# Talk:Hurricane Patricia

Is the article really named Hurricane Patricia or Hurricane Patricia (2015)? Well there is another Patricia which have an article, which was on 2009. But obviously, if this name is really significant and gets its name retired, the article should be Hurricane Patricia. However if it is not significant and is to be used in 2021 etc, then it should be Hurricane Patricia (2015). Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't completely get what you are saying. The article's title is "Hurricane Patricia". While nothing can be absolutely set in stone, I think this storm busting in terms of impacts is not likely. Even if the storm dissipated now, the fact that it made it to Category 5-intensity in the first place is probably enough. Dustin (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any talk about the year identifier now. It will be all over the news tomorrow and for the next few days. People aren't going to bother including the year when searching for it, so we shouldn't bother including it :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  03:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It is a virtual lock the name Patricia will be retired at this rate, so agreed with how it is. Once it dissipates, and the impact sorted out, this may need subarticles like meteorological history (which would be an EPAC first I believe). CrazyC83 (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty sure there is something in WP:NAME when it comes to the most notable article being the primary focus. Other articles with the same name Patricia can be mentioned up on top as has been done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Found it under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that the number of deaths won't climb significantly I doubt that Mexico will claim a retirement of the name Patricia, so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply. It is all only the obvious press shooshoo. --Matthiasb (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
A lack of retirement doesn't necessarily mean it's not the primary topic (honestly wouldn't be surprised if it gets retired simply because of its intensity though). It's leagues above any other iteration of Patricia, and a brief glance at the disambig page shows that none of the other ones made landfall. Record-breaking intensity and the known damage from this one is more than enough to justify it was the primary. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
And even if Patricia isn't retired, it's not likely that there will be another Hurricane Patricia in the near, foreseeable future that will be more notable than this one was. If there eventually is, we can move the article when that happens. Rye998 (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit, Typhoon2013, Dustin V. S., Knowledgekid87,  and Hurricanehink: Guys, one month later we know that the name Patricia was not retired because it did not cause any fatalities. So I believe that we should include the year in the title. Once that is done, remove the word disambiguation from the Hurricane Patricia disambig page. Firstly, that is the tradition here which should be kept. If any new person comes to Wikipedia and searches for Hurricane Patricia, it will lead him directly to this article. He will think that is the only storm named Patricia. To see the disambiguation page, he will have to type the word disambiguation, which not many people know the meaning of. Secondly, the 1997 Hurricane Linda article was the strongest hurricane since October and it had the year in the title. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@73.223.175.207: Actually it depends and it's too early for the meeting to retire a 2015 name at the moment and Imo Patricia will be retired. However if the name still remains in the EPac hurricane lists, and there is another Hurricane Patricia in 2021 etc, I believe this Patricia article deserves a year beside it. But let the other users express their opinions. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@73.223.175.207: Also, in general, deaths are not a necessary condition for the retirement of storms. For example, Hurricane Ioke killed noone and caused minimal damage, yet was still retired.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no need, regardless if it is retired or not. We have Typhoon Tip at the main article despite it not being retired, and the name was used several other times. With such an important storm, it should have the main article, as it is the primary topic related to "Hurricane Patricia". There is no need to worry about adding the year unless there is a stronger or deadlier Patricia in 2021 or later. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I wasn't paying attention. Just now I found out that the link to the other storms named Patricia is at the top of the article. Never mind. We might not need to put the year after all. End this discussion until the retired names are announced in 2016. Then we'll decide. 73.223.175.207 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I have proposed a merger of Katia (disambiguation) into Katia. If you guys are interested and want to participate, you can discuss it here. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not the title is disambiguated depends on more than whether the storm's name is retired, as Hurricanehink said above. As such, we may not need to wait that long before finalizing the title (which I currently support). Thanks for notifying me! Dustin (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Weather Channel (US) is now calling Hurricane Patricia the strongest hurricane ever recorded in human history. (redacted by original editor) I believe this is significant, but I'm not sure how to add this to an article about a hurricane which is unfamiliar to me. Here is the link: Hurricane Patricia Clearly this is a significant and unprecedented weather event. I will be watching this page and related news reporting closely. Juneau Mike (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Weather Channel is actually a private company, owned by NBCUniversal, and not affiliated with the National Weather Service, but they're still reliable. Anyways, their statement is in regards to maximum sustained winds, one of the two values hurricane strength is determined by. They are indeed correct in saying that Patricia has the highest reliable winds we've ever observed in a tropical cyclone and I've already integrated that into the article. In terms of "strongest hurricane ever recorded", atmospheric pressure is used as the global standard for determining this. By pressure, Patricia ranks as the 8th strongest on record with 7 Pacific typhoons having a pressure of 880 mb or lower (Typhoon Tip has held the record since 1979 with 870 mb). This is also why the article's lede specifies Western Hemisphere. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated! Juneau Mike (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Michaelh2001: If we take it that they used the word "hurricane" to restrict our discussion to the Western Hemisphere, then they also are right in saying that it has the lowest pressure of any hurricane - though as pointed out above, not the lowest of any tropical cyclone worldwide.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I can do little more than reiterate what Jasper Deng has said above. While Hurricane Patricia has shattered the records for all hurricanes on record, Patricia has not conquered a few Pacific typhoons. Dustin (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Correct, and if we go by tropical cyclone, then no, Patricia isn't even close. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 01:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate all the feedback! Thanks! In contrast to Patricia, here in Juneau, Alaska, our rain is actually tapering off and winds are almost still. Not too long ago, Hurricane Oho "broke up" (if that is the correct term) over Southeast Alaska, and we got several inches. (it was below hurricane strength when it arrived here) Of course, due to our location within the Pineapple Express system, we are *NO* stranger to rain! But today's "storm" here? Let's just say nobody will be writing a Wikipedia article about it! But as for Patricia, when this level of wind and rain hits Mexico's coasts and mountainous terrain, this will be a monster. Juneau Mike (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

With wind speeds over 200+ mph, Hurricane Patricia could actually be considered a category 7 if the scale were extended.
source: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/23/451172508/what-you-need-to-know-about-catastrophic-hurricane-patricia
Discuss.--66.31.125.222 (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your interest, but this is not a forum for general discussion of the storm, but only a talk page for discussing improvements to the article. In this case, no category above 5 is official and hence cannot be included in the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
We even have not had Category 6 now. How could there be Category 7? 😹 -- Meow 13:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
That's like calling a tornado a F6, or asking about a six star general. There's nothing above a catagory 5 rating.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The original scale as derived by Fujita was a theoretical 13-level scale (F0–F12) designed to smoothly connect the Beaufort scale and the Mach number scale.
That's not relevant to the discussion. also leave your signature after writing something.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I just don't get this. There is a source beside it, which is great, but I thought Typhoon Nancy is the strongest with windspeeds. Otherwise they mean strongest in the basin, or recent strongest, or one of the strongest globally etc. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Because Nancy's and other similar storms from that time were overestimated, and thus we disregard them. Patricia had the highest reliably measured 1-minute sustained wind speed. Also, in either case, it holds the record for the Western Hemisphere.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks for the info. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Weather Channel is reporting that Hurricane Patricia has made landfall at Cuixmala. Juneau Mike (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

They probably got that from the NHC's update statement, which was just released. The intensity has been updated to reflect that as well. Rye998 (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The Cuixmala page here on Wikipedia is barely a stub, with no references. I imagine that page will get a great deal more traffic in the days ahead! Juneau Mike (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, could you guys take into consideration that Spanish media is reporting that the hurricane hit the Costalegre area in general- seems like English media is focusing on Cuixmala, which as far as I can tell is just the name of a resort or river. For example, Canal Once is reporting that it hit the Bays of Tenacatita, Cuestecomate and Navidad. AuroralColibri (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Press release from Conagua. Relevant info:
"A las 18:00 horas, tiempo del centro de México, el huracán Patricia —en el Océano Pacífico y categoría 5 en la escala Saffir-Simpson—, comenzó a tocar tierra en las inmediaciones de las Bahías de Tenacatita, Cuestecomate y Navidad, donde se ubican las poblaciones de El Estrecho, La Manzanilla y Melaque, en los municipios de La Huerta y Cihuatlán, Jalisco, informa el Servicio Meteorológico Nacional (SMN), dependiente de la Comisión Nacional del Agua (Conagua)."
AuroralColibri (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
NHC is the official RMSC for the region and said it made landfall near Cuixmala. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This storm will very much contribute to the Texas flooding problem already in progress, by dumping more rain to the state.  Something to keep an eye on later. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 01:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I know. Someone can you please add this event to the List of Texas hurricanes page? Use references. Or I might add it myself. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.175.207 (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

[1] [2] If it's made by NASA? Victor Grigas (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Uploaded
Victor Grigas (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Nasa photos to migrate to commons:
[3] Victor Grigas (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The gallery one is more official, but the angle does not look perfect. The “Worldview” one’s angle is somehow perfect, but it is cropped and optimized by myself.

-- Meow 13:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I was in the process of swapping it to your "Worldview" version when you posted this. It's much better than the gallery version. Storm-centered is much preferred and yours retains that alongside the quality. Also used it for the main image on the "In the news" template. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with the Worldwide version, because of the angle and its contrast that allows to see its eye perfectly. -- Byralaal  - (talk!) 02:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some form of mention of the fact that the Hurricane's listed pronunciation at the beginning of the article isn't the only one? Sure, the listed one is the one used in the area and is the most common, but it's not THE pronunciation.

Patricia puh-TRIH-shuh— That is what I know from the NHC. -- Meow 17:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Why is the Spanish pronunciation given anyways? It seems pretty random to write something in English and then tell how it is pronounced in Spanish. --Khajidha (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Pah-tree-see-ah, but with a sharp "T" sound. created when putting your tongue behind your top teeth. -- FSUrv95  —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Mexico is in North America.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.190.4.235 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC) 

That's why Mexico is listed separately from Central America. Patricia affected areas outside Mexico as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in the article Typhoon Forrest (1983) a mention of 976 mb, I see 975 mb to 876 mb which would make a drop of 99 mb not 100 mb. Furthermore, this record was never officially confirmed by the Japan Meteorological Agency, I don't know what to make of this source [4] as conflicting information is going on here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If the 100 mb drop is confirmed in this case, it would make Hurricane Patricia the record holder for the fastest official mb drop. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: The World Meteorological Organization supersedes the JMA. Data was collected via dropsondes and is more accurate than the JMA tracks (which are notorious for being deflated, estimated, and rounded). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The info needs to be corrected, and clarified in the articles then. Which piece of info is right? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The WMO takes priority since it's the governing meteorological body. Unlike with Nancy 1961, there are no papers disputing Forrest's pressure drop so it's assumed to be valid. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This article currently uses primarily US units, with a few SI units thrown in, like pressure in hPa and rainfall in mm. Given the storm struck Mexico, shouldn't it be primarily SI units? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not really. The only English-speaking country affected by the storm in some way was the United States. Those are just my thoughts, though. Dustin (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, the convention for Pacific and Atlantic hurricane articles has always been customary units.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank everyone for contributing to this article. The information here is amazing. Kudos! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The Tropical Cyclones WikiProject does what it can to make our content the best it can be (within reason of course, there's only so much the few of us can handle)~ ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Slate.com Hurricane Patricia broke the Dvorak scale as it reached T8.3 on the 8.0-scale. 148.0.105.34 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@148.0.105.34: CIMSS actually uses a modified Dvorak scale that goes up to 8.5. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to let you guys know that the Flickr of the Presidential office of Mexico uploaded some pictures that may help this article. For example, President Peña Nieto meeting with his Cabinet during the storm. I didn't upload any myself since I don't know which ones you all would find useful. Xochiztli (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome!! We rarely have images for storm effects in Mexico so I'm super happy to have these. Thanks for letting us know; I went ahead and uploaded one which I thought had the most value to the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't understand if the last paragraph of the lead is about the precursor or this hurricane and when it changes from speaking about one to speaking about the other. Half way through the paragraph, it says "Striking Mexico as a Category 5, Patricia caused...". Is this when it switches from speaking about the precursor to speaking about this hurricane? Poorly written aspect for the major topic... :/ 2001:8A0:4318:B001:D152:D307:5CB3:B54E (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@2001:8A0:4318:B001:D152:D307:5CB3:B54E: I've split the paragraph to better differentiate the two phases. Is the structure easier to understand now? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: and others: The NHC agrees there was a 100-mbar pressure drop from 6 UTC on October 22 to 6 UTC October 23. However, the numerical values of 981 and 886, respectively, do not agree with that. The latter numerical value is also in conflict with the fact that they said 879 was measured at 6z. So what gives?--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: I'm at the NHC now so I'll ask around and see which one is correct. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: pardon the second ping, it's being looked into now. Discrepancy is because of two different dropsondes around 06z on October 23. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: No worries! I'm not sure what I'd do about this without you!--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: It's been corrected to 95 mb in 24 hours; a 25-hour pressure drop (not explicitly stated) of 102 mb (981 to 879 mb) took place from 06Z Oct 22 to 07Z Oct 23. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: Thanks a lot. Now the article can be made consistent with itself!--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Patricia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Hurricane Patricia (Spanish pronunciation: [paˈtɾisia]) was the second-most intense tropical cyclone ever recorded in the world, with a minimum atmospheric pressure of 872 mbar (hPa; 25.75 inHg)" - technically, it wasn't. A pressure of 879 was recorded, which is higher than the 876 mbar recorded during Typhoon June of 1975. Maybe say "second-most intense tropical cyclone on record worldwide"? With these sorts of records, you have to be really exact in the wording, and I'm not sure this is exact enough.
Altered the wording as specified. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The country of Mexico should be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph of the lead (perhaps when you mention Gulf of Tehuantepec?)
"Preliminary assessments indicate hundreds of homes to be destroyed and seven fatalities are linked to the hurricane, directly or indirectly." - you should emphasize this refers to the storm impacts in Mexico, as "indirectly" might include the precursor. Also, later in the article, you say "Six deaths occurred due to direct or indirect effects of the hurricane, all in Jalisco." This is inconsistent.
The extra death was during an evacuation, so it's not mentioned in the impact section. Clarified this in the lede so there's hopefully less confusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Any updated damage total?
Not that I can find. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
"Ultimately, 8,500 people evacuated prior to the storm's arrival, including 2,600 in Cabo Corrientes." - this seems extremely small, compared to the number of people the government tried to evacuate. Did 8,500 people use the shelters, perhaps? It's probably impossible to tally how many people evacuated to friends and relatives' houses.
The cited report states that 8,500 were evacuated by air and land, might seem low but that's what was reported. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
"The Mexican Red Cross prepositioned food for 3,500 families.[22] Approximately 30 kg (66 lb) of aid was pre-positioned in Colima" - dash or no dash?
No dash! :P ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the "Impact from precursor disturbance" section could use a bit more context, something like "The precursor of Patricia was a large and sprawling system that affected much of Central America for several days." It needs a bit more of an introduction, especially to establish it as a different kind of impact than the high winds that affected southwestern Mexico. As this article will likely be a popular one for the next few years (until there's a more powerful one, which I hope won't happen for a while), I'm going to push for a bit more context and details for the layman.
Better now? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
"Damage was pegged at 1.4 billion pesos (US$84.1 million)." - where? Quintana Roo or eastern Mexico? Or Chetumal?
" and/or uprooted" - not sure how I feel about "and/or" in an encyclopediac article, but it stood out to me
Don't think it's a big issue, personally, but changed it to just "or". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
"Two of the victims died in the wreckage and the other two died after being brought to the hospital." - minor and pedantic note, but shouldn't it be "brought to a hospital"? You never mention the hospital before, so it doesn't need the definite article. Grammar rules!
" The ship was subsequently deemed a likely total loss." - any update?
Situation was just updated the other day, actually. Scrapping began earlier this month; updated the sentence. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
"Insurance specialists suggest the losses across Texas, including those unrelated to Patricia, could reach US$3 billion." - any update?
Updated the section with NCDC details...nowhere near $3 billion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
All in all it's a good article. Just make sure it stays up to date if you plan to further this article. One little note that came across my mind - you don't mention that the area the storm hit were pretty poor. See List of Mexican states by GDP - the areas affected are some of the poorest of Mexico, and that's a pretty important lasting factor IMO. Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think (hope) that's everything. Many thanks for the review, Hink! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Texas event reports that mention Patricia:
[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]
~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I added the year to demonstrate live edit. BCarmichael (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit and Hurricanehink: As the primary contributor and creator of the article, I thought it would be prudent to first let you know that I think this is worthy of an FA nomination. I started the process above with the template, however I'm seeking your comment first.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: More research on the impact and aftermath still needs to be done. Most of it is from within a month of the hurricane. Was planning on finishing this up eventually but I guess this works as a kickstarter. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain why we are giving the Spanish pronunciation for an English word? --Khajidha (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point. The NHC lists the pronunciation as "puh-TRIH-shuh". I agree, there isn't a need for the pronunciation, given that it's an English word, and we don't even have the proper pronunciation for the storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  15:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just checking that it didn't mean "(Officially using the Spanish pronunciation: [paˈtɾisia] in all languages)" --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Hurricane Patricia. 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/20151023193946/http://thevane.gawker.com/at-200-mph-hurricane-patricia-is-now-the-strongest-tro-1738224692 to http://thevane.gawker.com/at-200-mph-hurricane-patricia-is-now-the-strongest-tro-1738224692
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.syracuse.com/weather/index.ssf/2015/10/hurricane_patricia_overblown_storm_weakens_to_category_2_falls_short_of_catastro.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151024170036/http://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/tiempo/huracanes/article40821279.html to http://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/tiempo/huracanes/article40821279.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151025133729/http://www.s21.com.gt/nacionales/2015/10/22/evacuan-2100-temporal-estacionario to http://www.s21.com.gt/nacionales/2015/10/22/evacuan-2100-temporal-estacionario
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303183227/http://www.s21.com.gt/pulso/2015/10/22/temporal-afecto-282-mil-hectareas-santa-rosa to http://www.s21.com.gt/pulso/2015/10/22/temporal-afecto-282-mil-hectareas-santa-rosa
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/26/us-texas-flood-idUSKCN0SI0M920151026
Corrected formatting/usage for http://noticias.terra.com.mx/mexico/huracan-patricia-5-mil-791-marinos-auxilian-a-damnificados%2C8eccbab6744269b83424c6d1125af7cccah4ynbv.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) 23:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Patricia. 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/20151127203003/http://www.lavozdemichoacan.com.mx/con-danos-mil-639-casas-por-patricia/ to http://www.lavozdemichoacan.com.mx/con-danos-mil-639-casas-por-patricia/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151028232800/http://www.lavozdemichoacan.com.mx/patricia-deja-2-mil-viviendas-afectadas-en-michoacan/ to http://www.lavozdemichoacan.com.mx/patricia-deja-2-mil-viviendas-afectadas-en-michoacan/
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) 00:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Typhoon Nancy should be mentioned in the article I know I know It is considered unreliable. But so are the readings for the Labor day hurricane yet it is still included when talking about records set by Atlantic hurricanes. Keep in mind doubt doesnt mean disproven.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes except that the records for hurricanes in the Atlantic are extremely reliable, while the records for typhoons is extremely unreliable. Additionally, this is a Pacific hurricane not a Pacific typhoon. Only the strongest storms should be mentioned in this article and Tip fits the bill just fine. No mention of Nancy is needed.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
So you think technology from the 1930s is more advanced than that from the 1960s? that's the funniest thing I have ever heard. The anemometer was invented in 1846 so it doesnt make sense to say it would still be unreliable in the 1960s. Typical bias on Wikipedia's part and very shameful--Fruitloop11 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Just noticed this conversation. @Fruitloop11:, it is believed that there were many excessive measurements of wind speeds by recon aircraft in the West Pacific between the 1940s-60s, whereas the North Atlantic cyclone tracks and intensities since 1851 have been restudied and adjusted more reliably several times; I believe that was @ChessEric:'s point. And the rudeness you expressed to him was completely unnecessary, please assume good faith. JayTee🕊️🇺🇸 18:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@JayTee32 and Fruitloop11: I didn't even noticed this reply until just now. LOL! And if you think the bias was just in the Pacific typhoons, check the page for Hurricane Ethel (1960). Reanalysis dropped it from a 160 mph Cat 5 to 115 mph Cat 3 because of the misinterpretations of recon data. Even today, SFMR readings have been questioned when storms reached very high wind speeds (see Hurricanes Irma, Michael, Dorian, and Iota. Also, the 1935 Labor Day hurricane has been reanalyzed and had its records verified. If there is ANY place that has good hurricane records, its going to be Florida. And one more thing: if you KNOW that the readings are unreliable, why mention it? You KNOW why they're not there, so being rude to me makes no sense.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I decided to Look in the advisory archives of Patricia. It never, in the archives, said that Patricia reached 215 mph. All of them say “200 mph”. Is this worth changing or not? 🍋 🍋(talk!) 20:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the archives: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2015/PATRICIA.shtml? 🍋 🍋(talk!) 20:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
and it’s “200” peak: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2015/ep20/ep202015.public_a.015.shtml? 🍋 🍋(talk!) 20:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
See the National Hurricane Center's Tropical Cyclone Report for Hurricane Patricia, which overrides operational in-season advisories – 185 kn (215 mph; 345 km/h). Drdpw (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
That has it in knots; 185 knots is close to 210 mph, not 215. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 21:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I stand corrected. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 21:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)