# Talk:Hurricane Paul

Basically, the general format is having the Hurricane Name as the retired storm, with Hurricane Name (Disambiguation as the disambiguations, unless there were no retired storms, so the disambigs would have the name and other storms would have Hurricane Name (Year). However, based on how destructive Paul was and how well-known it was as a destructive storm (IMO), I propose it gets the main article. Hurricanehink 15:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No objection.  However I think for the atlantic, which has been more consistent about retiring names for longer, we should stick to the yearly suffix entirely for non-retired storms (though there are several "coincidentally" retired storms like Hurricane Francelia which are tempting not to add the year to). Jdorje 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Good point about storms like Francelia. That, Belle, and a few others could use a redirect for their name (like Francelia (1969) redirects to Francelia) but they can stay with the main article in my book. Especially if the storm is notable, like Alice in 1954-5. That doesn't need to be Alice (1954), but a redirect couldn't hurt. Hurricanehink 22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Some more on impact, and a little more in the intro.  How about a breakdown of deaths by country?  What countries did the TD even strike? Jdorje 20:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That is next to impossible. There is next to no info available online, so all you could do is guess and mention other storms. Hurricanehink 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I love it when I'm wrong in cases like this. Is this better? Hurricanehink 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Upgraded it to B Class Storm05 17:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In case you don't know, the Eastern Pacific Hurricane Center in San Francisco was tasked with warning in tropical cyclones in that basin through the 1970's and most of the 1980's.  I changed the line in this article...other articles may be similarly flawed.  Thegreatdr 13:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Hurricane Paul (1982)/GA1

I calculated $776 million, based on what's in the article. How is it over $1 billion? @Yellow Evan: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The 1.16 billion total comes from this edit, which must have gotten removed/copyedited out over the years. I'll look at this further when I get back to Norman. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan and Hurricanehink: 100M+280M+250M+100M+356M+70M equals the $1.16 billion total. All of those individual numbers are in the prose. Each number has its own source. NoahTalk 23:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I downgraded both the death and damage total figures by quite a bit. I wrote this article eight years ago when I was a very edgy and highly annoying teenager whodidn't know as much about death/damage totals as I do know. I didn't even know LexisNexis was a thing back in the day, and the article is not how I'd write it today (then again, I refuse to touch the EPAC now). YE Pacific Hurricane 18:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks YE. As a former teenage editor who maybe was a little brusque at times, I appreciate your editing hours and your wit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)