Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:23, 8 October 2008

Template:Hurricane

Remember

it seems that we are doing articles for every single storm now.--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean by this? I don't understand what you're getting at. That we should do an article for every storm? Because the project page suggests otherwise. It says:

• Hurricanes should only receive a separate article if they are long enough not to be considered a stub. If there isn't enough to write about, the text can go inside the article for the hurricane season.
• When creating a new article for an active storm when it may or may not be appropriate (i.e. a major hurricane currently threatening land), it is generally best to put a request up in the discussion forum for that hurricane season (e.g. Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season) and discuss it with others.
• Named hurricanes generally do not have unique names. A storm that has had its name retired may take its name for the main article (e.g. Hurricane Charley, Tropical Storm Allison, Cyclone Tracy); use the prefix appropriate for the tropical cyclone's basin.
• Less infamous (i.e. non-retired) hurricanes may have a separate page distinguished by year (e.g. Hurricane Bertha (1996)), especially if it must be differentiated (e.g. Tropical Storm Bret (1993) and * Hurricane Bret (1999)). The general rule is that if the name is retired, it should have the main article, otherwise it should be distinguished by year.
• If a name has been used only once (or is being used for the first time) and is not warranting an article, it should be created as a redirect to that season (e.g. Tropical Storm Sebastien redirects to 1995 Atlantic hurricane season).
• Never hesitate to add a redirect when there is no article for a particular hurricane. Redirects help users to find information if it's "hidden" in a season article, and prevent spurious creation of new articles. This is particularly useful for active hurricanes, as users will otherwise often jump at the chance to write a "new" article about the event. Articles should be redirected to disambiguation pages or (only when there is no ambiguity) to the season article that includes the hurricane. Do not redirect to the season article when a disambiguation page exists, as there is then no way for readers to find the disambiguation.
• This is also helpful for people who wish to provide links to WP for current storms: they can do it once, and the redirect will catch the in-links unless and until a separate page is created. Question: should the redirect go to the season page, or the section thereon for that specific storm?
• Unnamed (including numbered) hurricanes (used for older tropical cyclones in the Atlantic and Pacific basins, and for all tropical cyclones in the Indian Ocean basin) should be distinguished by location, type, and year. Three naming conventions are acceptable: Galveston Hurricane of 1900, 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, or Unnamed Hurricane (1975). All unnamed hurricanes should always have a year in the name. Again, create redirects wherever necessary to avoid confusion or duplicate articles.

By reading your talk page, it seems that there has been a lot of controversy over your past pages. Chukonu xbow (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NO NO NO NO NO NO go the link here. NEVER rely on the project page. They are junk. Please use this.13:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The project page IS what we follow, not a talk page, unless it is changed on the project page, discussions are not the main source to follow. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

These Guidelines.... are, in practice for the Epac:

• • Since 2005, this has basically been de facto policy

   * It is a named storm that doesn't make landfall, but has significant impacts on inhabited land (basically Mexico and the US)
         o This covers things such as impact due to heavy rain or strong waves, and Hawaii landfalls are rare
   * It is retired for any reason. Example Hurricane Adolph (2001). It also dose not need the year. Adolph (2001) should be Adolph

• • The previous two would basically also cover any retired storm, but in case they don't, I included this one

   *
         o Maintaining Misplaced Pages:Featured topics/Retired Pacific hurricanes requires these storms to have good or featured articles.
   * It crosses into the Atlantic or vice versa as a with its circulation or remnants
         o If we are going to have an article on every Atlantic storm, this basically follows from that. Hurricane Cosme (1989) is an example

• • The exclusion of remnants is intended to make it clear that this suggestion does not mean it's necessary to have an article on, say, 2001's Manuel

   *
         o If it is a depression that makes landfall and produces heave rain or winds above 44 mph. They should be an article for TD 2-E (1976)
         o If it is the strongest storm of the season (or makes the top three). Example Hurricane Hernan (2008)
         o Any storm thats impacts the US or Central America (because Central America is rare). Example Tropical Storm Norma (1970).
         o Peak winds are above 150 mph.

An off- season storm or a storm that reaches a unusual latitude or longitude. Example Hurricane Fausto (2002) and Tropical Storm Wene (2000).

Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

Any comments? Chukonu xbow (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This article's writing is very poor and the subject isn't notable.Potapych (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, for now at least. Someone with better writing skills should have a sandbox ready, since the storm is forecast to make landfall. Also, the NRL is stating that Norbert has winds of 105mph. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. –Juliancolton 01:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's importance is above "Low", I would change my mind, but I don't see any reason for Stub-class and Start-class low-priority articles.Potapych (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually....Give me until tomorrow night, I'll see what I can do with the article. I think I can find enough info to keep this thing alive....as usual. That does mean that the one for Lowell will have to wait a little bit. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep, but hide links to allow for work. It will almost certainly be warranted based on the track, but not at the moment. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The storm will probably be the most intense landing falling tropical cyclone of the 2008 Pacific hurricane season. With that fact in mind, keep the article as more information will be available as the storm progresses and makes landfall. (Hurricaneguy (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Following PROD through to its course means five days will have to pass. At that time Norbert is expected to be inland (if the forecast pans out). Since we will likely need an article then, we should put down the PRODing stick:) I'll try and add some references. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Hink has now made the article look a lot better than when i looked in on it earlier.Jason Rees (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added some references and polished the article up a bit. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

HWRF Model, Shows Norbert becoming a Category Five. I'd say 145-155 out of this, just because the HWRF has had norbert down fairly well recently. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

KEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPP its 1) a major hurricane and 2) a storm threatening land. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But it's a downright poor article. –Juliancolton 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

BE BOLD. Edit it Julian... stop sitting in your admin t-shirt and do it... Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Definite keep now, it's a category four. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat. topper?

Is there a possibility Norbert could be a category 5 hurricane, considering it's intensity now?Plasticup 17:20 8 October 2008 (UTC)