Talk:List of retired Atlantic hurricane names/Archive 1

message: There should be a , similar to . Jdorje 20:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list would be too long though - as of 2005, it will have at least 70 names! CrazyC83 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In theory, it is a good idea, but there's way too many. Maybe have them by deades, like there could be a Retired Atlantic hurricanes of the 1990's, which would include only Diana, Klaus, Bob, Andrew, Luis, Marilyn, Opal, Roxanne, Cesar, Fran, Hortense, Georges, Mitch, Floyd, and Lenny... 15 names. The Cat. 5 hurricanes has 28, and that is huge on its own. 2000's would have 13 (Keith, Allison, Iris, Michelle, Isidore, Lili, Fabian, Isabel, Juan, Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, and 2005's), 1980's would have 8 (Allen, Alicia, Elena, Gloria, Gilbert, Joan, and Hugo), 1970's would have 8 (Celia, Agnes, Fifi, Carmen, Eloise, Anita, David, and Frederic), 1960's would have 11 (Donna, Carla, Hattie, Flora, Cleo, Dora, Hilda, Betsy, Inez, Beulah, and Camille), and 1950's would have 9 (Carol, Edna, Hazel, Connie, Diane, Ione, Janet, Audrey, and Gracie). Those numbers are a little more managable than around 70... Hurricanehink 21:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Emily hasn't been retired though, since it's due to be used again in a few years. Guy1890 (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: The list is complete, but the text is nothing to write home about. Jdorje 20:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Every AHS season should have, in its retirement section under the XXXX storm names section: . — jdorje (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See 2004 AHS as an example. — jdorje (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: What is the reasoning for using landfall strength for the storm colors in the table?  In my opinion it would be more appropriate to include the maximum storm strength here.  Maximum storm strength is often more indicative of damage than landfall strength, since a weakening storm will in many cases do just as much damage as a full-strength one.  Additionally, it avoids problems with questions of landfall - a storm may do damage without making landfall and often does damage while at a higher intensity than its landfall intensity.  Hurricane Mitch is the best example of this, but someday there will probably be a storm retired that didn't make landfall at all. — jdorje (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: Rather than doing the color representing the strongest landfall, I changed it so the colors represented the storm at the strongest point. The previous system was a little weird, like having Mitch as a Cat. 1. To specify which ones made a Cat. 5 landfall, I put (Cat. 5) for the landfall locations. If this is not OK, you can change it, though I think it should be talked about first. Hurricanehink 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors for retired hurricanes 

message: Edna's Color is based on landfall. Dora's Color is based on Peak. So, whats the deal? Is t landfall or Peak? —Cyclone1 02:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let me get this straight... 

message: What storm names do you think will be retired? Evan Robidoux 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed at many other places here. Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma will certainly be retired. Emily and Stan will likely also be retired. I wouldn't expect any other names dropped though. CrazyC83 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about Ophelia? $1.6 billion storm. Maybe... Cyclone1 15:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in post-analysis, Ophelia was found to have caused only $70 million. Hurricanehink 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. That number makes retirement highly unlikely based on its intensity and low death toll. I'd say Ophelia will be back in 2011. CrazyC83 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Emily hasn't been retired, since it's due to be used again in a few years. Guy1890 (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Names 

message: Hey, whats up with Klaus? I have several questions about this. Hurricanes that have done FAR worse damage (Edith - 1971) and killed FAR, FAR more people (Gordon - 1994) weren't retired, but Klaus was. Klaus killed eleven WITH HELP FROM MARCO!!! shouldn't they both be retired? or better yet neither? Whats with this call?  Cyclone1 02:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Klaus article.  Storm names are retired by the request of the individual nations, and Martinique requested Klaus's retirement. — jdorje (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's correct, and the WMO approved it. Gordon was overlooked by Haiti (had they made a case, it surely would have been accepted and retired), and Edith was in an era when retirement was less strict. Even so, the name Edith shouldn't have been retired despite it's strength, because although it caused 25.4 million dollars in damage, only 380,000 dollars of this (1971 USD) were attributed to it's category 5 landfall, which is very low; virtually all of it's damage was attributed to it's U.S. landfall, and it only killed 37 people, which isn't so much. CrazyC83 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klaus? 

message: The name Anita was retired after 1977, but is there a reason why that name was retired? It only killed 10 people, a very low number considering it's intensity, and damage is unknown, but was not extreme, due to the scarce population of the struck area. Was it retired for unknown reasons? The Mexican government did not request retirement of the name, or at least it doesn't say this in the main article, so why was the name Anita retired after 1977?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement of Anita 

message: In this article and in a few others it is stated that the name Hilda was placed on the list of names for 1973. According to one source, a book by Ruth Brindze, the name of the H storm for the 1973 Atlantic hurricane season was Helen. --65.24.223.243 08:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement of "Hilda" 

message: An anon just removed Hurricane Gracie (1959) from the list.  I was about to revert it as vandalism, but I decided to take a look at Gracie's article - which says that it was retired.  So again I was about to revert it as vandalism, but I decided to take a closer look at the external link http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/retirednames.shtml - and here it is not listed.  The 1959 Atlantic hurricane season also lists it as retired.  So what's the deal? — jdorje (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, interesting. Well, this site, another Government site by some NHC officials, does in include Gracie. I'll e-mail the NHC, and perhaps it was a typo? Hurricanehink 00:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this WMO Newsletter Gracie is retired. PenguinCDF 06:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems most likely the first link is a typo and Gracie was indeed retired.  However the fact that the WMO page includes links to wikipedia makes me suspicious that they got their list from here as well.  I'd still like some explanation from the NHC. — jdorje (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no retirements technically until 1969.  My guess is, you'll have to find a reference that states its retirement around the year 1969.  Thegreatdr (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm back 3 years later.  I found this WMO document and on pages 87-88 it shows Gracie as not being retired.  Edna's also not listed as retired, and Greta IS retired. PenguinCDF (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement of Gracie 

message: Shouldn't this be List of retired Atlantic hurricane names? The names are being retired, not the hurricanes themselves. æle ✆ 03:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article is a list of storms, not a list of names.  It doesn't list "Carol", it lists "Carol (1954)" with a summar of its effects. — jdorje (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The storms are what caused the names to be retired, and they should of course be listed. However, the World Meteorological Organization would have a hard time retiring actual hurricanes :), so the title is misleading. æle ✆ 11:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That was my first thought after happening upon this page.  If a hurricane can be said to retire, then all hurricanes retire eventually, at least on Earth so far.  I'd add names to the title.--J Clear 13:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page naming 

message: Many articles on Atlantic hurricanes say something like "Never be used to name a hurricane again". Now, from here: "Retiring a name actually means that it cannot be reused for at least 10 years, to facilitate historic references, legal actions, insurance claim activities, etc. and avoid public confusion with another storm of the same name." (my emphasis). This isn't official, but consider: The "unretirements" of Hilda, Dora, and Celia are all ten years after their Atlantic retirement. Who knows? Maybe it's true. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that text when I added the "seealso" links.  Mostly I added it so that the retirement section would be a full paragraph long, and note it should always say "never be used in an Atlantic hurricane" again.  However if it's untrue, then of course we should fix the text.  However we should first fix this article and explain excatly what retirement entails (right now it just says its "removed from the rotation of naming lists"). — jdorje (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Never be used to name a hurricane again" 

message: Good news, I found Anita's total, which before the re-write would be the last storm damage total. However, I didn't add Juan or Connie because I couldn't find a source on that. Anyone who can can add it, provided they list the source. Hurricanehink 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage totals 

message: The purpose of a separate list is to be able to control the sorting.  But each list should include as many fields as are relevant, without becoming too wide or overloading the content for the user. — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a source for every damage given in this article.  The sources should all be given in the storm articles.  However, we should use this list as an opportunity to improve the damage entries for each of the storm articles.  There is...a lot of work to be done here. — jdorje (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know not every source is needed, but I figured it couldn't hurt, especially if the hurricane articles don't have a source for the total. I found Juan's correct total (200 million), though I can't seem to find Connie. That's pretty ironic, too, considering in the old list, the last few to get done were Diana, Anita, Cesar, and Michelle. You'd think that Connie, a US cane, would have a total. Too bad Diane struck just days later. Hurricanehink 04:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And also, why are the references in their own separate sortable column? I think it would be better if they were in the "at the time" column, or, as jdorje suggests above, remove all of these citations entirely. GunnerJr (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

text: This list is closely related to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Inflated_costs. — jdorje (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After some consideration I changed all present-day numbers to be inflated using the CPI.  This means, for instance, that Andrew's info in the table is different from what the Andrew article says!  The same is true of all U.S. hurricanes.  However using a consistent method of conversion is the only way we can realistically make an ordered table...and (as discussed in the link above) using the GDP deflator for non-US storms makes no sense anyway. — jdorje (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently not, that's what I just looked up. The template Formatprice adds in the "million" or "billion" automatically. Suggest using the template Formatnum instead, with the column heading saying: "in Millions of USD". Then numbers that are in the billions can be written as thousands, for example 9 billion = 9,000 million. GunnerJr (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

text: This should be sorted by direct deaths.  We could also add a field for indirect deaths, however.  For older storms only direct deaths are available, so the indirect field is just a "bonus" piece of information. — jdorje (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thiking of adding "indirect deaths" and "primary cause" fields.  Indirect deaths is pretty obvious; the only problem is it will be very hard to find for some older storms (but may be quite revealing for some storms like Rita).  Primary cause gives the primary cause of the deaths - generally "storm surge" or "inland flooding" or "wind-related", but occasionally can be a lot more precise like "tornado" or "boat sinking". — jdorje (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I set it up that way because it isn't a list per se. I intended to use the same format as the Category 5 Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes pages. —Cuiviénen,  Tuesday, 28 March 2006 @ 15:41 (UTC)
===Posibble new lists?===
The problem with adding new lists is that each of them is really long.  But there are lots of things it might be somewhat interesting to sort by. Date in season would be somewhat interesting, the problem is do you use the formation date or landfall date or dissipation date? Chronological order should surely have its own list; it can be pretty short I imagine (see ). — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Landfall date sounds interesting. That problem would come if the storm had more than one important landfall, but we could discuss that. The only ones that have that problem is Klaus (Martinique landfall would be needed due to lack of exact S.C. landfall), Agnes (Florida works), Jeanne (Haiti deaths or Florida damage?), Isidore (Cuba, Yucatan, or Louisiana?), Inez (Cuba, Florida, or Mexico?), Janet (which landfall), or Gilbert (which landfall?). Based on that, I say use the formation date. Hurricanehink 03:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than making a table listing storms by date, I think it would be better to make a climatology or statistics section listing the number of storms by month, strength, alphabet (maybe), etc. — jdorje (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea, but I ,too, dont know how to list it. I kinda like the formation deal. Cyclone1 15:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, All of them are pretty long, cool concept i think though. I think we need Deaths, Price, and Chronological order.—Cyclone1 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The landfalls section goes in chronological order. — jdorje (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the landfalls layout! Cyclone1 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists, sorting, and data 

message: This one's pretty straightforward.  I guess there's some indecision about the order of sorting.  My only problem, though, is that the windspeed is a poor indicator and the list should be done by intensity and therefore by minimum pressure; the problem with this is that many storms have incomplete pressure readings. — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: By wind speed

message: This should be sorted by damage in current-day dollars, but it should include damage in storm-day ("at the time") dollars as well.  I guess it should also include a primary location of damage field too. — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a source for every damage given in this article.  The sources should all be given in the storm articles.  However, we should use this list as an opportunity to improve the damage entries for each of the storm articles.  There is...a lot of work to be done here. — jdorje (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know not every source is needed, but I figured it couldn't hurt, especially if the hurricane articles don't have a source for the total. I found Juan's correct total (200 million), though I can't seem to find Connie. That's pretty ironic, too, considering in the old list, the last few to get done were Diana, Anita, Cesar, and Michelle. You'd think that Connie, a US cane, would have a total. Too bad Diane struck just days later. Hurricanehink 04:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And also, why are the references in their own separate sortable column? I think it would be better if they were in the "at the time" column, or, as jdorje suggests above, remove all of these citations entirely. GunnerJr (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

text: This list is closely related to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Inflated_costs. — jdorje (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After some consideration I changed all present-day numbers to be inflated using the CPI.  This means, for instance, that Andrew's info in the table is different from what the Andrew article says!  The same is true of all U.S. hurricanes.  However using a consistent method of conversion is the only way we can realistically make an ordered table...and (as discussed in the link above) using the GDP deflator for non-US storms makes no sense anyway. — jdorje (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently not, that's what I just looked up. The template Formatprice adds in the "million" or "billion" automatically. Suggest using the template Formatnum instead, with the column heading saying: "in Millions of USD". Then numbers that are in the billions can be written as thousands, for example 9 billion = 9,000 million. GunnerJr (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: By damages

message: This should obviously be sorted by deaths.  It has a field for primary location of deaths; note this is often not the same as the primary location of damages (Hurricane Opal and Hurricane Jeanne are easy examples). — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be sorted by direct deaths.  We could also add a field for indirect deaths, however.  For older storms only direct deaths are available, so the indirect field is just a "bonus" piece of information. — jdorje (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thiking of adding "indirect deaths" and "primary cause" fields.  Indirect deaths is pretty obvious; the only problem is it will be very hard to find for some older storms (but may be quite revealing for some storms like Rita).  Primary cause gives the primary cause of the deaths - generally "storm surge" or "inland flooding" or "wind-related", but occasionally can be a lot more precise like "tornado" or "boat sinking". — jdorje (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: By deaths

message: The problem with adding new lists is that each of them is really long.  But there are lots of things it might be somewhat interesting to sort by. Date in season would be somewhat interesting, the problem is do you use the formation date or landfall date or dissipation date? Chronological order should surely have its own list; it can be pretty short I imagine (see ). — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Landfall date sounds interesting. That problem would come if the storm had more than one important landfall, but we could discuss that. The only ones that have that problem is Klaus (Martinique landfall would be needed due to lack of exact S.C. landfall), Agnes (Florida works), Jeanne (Haiti deaths or Florida damage?), Isidore (Cuba, Yucatan, or Louisiana?), Inez (Cuba, Florida, or Mexico?), Janet (which landfall), or Gilbert (which landfall?). Based on that, I say use the formation date. Hurricanehink 03:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than making a table listing storms by date, I think it would be better to make a climatology or statistics section listing the number of storms by month, strength, alphabet (maybe), etc. — jdorje (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea, but I ,too, dont know how to list it. I kinda like the formation deal. Cyclone1 15:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Posibble new lists?

message: All storms are listed by formation date. The formation of the storm is when it was first noticed. 
Name    	Season	Formation Date	Notes
Allison 	2001  	June 5        	
Agnes   	1972  	June 14       	
Audrey  	1957  	June 25       	Record earliest Cat 4
Cesar   	1996  	July 21       	
Celia   	1970  	July 31       	Formed 12 hours before Allen
Allen   	1980  	July 31       	
Edna    	1954  	August 2      	
Connie  	1955  	August 3      	
Diana   	1990  	August 4      	
Diane   	1955  	August 7      	
Charley 	2004  	August 9      	
Camille 	1969  	August 14     	
Alicia  	1983  	August 15     	
Bob     	1991  	August 16     	Formed 18 hours before Andrew
Andrew  	1992  	August 16     	
Cleo    	1964  	August 20     	
Fran    	1996  	August 23     	
Frances 	2004  	August 25     	Formed 12 hours before Carol and David
Carol   	1954  	August 25     	Formed the same time of day as David
David   	1979  	August 25     	
Betsy   	1965  	August 27     	Formed 18 hours before Fabian
Fabian  	2003  	August 27     	
Elena   	1985  	August 28     	Formed 12 hrs before Dora
Dora    	1964  	August 28     	Formed 6 hrs before Luis
Luis    	1995  	August 28     	
Carmen  	1974  	August 29     	Formed the same time of day as Frederic
Frederic	1979  	August 29     	Formed 6 hours before Anita
Anita   	1977  	August 29     	Formed 6 hours before Donna
Donna   	1960  	August 29     	
Ivan    	2004  	September 2   	
Carla   	1961  	September 3   	Formed the same time of day Hortense
Hortense	1996  	September 3   	
Beulah  	1967  	September 5   	
Isabel  	2003  	September 6   	
Floyd   	1999  	September 7   	
Gilbert 	1988  	September 8   	
Ione    	1955  	September 10  	Formed 6 hours before Hugo
Hugo    	1989  	September 10  	
Marilyn 	1995  	September 12  	
Eloise  	1975  	September 13  	Formed 12 hous before Jeanne
Jeanne  	2004  	September 13  	
Fifi    	1974  	September 14  	Formed 6 hours before Isidore
Isidore 	2002  	September 14  	
Georges 	1998  	September 15  	
Gloria  	1985  	September 16  	
Gracie  	1959  	September 20  	
Inez    	1966  	September 21  	Formed 6 ours before Lili and Janet
Janet   	1955  	September 21  	Formed same time of day as Lili
Lili    	2002  	September 21  	
Juan    	2003  	September 24  	
Flora   	1963  	September 26  	
Opal    	1995  	September 27  	
Hilda   	1964  	September 28  	Formed 6 hours before Keith
Keith   	2000  	September 28  	
Klaus   	1990  	October 3     	
Iris    	2001  	October 4     	
Hazel   	1954  	October 5     	
Roxanne 	1995  	October 7     	
Joan    	1988  	October 10    	
Mitch   	1998  	October 22    	
Hattie  	1980  	October 27    	Record latest Cat 5
Michelle	2001  	October 29    	
Lenny   	1999  	November 13   	Record latest Cat 4
Hattie was missing. It might be missing in the others, too. Cyclone1 18:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, All of them are pretty long, cool concept i think though. I think we need Deaths, Price, and Chronological order.—Cyclone1 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The landfalls section goes in chronological order. — jdorje (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the landfalls layout! Cyclone1 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should it look somethin like this? 

message: I think there should be a alphabetical and season year list on this artical. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  By alphabetical order 

message: The listing by strength has just been reordered from by peak winds to by minimum pressure. I believe that this should be changed back, primarily because minimum pressure has nothing to do with damages while winds do, and damages are directly linked to retirement. —Cuiviénen,  Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 19:12 (UTC)
:I disagree wholeheartedly.  Pressure is the sole measure of hurricane intensity; the NHC does not have a list of highest-wind hurricanes to strike the U.S., they only have a list of the lowest-pressure ones.  As storms like Katrina and Floyd showed, pressure can be a better measure of destructive potential than wind speed because most damages and deaths are not caused by straight-line winds - if two storms (say Katrina and Camille) have about the same pressure, the larger and slower (winds) one is roughly as destructive as the smaller and faster one.  Further, the list shows only peak intensity not landfall intensity; since most storms reached their peak while away from land their wind speeds at that point don't matter - but their peak intensity does matter since it affects the size and duration of a storm as it weakens (again, Katrina and Floyd are good examples).  Finally, wind measurements are pure estimates that - especially for older storms - can be inaccurate, while pressure measurements (with the odd exception of Rita) are all measured directly and are considered accurate. — jdorje (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pressure should be used to maintain the order, with ties broken by wind speed, then actual impact. CrazyC83 22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the current tiebreaker is wind speed.  There are not very many ties however.  I also think the list should be reordered so the most notable storms are at the top (as the other 2 lists have). — jdorje (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Gilbert was the second most intense Atlantic hurricane with a recorded pressure (the most intense hurricane was Wilma). Those two storms had a minimum pressure of 882 and 888 mbar respectively, and the more intense a storm the lower its central pressure.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere does the article make explicitly clear that the lower pressures are more powerful, although with some careful thought a reader should come to that conclusion. This is exacerbated by the ordering of the table from weakest retired to strongest, which is counterintuitive (this isn't a top-ten countdown; people are generally more interested in the stronger storms). I suggest opening the section like "This lists all retired hurricanes by their peak intensity, which is determined by measurements of the minimum central pressure (the lower the pressure, the more intense the storm)." Also, the table should be sorted from most- to least-intense storms.--71.125.122.86 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wind Speed vs Intensity 

message: I've added four images to the article: Gilbert at its peak (intensity), damage from Andrew (damages), flooding from Jeanne (deaths) and an animation of Charley making landfall (landfall). Look good? —Cuiviénen,  Tuesday, 4 April 2006 @ 02:42 (UTC)
:Very.—Cyclone1 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: ===Hattie===
The article had a Mexico landfall listed for Hattie.  EBrown pointed out that that landfall was as a ts as Simone.  However, a landfall by Simone doesn't belong here so I removed it.  (Actually this may not be a factuality issue but more a question of the scope of the article.  Note that Cesar-Douglas does not include Douglas in the intensity section.) — jdorje (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is NO source that is breaking that number down - it is almost impossible at this point. Best to stick with the 1,604 and treat it as a direct count, even if it obviously isn't. CrazyC83 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factuality questions 

message: The article had a Mexico landfall listed for Hattie.  EBrown pointed out that that landfall was as a ts as Simone.  However, a landfall by Simone doesn't belong here so I removed it.  (Actually this may not be a factuality issue but more a question of the scope of the article.  Note that Cesar-Douglas does not include Douglas in the intensity section.) — jdorje (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hattie

message: The article lists 1604 deaths for Katrina.  However this is wrong since those include both direct and indirect.  The table is for direct deaths only. — jdorje (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is NO source that is breaking that number down - it is almost impossible at this point. Best to stick with the 1,604 and treat it as a direct count, even if it obviously isn't. CrazyC83 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Katrina

message: Max Mayfield said it right: if a Greek letter is retired, that letter is simply skipped over in future seasons. Had that subtropical storm been noticed initially, Wilma would have been Alpha (imagine that, the strongest storm ever being named after a Greek letter!) and that would have been an issue. The article says: Also, the hurricane center would have had to retire Alpha, meaning that if there are more than 21 named storms this season, the first letter to be used after the main list of 21 names is exhausted would be Beta.  CrazyC83 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek letter procedure

message: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LANDFALLS!? It looks weird now! Cyclone1 20:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted it back to how it was. Hurricanehink 20:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Oh, and if anyone hasnt noticed, I tend to overreact. LOL—Cyclone1 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WHAT THE..!!

message: The deaths and damages table give locations where the deaths and damages occurred, but we don't seem to have consistent criteria for these.  Take for instance Jeanne: 93% of its fatalities occurred in Gonaives and 99% in Haiti, but the deaths have been changed to "Haiti, Florida" which is incredibly misleading (more people died in PR and DR than in Florida but these are not mentioned).  Similarly, Hilda caused over half of its fatalities in the city of Larose, but mention of this was removed.  Perhaps giving a city name is too specific, but in the case of Jeanne and Gonaives I do not think so.  In my opinion we should say that a location can be mentioned if at least 1/3 of the deaths (or damages for that table) occurred there.  For instance with mitch, about 63% of the deaths were in Honduras, 34% were in Nicaragua, and the remaining 2-3% were mostly in Central America; thus the table entry says "Honduras, Nicaragua, Central America" (though removing Central America would probably be fine here).  — jdorje (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. After all, it says primary location. Hurricanehink 11:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for deaths/damages locations 

message: The intensity list should be flipped; having the most intense at the top, and the least intense at the bottom of the list. —ScouterSig 03:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intensity listing 

message: In the death toll section of this article, it says Hurricane Stan caused over 2,000 direct deaths. That is incorrect; Stan caused ~2,000 deaths when it combined with a non-tropical low pressure system over Guatemala. Only 80 of these are "directly" Stan's. Should this be changed? Rye998 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't technically say that a specific number is related to Stan and the rest are attributable to the non-tropical low. If there was a bunch of flooding from rain from both storms, how can you say one storm is at fault and the other isn't? I personally believe you have to go by the official report of their respective country, whether science states otherwise because that's the requirement of sourcing data in Wikipedia. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stan?

message: In the "Listed by total damages," is it better to remove the sortability for the cost of damages? The table doesn't sort the numbers correctly.--72.19.95.124 (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the table needs to be renamed because the hurricanes are NOT listed by total damages, they are listed by the year they occurred (in chronological order). Yes, their damages cost is listed but they are not sorted in this way. The paragraph above the table needs to be rewritten so as it states that the damages cost for each hurricane is listed and it is listed BY year occurred. Anyone who doesn't understand this - I can explain it again differently. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a rewrite of this article currently being performed.Jason Rees (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable table 

message: Now Igor and Tomas need to be on the retirement list. They were retired.72.184.184.55 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Igor+Tomas 

message: Allison wasn't even Category 1 at peak so do we move this to list of retired TROPICAL CYCLONE names to avoid people moving tropical storm Allison to hurricane Allison?(would be quite a case of vandalism)
76.124.224.179 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only one storm, though. In general, they're known as "Atlantic hurricanes". You know, the "Atlantic hurricane season", "National Hurricane Center", whatnot. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to list of retired TROPICAL CYCLONE names 

message: Sandy is not officially retired and won't until next spring.
It is highly likely that it WILL be retired, but hurricane season is not over and one can come along which also gets retired making that one the "latest" retired name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.45.158 (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct, people need to stop adding Sandy. It is almost certain the name Sandy will be retired, but the WMO needs to do the required process at their meeting next spring. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandy is not retired