Talk:Hurricane Carmen

message: A pic for Carmen can be found here. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1974.pdf
Not sure if it is copyrighted or not...Hurricanehink 23:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a NOAA site, it's not copyrighted. I converted it from pdf form and will upload it now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it's from a NOAA site doesn't mean it's not copyrighted.  NOAA has a lot of pictures "used with permission" from local counties' libraries...which are not made or owned by NOAA.  See :Image:Tropical_Storm_Allison.jpg as an example. Jdorje 01:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic

message: I put this as a stub because it has no info on impact. Jdorje 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better? Hurricanehink 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If citations were added, this could be a B Class article. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: ARGH! If it wasn't for the fact that GIBBS has pics on a quality of nearly absolute trash from 74, finding a pic wouldn't be too hard. But then again, barely any Carmen satellite photos exist, so I feel lucky...somewhat. Jake52 My island 13:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, good job with finding that image. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm confused. What "duplicate"? Far as I know, I've never seen the supposed duplicate and ever if one existed, why was it never added to the article to begin with? If there was a dup., then I'm sorry, but I never found it. And if there wasn't, why was my pic edited out? Hurricane Angel Saki-My own personal NHC 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very weird, as it wasn't a duplicate. I left a message on the Commons talk page of the user who deleted it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a somewhat clearer image of Hurricane Carmen on the GIBBS gallery.Supportstorm (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1974 Pic 

message: This should have at least been the third, if not the fifth, recognized TD of the season.  What's the source of that statement?  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tropical Depression #2? 

message: As part of an ongoing upgrade of this article, I have removed the single-line section on the storm's depiction in Forest Gump. It's an interesting piece of trivia, but I don't believe it to be relevant to the article, which should be a scientific account of the storm itself. Feel free to discuss here. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, agreed. It's interesting, but it's more important in a Tropical cyclones in popular culture sort of article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: *"Subsequently, it moved ashore on September 2 on the Yucatán Peninsula" The use of both "subsequently" and "on September 2" is redundant. Suggestion: "On September 2, it moved ashore on the Yucatán Peninsula". This also helps by eliminating consecutive prepositional phrases with "on".
:*Good point, done. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ditto. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Done as well. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Sorry, but I'm not sure I follow. It says it was part of 1974 in the previous sentence. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Allow me to clarify: the previous sentence mentions that the storm was part of the 1974 storm season, but it doesn't actually specify the year in which the storm occurred. It is not uncommon for a season to stretch across multiple years. The 1974 NFL season, for example, actually ended in 1975. Fiscal years also stretch across multiple calendar years. Unless the reader is already familiar with the formatting for storm seasons, they may not be certain what year this storm took place in. Does this make more sense? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ehh... no offense, of course, but I think that's kind of a stretch. Readers don't have to be spoon-fed the entire article; they're capable of figuring out these little nuances themselves, I think. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Just an attempt to lighten up an otherwise dull subject (to most people). I don't see any compelling reason to change it personally, but I guess if that's what it takes... Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Trekked has several meanings that do not apply in this context, thereby making it somewhat ambiguous. It is also an uncommon word, whereby it is unlikely to be in the vocabulary of non-native English speakers. Because it is an uncommon word, readers may be led to believe that it is a piece of storm jargon and set off on a futile attempt to find the meaning as it applies to storms. Because trekking is an activity primarily for humans, the use of it may be considered anthropomorphic, which is, in turn, unencyclopedic. All of these potential issues can be avoided simply by changing the word to "moved" or by using the appropriate piece of storm jargon (whatever that may be). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've only known "trek" to mean simply "a journey", but I changed it to "moved". Rather dull, but you may have a point. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Linked to convection (meteorology). Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Added. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Favorable to the storm, of course! I think this is clear personally, but I'll change it if needed. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here's the problem: When the word "favorable" is used with respect to a person, it is very easy to determine what it means. However, when using "favorable" with respect to "outflow", the meaning is not so clear because storms ≠ humans. What about the outflow conditions made them favorable for the strengthening of the storm? Also, I think you meant to include the word "conditions" after "outflow", for "under favorable outflow" seems a bit off without it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good point. I've changed it around a bit, and gone out a limb with a slightly unusual, yet perhaps more applicant, word. I added "conditions" because I agree it sounds better, although the previous wording is also standard. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think you may have imagined such a change taking place, as the sentence in question looks the same to me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Weird... maybe the edit didn't go through or something. Oh, well; redone in any case. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Reworded. I'm not sure I need to repeat that it was a Cat 4, though. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *I added a fancy footnote to clarify this issue. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Currents that steer, I guess... I don't mean to be rude—honestly—but how else can that be explained? Forward speed stats should be easy to find, so I'll add a couple in later. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, if "steering currents" is just an intuitive explanation rather than a buzzword, perhaps it can simply be replaced with "The ocean currents that were steering the storm became increasingly weaker" or some such. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's actually the atmospheric/weather patterns as opposed to the ocean currents. I've changed it to reflect this. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ditto above. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Got it, I hope! Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Better, but I'm not a fan of "quasi-stationary position". I hereby rescind my previous comment that "slowed to a drift" is confusing. I think once there are forward speed statistics, this phrasing is adequately descriptive of the storm's movement, more so than "quasi-stationary" in any case. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *back to the original wording, then. I'll Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Reorganized. Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Yeah, I spent a while trying (and failing) to construct that sentence well. Thanks for the suggestions – I went with the first one, to avoid passive voice. Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Various shelter facilities. I don't think the article needs to put much more thought into it than that, but if you want specifics, I can look. Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *"shelter facilities" is good enough for me. To avoid unnecessary word repetition, how about "About 60,000 people sought refuge in shelter facilities across the New Orleans region" ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *That seems identical except for moving the word a few spaces over. Juliancolton (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *"sought refuge in shelter facilities" makes it clear that the facilities were 'official' and intended to be used for this purpose. "sought shelter in facilities" may, in the minds those who remember Hurricane Katrina and storms like it, imply that people were scrambling for shelter in whatever structures they could find. Which is the more accurate connotation? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *The latter, which is more broad and avoids incorrect assumptions. The sources do not, in my opinion, specify that the facilities housing evacuees were actually "shelter facilities". People likely stayed in churches, schools, hotels, etc. Juliancolton (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Correct. I've made an attempt at simplifying the relevant text. Juliancolton (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *The source says "Because of Camille, everybody along the Gulf Coast has deep respect for Carmen", which is accurately rephrased in the article in my opinion. I appreciate the suggestion, but it seems unnecessary to make the article even more dull and the prose less interesting. Juliancolton (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's not accurate. "having deep respect" and making "particularly thorough" preparations are not the same. The current sentence could refer to any kind of preparation, such as canned food, emergency generators, walkie-talkies, medical supplies, rain gear, etc. That's not what the source material is about. The source material is specifically about evacuating the area. There's no way for one to be "particularly thorough" about one's own evacuation: one is either there or one is not. The current sentence is also not reflective of the fact that the article in question is only about Mississippi. Whether my suggested sentence is used or not, these inaccuracies should be addressed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *The article neither states nor implies that individual people were thorough about their evacuations, so there is no accuracy. A community of people can be meticulous in their preparations for a hurricane. The Carmen–Camille relationship is a general observation rather than a direct statement of technical fact, so we do not need to be as exact in duplicating the source context to a T. Juliancolton (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am of the opinion that if you want to keep this sentence as is, you can find a better source for it. Conversely, if you want to use the source, you can find a better sentence to summarize it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I disagree, and while you're of course free to edit the article yourself, I personally do not feel the need to change this particular sentence. From the source currently in use, "'Before Camille they might have been having hurricane parties and things like that, but they are taking things very seriously,' said Sister Pamela, a Catholic nun assisting at a Gulfport refugee center." That quote alone directly backs up the information in the article. Juliancolton (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have changed the sentence in question. Tweak as you see fit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I still fail to see the issue with the original sentence! The altered text presents the Camille relationship as a side-note, even though it's the whole point of the sentence. Juliancolton (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *This is pretty much standard wording in tropical cyclone articles. Rainfall in the northern Lesser Antilles peaked at 5.91 inches; locations outside of the area of highest precipitation received less. Juliancolton (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I believe you may have misread the source material. The reference for the aforementioned sentence says that 5.91 inches of rain fell on Jajome Alto, Puerto Rico. I have added this to the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your change looks fine, but how have I misread anything? "Maxima" means "peak". Juliancolton (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Added. Juliancolton (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *But that's not necessarily accurate. The destruction of sugar crops was the most extensive impact from the storm. Juliancolton (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps it is that the estimated yields already factor in a certain degree of crop loss? Juliancolton (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps. Where exactly did you see the 12% figure? I'm looking through the given source and I'm not seeing it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *See the PR on this issue. The source said yields dropped from 25 to 22 tons, which is 12%. In any case, I just removed the sentence, since I don't think it adds much and the potential is great for misinterpretation of the source material. Juliancolton (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *I reworded it. Juliancolton (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ah, I see. Looking at the source, it is clear now that this means that 20% of the total 1974 crop was destroyed. I think the wording can be made slightly less ambiguous as such: "An estimated 308,000 acres (125,000 ha) of sugar cane was devastated, eliminating about 20 percent of the entire 1974 Louisiana sugar crop." or something like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't feel comfortable assuming that the crop is those 16 counties accounted for the entire state's crop. Juliancolton (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, upon rereading the source, I've found a different issue: the article currently states that 308,000 acres of sugar cane was devastated, whereas the source simply states that "Louisiana's 16 major sugar cane parishes had an estimated 308,000 acres planted in sugar cane" without indicating how many of those acres were affected. I think our best bet is to drop the acre figure altogether and stick to the percentage to avoid misleading readers as to how much sugar cane was damaged. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Argh, I knew there was a reason for my original wording. Devastated does not necessarily mean destroyed, so the 308,000 acres were partially damaged, of which 20% was destroyed. OK, reworded. Juliancolton (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *I'm not sure how to further explain what "organized" means... it just indicates that the system... became more organized. Sorry, but I'm not sure what else I can do with that. As for the southern segment of the wave, Thompson (1976) does not specify its ultimate fate. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alas, poor southern segment: we hardly knew ye. Anywho, why don't you just try to explain what "organized" means here for me in laymen's terms, then we'll see if we can work out a way to explain it clearly in the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, sure. "Organized", in this context, means that the convection, or thunderstorms, has strengthened and become more balanced, symmetrical, and conducive for further intensification of the storm as a whole. It's really the same as the standard definition of the word "organized". Any suggestions on how I could explain this in the article would be much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hmm... I'm not entirely sure how to convey that in the article. Perhaps a minor rewording will help: "the more northern of which consolidated into an organized storm system." This doesn't directly explain the term either, but somehow I feel it adds enough context to make the meaning clearer. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *It makes sense to me (try imagining parenthesis around the "coastal bays, lakes and bayous"). Juliancolton (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *A lot of things make sense to us that don't make sense to other people—we write encyclopedia articles for fun! :P I think this could be made clearer by simply replacing "coastal bays, lakes, and bayous" with "coastal bodies of water" or some other coverall phrase like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *I don't think such a statistic needs to signify its significance. The Monthly Weather Review does not list a higher wind velocity, but it gives no indiciation that its list is comprehensive. Juliancolton (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here's the thing: If the sentence gives no indication that the statistic is significant (which it is), that implies that the location is significant (which it is not). If the only reason to mention this fact is because this is believed to be the highest recorded wind speed, then that should be made explicit so as to avoid leading readers to believe that Morgan City is somehow relevant to the storm. The other problem is that the sentence may also imply that the extra high tides were related to Morgan City as opposed to Shell Beach. How's this for a rewrite: "Gusts of wind reached speeds as high as 86 mph, and along the coast of Louisiana the tides reached as high as 6 ft above normal levels." This makes it clear that the stats are significant because they're the largest known, but does not specifically imply that they are the definitive the maxima for this storm. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *It stalled because the steering currents got weaker, as discussed in the article. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ah, now that I know that the steering currents were atmospheric rather than tidal, this makes sense. However, I still don't understand how it magically went from being "nearly stalled" to accelerating again. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *I can't find any more specific info on this, although I agree it would be a useful addition if possible. I'll keep an eye out. Juliancolton (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the continued review, but to be perfectly honest, I'm afraid I disagree with many of your requests. We must assume some degree of competence on the readers' part and not dull-ify the article by explaining, linking, and over-analyzing everything. Thoughts? Respectfully, Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken, my good man. You have every right to disagree with my comments, and I don't intend to oppose the FAC based on nitpicks. However, you must realize this: You are more familiar with this topic and with your own writing than the vast majority of readers will be. If I, as someone who truly knows nothing about storms, point out a piece of phrasing that I don't like, it is either because I honestly don't understand it or because I honestly believe it will confuse people. Your goal and my goal are one in the same: to make the most accessible article possible. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that's fair. I really appreciate the outside review, which is helping to make significant improvements to the article. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose comments from Cryptic C62 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Hurricane Carmen's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "hurdat":
From Hurricane Elena: 
From Tropical cyclone: 
From Hurricane Beulah:  
From Hurricane Allen:  
From List of Florida hurricanes (1950–1974): 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Hurricane Carmen]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Carmen. 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/20100613132252/http://www.geology.iupui.edu/Academics/CLASSES/G130/reefs/ME_20.htm to http://www.geology.iupui.edu/Academics/CLASSES/G130/reefs/ME_20.htm
*Added  tag to http://dnr.louisiana.gov/crm/D%20R%20S%20Reports/Feasibility/B.S.%20Phase%201%20Step%20F.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121042409/https://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pd/projectslist/ProjectData/118926/reports/FinalPEISSummary.doc to http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pd/projectslist/ProjectData/118926/reports/FinalPEISSummary.doc
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) 22:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified