# Talk:National Weather Service bulletin for Hurricane Katrina

Finish the article with the info about how this message is a recommended "Best practice" now
Add provenance info (it came originally from the Tampa WFO)
Find some juicy info about this message on the Congressional Report
Find the MSNBC story about this message
Titoxd(?!?) 07:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

All those done, what's left to do is to pick a name that actually makes sense... Titoxd(?!?) 23:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, nice article on such an unusual subject. I wouldn't have thought that one Bulletin would warrent an article, but you did a great job making it encyclopediac. The name works, but should have a mention of Katrina in it. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind I've been a bit bold in changing the title, but the previous one was really overtechnical, and it is unlikely there exist any other individually notable National Weather Service bulletins for New Orleans.  By the way, thanks for this excellent and informative article.--Pharos 21:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Titoxd(?!?) 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The title needs to be changed again. It should say "National Weather Service Bulletin for Louisiana/Mississippi. "That bulletin was not just for New Orleans, but for the entire NWS New Orleans/Baton Rouge warning area, which includes southeastern Louisiana and southern Mississippi. I will make changes in the article to reflect that. - --Bdj95 03:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
True, but it was from the "New Orleans" office, so I still think we should go with that in the name.  Is the region otherwise precisely defined?--Pharos 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Look here and down at the New Orleans forecast area, in the tan color. That's the area this was issued for. -WindRunner 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, then what if we call it "New Orleans region", then?  Or maybe something else to that effect?--Pharos 13:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that would probably work the best. WindRunner 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good go me. I didn't want the title/article to give an illusion that an entire region was ignored. And the actual office is "NWS New Orleans/Baton Rouge." - --Bdj95 19:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the title.  At the top of the statement, it states that the "bulletin" was issued as an NPW, a non-precipitation warning.  So it was a warning to the public, albeit not a hurricane warning, which would have activated the Emergency Alert System.  Bulletin seems too weak of a word, considering the fact that the statement was meant as a warning to the general public and the message has the coding of a warning.  Thegreatdr (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And it doesn't even mention that it had to do with Hurricane Katrina. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
You'd think that would be important context for this article.  What alternate name should it be?  New Orleans Warning for Hurricane Katrina impact?  That's the best I can think of.  Thegreatdr (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe "Hurricane Katrina warning for New Orleans region"? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Or New Orleans area, which sounds better, for some reason.  Thegreatdr (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
That works for me. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course, this has the problem of implying that it was issued as a hurricane warning, which is incorrect--those can only be issued by the NHC, not a local WFO.‹/pedantic›
Maybe "Non-Precipitation Warning for Hurricane Katrina" would be the most accurate choice, if it's felt that Katrina is more important to the article's context than the fact that it's for the NOLA area?  Alternatively, if we want both, maybe "Non-Precipitation Warning for New Orleans Region (Hurricane Katrina)" would be best, though that might cause some, later on, to ask if there's really a need for the "disambiguator" as yet.  rdfox 76 (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It's why I like a title similar to New Orleans Warning for Hurricane Katrina.  NHC hurricane warnings aren't for particular cities, just stretches of the coastline.  Thegreatdr (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that the members of the tropical cyclone project can be quite protective of articles, but I honestly don't know why this can't be merged into Hurricane Katrina.  I know that article is already long, and is a FA and FAs deserve daughter articles and so on, but it's not clear to me after having read both articles why this subject needs its own article, particularly as so much of the space here is devoted to reprinting the bulletin.  I know that this bulletin was a significant aspect of the hurricane, but I'm still not totally convinced it warrants an entire article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 15:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think enough info is here to keep it separate, given the impact of the bulletin. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "impact" paragraph is the only uniquely notable part of the article; but it's so short that I think it could be safely merged.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point, but the entire text of the bulletin is rather notable and interesting, such that merging it to the 100kb Hurricane Katrina article would require to simply summarize it. In fact, it might not even be notable enough to be mentioned in the main article. I don't know. If you want to get further comments from other users, the WPTC has a page for potentially merged articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Why? Because nothing should be merged into the main Katrina article. That page is huge, and we're already stretching it with the large prose size, so we do need summary style from here and there. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree--I searched Google for the text of this message (search term National Weather Service Warning Katrina) and this was the first result. Having it stand alone was amazingly useful--I am using this in a college course I will teach, and having it easily accessable has been a real help to me. 216.132.81.61 23:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an article within the weather magazine Weatherwise about this statement in 1997, which interviews the person who sent it.  FYI.  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, what sort of highlights are included? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is named In the Shoes of Katrina's Forecasters in their July/August 2007 issue.  It traces the path to that statement  from the Robert Rick's/Slidell WFOs standpoint starting on August 25, including a general summation of the storm day-by-day and what their office had to go through during the hurricane and its aftermath.  Robert makes it sound like the statement was not a completely canned one...that he composed it in real-time from potentially canned impact statements.  Only a paragraph of the article relates to this article, and it has POV because it is a personal recollection, rather than a reporter reporting on what went on at the time.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
However, it *could* be used as a source regarding the way the message was composed.  Weatherwise qualifies as a verifiable, reliable source for that sort of thing, and it's not exactly a contentious statement, anyway.  Just specify that it was from an interview with him regarding the timeline, if you're worried that he may be slanting it to make himself look good.  rdfox 76 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The POV issue is that he is the writer of the article.  It could be used, if someone wished to use it, but not for very much.  Since it's a non-government publication, scanning it and placing it anywhere, whether it be wikipedia or elsewhere, would likely violate copyright so I can't do that for other possible editors.  Someone else in the project likely gets Weatherwise.  If it had much new info, I'd have added the relevant portion to the article already.  It was just a heads-up, in case I was missing something.  Thegreatdr (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:National Weather Service bulletin for Hurricane Katrina/CommentsTalk:National Weather Service bulletin for Hurricane Katrina/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Substituted at 18:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on National Weather Service bulletin for Hurricane Katrina. 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/20060723034359/http://www.weather.gov/om/assessments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf to http://www.weather.gov/om/assessments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050907181549/http://www.hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/houston.htm to http://www.hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/houston.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326065222/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/katrinareport/fullreport.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/katrinareport/fullreport.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050907092726/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282151.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282151.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Weather Service bulletin for Hurricane Katrina. 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/20060614233107/http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0603feat.html to http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0603feat.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)