Talk:List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes

message: There should be a  that parallels . Jdorje 06:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Wow! What a great "list". It's really an article not a list. Well done, everyone who edited this! ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wish every list was this rockingly great 

message: Article does good job at explaining why there are so few Category 5 hurricanes at Pacific, but perhaps it should extrapolate further. There have been only 8 Cat 5's at EPac since 1970, but 14 at Atlantic. This despite the fact that on total number of storms, EPac is on average much more active than Atlantic, and according to tropical cyclone article, has also about 2 times as much major hurricanes than Atlantic. I think this disparity should be addressed by someone 'in the know'. --Mikoyan21 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ioke is the only CPAC named storm to reach Category 5 intensity, thats 9. --Irfanfaiz 02:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Cat 5's

message: Should some attempt be made to explain the difference between Central and Eastern, or is it better to just lump them all in together? I don't mean different tables of course - just an explanation of how Ioke is the only CPac one there, or if the others reached that strength in CPac, or what not. --Golbez 21:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central vs Eastern 

message: I'd like to point out that 1994's Hurricane Emilia was not a Category 5 hurricane. Both the preliminary "Best Track" and the "official" best track both show Emilia peaking at 135 knots. The NHC's Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale page says, "Category Five Hurricane: 
Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr)." (both my emphasis). Finally, the report for 2000's Hurricane Carlotta says in its abstract at the top that "Carlotta was a category 4 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson scale)". That report also indicates Carlotta, a Category 4 hurricane, peaking at 135 knots at 21/0600 and 21 / 1200. Thus, a hurricane peaking at 135 knots is a Category 4 hurricane, not a Category 5. As Emilia is shown in the best tracks to be peaking at 135 knots, I can't call it a Category 5. I don't know why the CPHC says Emilia was a Category 5 because it wasn't. My best guess is that it was downgraded in post analysis. I'm just telling people this so you don't try and revert me or add it back or anything. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be because the CPHC handled it at its strongest, not the NHC. See: . According to them, Emilia topped out at 140kt from 18Z July 19 to 00Z July 20, and from 12Z July 20 to 00Z July 22. The CPHC is the authority for central pacific storms, and I will use their numbers and reports over the NHC's. However, it is worth an email, either to the NHC or CPHC, and asking. I've found the CPHC webmaster to be communicative. For now, I'm putting Emilia back. --Golbez 23:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to be biased towards NHC, but I would keep Emilia in with a footnote on the discrepancy. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 03:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emilia 

message: Really? Is this a good article? The tables are incoherent and repetitive. I strongly advise those who are involved in this debacle to have a look at the Atlantic Hurricanes page and see how tight and consie that article is. This is what bugs me about this site. The information is slap dashed around there is no consistency.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.250.118 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess.... 

message: poor grammar primarily.  it reads like it was translated by a computer.  probably was.
"Before 1997, the means for estimate pressure from satellite imagery was not available"
68.38.197.76 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  i also agree that this article is a mess 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1949to2007_epa.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716085913/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2002kenna.shtml to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2002kenna.shtml
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) 12:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Add it. Nanchang17 (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[Hurricane Otis (2023)]] to the image that shows cat 5 hurricanes from 1994-2023 

message: I propose that, consistent with our other "List of Category N Atlantic/Pacific hurricanes" articles, we make a table for landfalls. Though it would have only five entries, it would allow us to also specify the locations of the landfalls much more clearly. As-is, the section specifies only landfall categories and not locations. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landfalls table