. The Carmen–Camille relationship is a general observation rather than a direct statement of technical fact, so we do not need to be as exact in duplicating the source context to a T. Juliancolton (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that if you want to keep this sentence as is, you can find a better source for it. Conversely, if you want to use the source, you can find a better sentence to summarize it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and while you're of course free to edit the article yourself, I personally do not feel the need to change this particular sentence. From the source currently in use, "'Before Camille they might have been having hurricane parties and things like that, but they are taking things very seriously,' said Sister Pamela, a Catholic nun assisting at a Gulfport refugee center." That quote alone directly backs up the information in the article. Juliancolton (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed the sentence in question. Tweak as you see fit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see the issue with the original sentence! The altered text presents the Camille relationship as a side-note, even though it's the whole point of the sentence. Juliancolton (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "Carmen produced moderate rainfall across Puerto Rico and the northern Lesser Antilles, peaking at 5.91 in (150 mm)" From my experience, the word "peak" refers to the point at which the rate of something with respect to another variable is highest. Did you mean to write 5.91 inches per day? Or perhaps the peak refers to the location at which the total rainfall was highest, in which case a location should be specified. If 5.91 inches was the cumulative total, then "peak" is not the correct word.
 * This is pretty much standard wording in tropical cyclone articles. Rainfall in the northern Lesser Antilles peaked at 5.91 inches; locations outside of the area of highest precipitation received less. Juliancolton (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you may have misread the source material. The reference for the aforementioned sentence says that 5.91 inches of rain fell on Jajome Alto, Puerto Rico. I have added this to the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your change looks fine, but how have I misread anything? "Maxima" means "peak". Juliancolton (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "Since Carmen had moved ashore over marshland, it caused far less damage than first feared" less damage because the marshland was not heavily populated? Or less damage because marshlands are somehow not affected by hurricanes as strongly as other areas? I suspect the former. How about "Since Carmen had moved ashore over uninhabited marshland, it caused far less damage than first feared" or some such?
 * Added. Juliancolton (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "The storm's greatest impact was the loss of sugar crops in Louisiana." Somewhat subjective unless it is made more specific. How about adding "economic" before "impact" ?
 * But that's not necessarily accurate. The destruction of sugar crops was the most extensive impact from the storm. Juliancolton (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "Ultimately, the hurricane caused yields to drop 12%" This seems incompatible with the previous sentence that I highlighted. If 20% of the crop was destroyed, how could yields drop by only 12%?
 * Perhaps it is that the estimated yields already factor in a certain degree of crop loss? Juliancolton (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Where exactly did you see the 12% figure? I'm looking through the given source and I'm not seeing it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See the PR on this issue. The source said yields dropped from 25 to 22 tons, which is 12%. In any case, I just removed the sentence, since I don't think it adds much and the potential is great for misinterpretation of the source material. Juliancolton (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "An estimated 308,000 acres (125,000 ha) of sugar cane in 16 counties was devastated, and reports indicated as much as 20 percent was destroyed." 20 percent of what? Is there a difference between "devastated" and "destroyed"? Perhaps "An estimated 308,000 acres (125,000 ha) of sugar cane in 16 counties was damaged, nearly 20 percent of which was destroyed altogether." or some such.
 * I reworded it. Juliancolton (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Looking at the source, it is clear now that this means that 20% of the total 1974 crop was destroyed. I think the wording can be made slightly less ambiguous as such: "An estimated 308,000 acres (125,000 ha) of sugar cane was devastated, eliminating about 20 percent of the entire 1974 Louisiana sugar crop." or something like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel comfortable assuming that the crop is those 16 counties accounted for the entire state's crop. Juliancolton (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon rereading the source, I've found a different issue: the article currently states that 308,000 acres of sugar cane was devastated, whereas the source simply states that "Louisiana's 16 major sugar cane parishes had an estimated 308,000 acres planted in sugar cane" without indicating how many of those acres were affected. I think our best bet is to drop the acre figure altogether and stick to the percentage to avoid misleading readers as to how much sugar cane was damaged. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Argh, I knew there was a reason for my original wording. Devastated does not necessarily mean destroyed, so the 308,000 acres were partially damaged, of which 20% was destroyed. OK, reworded. Juliancolton (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "the more northern of which became consolidated and organized" I don't know what "organized" means in this context. Also, what happened to the southern part?
 * I'm not sure how to further explain what "organized" means... it just indicates that the system... became more organized. Sorry, but I'm not sure what else I can do with that. As for the southern segment of the wave, Thompson (1976) does not specify its ultimate fate. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, poor southern segment: we hardly knew ye. Anywho, why don't you just try to explain what "organized" means here for me in laymen's terms, then we'll see if we can work out a way to explain it clearly in the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure. "Organized", in this context, means that the convection, or thunderstorms, has strengthened and become more balanced, symmetrical, and conducive for further intensification of the storm as a whole. It's really the same as the standard definition of the word "organized". Any suggestions on how I could explain this in the article would be much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm not entirely sure how to convey that in the article. Perhaps a minor rewording will help: "the more northern of which consolidated into an organized storm system." This doesn't directly explain the term either, but somehow I feel it adds enough context to make the meaning clearer. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "Nonetheless, tidal flooding from the Gulf of Mexico and coastal bays, lakes and bayous was severe." The structure of this list is very confusing. Why are there two "and"s but only one comma?
 * It makes sense to me (try imagining parenthesis around the "coastal bays, lakes and bayous"). Juliancolton (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of things make sense to us that don't make sense to other people—we write encyclopedia articles for fun! :P I think this could be made clearer by simply replacing "coastal bays, lakes, and bayous" with "coastal bodies of water" or some other coverall phrase like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "Winds gusted to 86 mph (138 km/h) at Morgan City, Louisiana, and along the coast tides ran up to 6 ft (1.8 m) above normal." Does this statistic refer to the highest wind speed recorded? Its significance is not made clear in the article.
 * I don't think such a statistic needs to signify its significance. The Monthly Weather Review does not list a higher wind velocity, but it gives no indiciation that its list is comprehensive. Juliancolton (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing: If the sentence gives no indication that the statistic is significant (which it is), that implies that the location is significant (which it is not). If the only reason to mention this fact is because this is believed to be the highest recorded wind speed, then that should be made explicit so as to avoid leading readers to believe that Morgan City is somehow relevant to the storm. The other problem is that the sentence may also imply that the extra high tides were related to Morgan City as opposed to Shell Beach. How's this for a rewrite: "Gusts of wind reached speeds as high as 86 mph, and along the coast of Louisiana the tides reached as high as 6 ft above normal levels." This makes it clear that the stats are significant because they're the largest known, but does not specifically imply that they are the definitive the maxima for this storm. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are some comments on the article's prose:

 * "where it nearly stalled." Any idea why it stalled? Any idea how it got un-stalled?
 * It stalled because the steering currents got weaker, as discussed in the article. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that I know that the steering currents were atmospheric rather than tidal, this makes sense. However, I still don't understand how it magically went from being "nearly stalled" to accelerating again. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * "and on Jamaica, the storm caused three drownings." Drownings due to heavy rainfall or high seas? Perhaps it would be better to replace "the storm" with the specific cause. Alternative wording: "and on Jamaica, three people drowned due to _______"
 * I can't find any more specific info on this, although I agree it would be a useful addition if possible. I'll keep an eye out. Juliancolton (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the continued review, but to be perfectly honest, I'm afraid I disagree with many of your requests. We must assume some degree of competence on the readers' part and not dull-ify the article by explaining, linking, and over-analyzing everything. Thoughts? Respectfully, Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, my good man. You have every right to disagree with my comments, and I don't intend to oppose the FAC based on nitpicks. However, you must realize this: You are more familiar with this topic and with your own writing than the vast majority of readers will be. If I, as someone who truly knows nothing about storms, point out a piece of phrasing that I don't like, it is either because I honestly don't understand it or because I honestly believe it will confuse people. Your goal and my goal are one in the same: to make the most accessible article possible. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's fair. I really appreciate the outside review, which is helping to make significant improvements to the article. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hurricane Carmen
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hurricane Carmen's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hurdat": From Hurricane Elena:  From Tropical cyclone:  From Hurricane Beulah:  From Hurricane Allen:  From List of Florida hurricanes (1950–1974):

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Carmen. 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/20100613132252/http://www.geology.iupui.edu/Academics/CLASSES/G130/reefs/ME_20.htm to http://www.geology.iupui.edu/Academics/CLASSES/G130/reefs/ME_20.htm
 * Added tag to http://dnr.louisiana.gov/crm/D%20R%20S%20Reports/Feasibility/B.S.%20Phase%201%20Step%20F.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121042409/https://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pd/projectslist/ProjectData/118926/reports/FinalPEISSummary.doc to http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pd/projectslist/ProjectData/118926/reports/FinalPEISSummary.doc

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) 22:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Carmen


text:
Talk:Hurricane Fifi–Orlene

Untitled
An image is needed to go in the infobox. Jdorje 01:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This site has an image of Fifi, though is it PD? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The documents on that site say they're done by NOAA and they (the documents) also contain the Atlantic hurricane season pictures we found for earlier seasons like 1980, but for the most part, I'm as unsure as you. Jake52 My talk

Need sources
This article doesn't have a single source. I am not happy with including Fifi on the "costliest hurricanes" lists without any sources for it. Jdorje 22:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Todo
A source for the damages number. Jdorje 07:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned with this number, as it conflicts with a newspaper article I saw today from 1974 that would imply it is 30-40% too low. Thegreatdr 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The rainfall graphic has been added. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Retirement
Just so you all know, retirement was not originally meant to be completely permanent for storm names. Any articles we have in the project that state so need to be revised. Thegreatdr 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regeneration
I think you need some more info on this aspect of the hurricane, as I'm quite confused and left wondering what the arguments are for both sides of the "debate". – Juliancolton  | Talk 04:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way, it would be quite one-sided now. =)  Thegreatdr (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Article review issue
I see three of the more active people in the project have significantly edited this article in the past couple years (I was the first one to add inline references). That's going to delay its article review, just so you all know, since none of us can be the primary reviewer. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Journal Articles for Fifi

 * USGS - "One in 25-year event"
 * The Cooper Ornithological Society - Bird migration impacts
 * Department of Sociology (Only Abstract)
 * Unk. (Only Abstract)

Just some stuff for another day. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Title
Given that the article also includes Orlene, why is it only at "Hurricane Fifi"? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot my reasoning before...but that doesn't matter anymore :P It should be Hurricane Fifi-Orlene. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction?
The article says that once Fifi crossed central America and Mexico it reformed and was renamed Orlene. However the storm path image shows Hurricane Fifi-Orlene as two seperate systems, with Orlene forming and reaching tropical storm strength while Fifi was still over southern Mexico as a tropical depression.68.106.152.102 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hurricane Fifi–Orlene. 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/20090715133317/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1949to2008_epa.txt to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1949to2008_epa.txt

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 22:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Fifi–Orlene. 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/20090228200227/http://ineter.gob.ni/Direcciones/meteorologia/Desastres/Huracanes/huracan_fifi.htm to http://www.ineter.gob.ni/Direcciones/meteorologia/Desastres/Huracanes/huracan_fifi.htm

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) 03:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Fifi–Orlene. 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/20120717103126/http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/mitch/mitch.html to http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/mitch/mitch.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) 01:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Fifi–Orlene


text: Category:Government of Malta

title: Category:Government of Malta


text:
Talk:Hurricane Eloise

Todo
Impact section causes this to be marked a stub. Jdorje 23:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Better? Hurricanehink 21:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo2
I left it as Start-Class for now though it could be a B. Some structure in the impacts, inline sources/references, and impact photos are (if possible) needed. Jdorje 21:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Here's some specifics about flooding. Hurricanehink 16:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Deaths
Can we make a deaths-by-region table? Things don't seem to add up. — jdorje (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Rainfall
The rainfall image is only partially done at this time; I linked to it concerning Eloise's maximum amount. Expect it, and the associated webpage, to be complete within the next week. Thegreatdr 21:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The color filled images and its rainfall page will be online/linked tomorrow morning. Thegreatdr 13:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thegreatdr 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please keep importance high, unless you wish to engage in a discussion about it
Eloise is one of the wettest TCs to impact Puerto Rico, which should count for something. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Eloise


text: User talk:222.83.255.211

title: User talk:222.83.255.211