Talk:List of tropical cyclones/Archive 1

message: Should we group the hurricanse by year? Or just all of them alphabetically? (I'd like to see them in reverse chrono order, myself. Y'know, most recent one at the top of the page.) --Ed Poor
:No real preference but another question: there have been hurricanes of the same name in different years (eg. Lili in 1984, 1990 and 1996 - see []). How do we disambiguate? Guy
::How about naming the article "Hurricane Lili (2002)" -- assuming we actually write more than one article. --Ed Poor
:::Fine by me, Ed. That's how the hurricane site mentioned above does it anyway. On the other hand, I tend to be in favour of an alphabetical list. Suppose you're searching for a particular hurricane, but don't know the year. It's probably not a good idea to force people to follow the list until they found what they're looking for. Guy
::Well, the convention here is that whoever is willing to do the heavy lifting gets their way. So, start writing about hurricanes, and we will all follow whatever rules or conventions you think best! --Ed Poor
:::Hm, that's a heavy burden to carry, Ed ;-) There must be some meteorologist here who can write about this subject far better than I can. I don't really know much about hurricanes. I saw your entry in the recent changes list and thought about 2 other hurricanes. I also knew there were much more of them, so on impulse I decided to create a list. If there are people who want to organise this list in a completely different way, please go ahead. I just gave my thoughts (worth about 2 cents...) Guy
::::I really prefer names in alphabetical order, because I think it's more common for someone to want to look up a storm by name rather than year. DavidH 02:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
----
They actually repeat often enough that I think we should pre-emptively
add the year--it also provides some historical context.
"Hurricane Camille (1969)" (which I happened to live through, BTW) already
gives the reader an impression that this was before fancy warning systems,
for example. --LDC
---
! Just to clarify how the naming conventions work here, hurricane names do regularly repeat, about every five years or so. (In fact, want information on this? See hurricane, and the 'naming' section. The issue is that only some hurricanes are, to be honest, noteworthy. Many spiral off into the Atlantic and noone cares about them because they never make landfall.
The only way to be absolutely, completely unique, as a groundrule, is to organize the hurricanes WITH the year in the name (as someone said, 'Hurricane Andrew (1992)' ). But considering that in the listing of the retired Atlantic hurricanes from 1950 when naming began, that on 16 September 2002, only six actually have articles written, we should probably worry about that when all the notable storms have been written about, and well. We're a long way from that at this point.
If, eventually, someone wants to write about the year 2000 incarnation of Hurricane Alberto (unique mostly because of the length of time it existed, nearly three weeks), we can crack that egg when we come to it, or simply say that retired hurricanes don't need year designations, because those are implicit anyway - and names that haven't been retired do.
On the other hand, if we're GOING to make that change, a serious naming restructuring of the existing articles will need to be done that's beyond my general abilities to do, and should be done sooner than later. But...whatever works for people.
Okay, okay. I'm just considering it really unlikely at this point that we're needing for articles on the storms that were never retired. Yet.
-65.200.x
Every six years the names are recycled. Past 1979 atleast. I dont know what they did in the 50's - 70's
Cyclone1 15:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions

message: I hope Wikipedians aren't going to make tiny entry stubs for every tropical storm, simply because the formula Hurricame Name (Year) exists, instead of grouping them by season. Tropical storms whose names are retired are a different matter of course and deserve separate entries.  Keep the reader in mind, and focus on information and context, rather than trivial minutiae. Always a good idea. Wetman 20:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual entries for each tropical storm?

message: I've been looking at some tracks in UNISYS and I was just curious if anyone else had noticed how monumentally weird some of them are. Take Tropical Storm Olaf of 1997 for example.. That's just one of the weirdest ones. There are plenty of other hurricanes, most in the Eastern Pacific, that can't seem to make up their minds.
Also, I've added a section on significant hurricanes that no one seems to have heard of. It's a wonder to think how some of them are not more well known. (By the way, that reminds me, I think I need to change the designation of one of the unnamed storms. I think the factual accuracy of it is a bit off).
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
------
I Agree, User E. Brown. I love UNISYS. It's on my favorites list. Anyway, I had noticed Olaf's path and how completly weird it was! My favorite hurricane track to date is and always has been Hurricane Gordon! We all remember that stubborn hurricane, dont we? 
And Hurricane John? The longest laster? I have seen at least two cyclones in the South Indian Ocean that matched, or even surpassed that record. 
(click that link and look for Cyclone #19)
-Cyclone1, Hopeful Meteorologist (only 14 years old-can you beleive it?)
(Ahh, my first edit to a talk page... good memories... →Cyclone1→ 14:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird Tracks and Forgotten Hurricanes 

message: Indian ocean cyclones are just cyclones (as opposed to hurricanes or typhoones).  They also aren't given names.  Probably because of this, I've found records on the internet are pretty sketchy and on wikipedia there's even less information.  But obviously these should be included as well.  All of the deadliest cyclones are Indian Ocean ones (for instance the so-called 1970 Bhola Cyclone).
I guess the biggest question is what to name them.  There was a huge 1991 cyclone that hit Bangladesh but I can find no entry for this one anywhere.  What could it be called?  The same sort of convention as applied to other cyclones should be used (year + name) but in this case the name has to be made up.
For the moment I'll just add a new section as a stub.
Jdorje 09:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the same naming convention we do for every other unnamed disaster - Year, location, type. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, 1970 Bhola cyclone, so it would probably be 1991 Bangladesh cyclone. (Or perhaps a more specific location, like we did for Bhola or Galveston) We definitely need more info on Indian Ocean storms. --Golbez 10:04, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Links (Jdorje 10:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian ocean cyclones? 

message: At List of wars and disasters by death toll there is a (very inaccurate) list of the globally deadliest cyclones.  This is odd since this article itself doesn't have such a list.  Should that list be moved over?  Should a section be added saying that such a list isn't possible?  Assembling such a list seems very difficult since there are no sources that track data worldwide, but as long as someone's going to make a list it might as well be in this article. Jdorje 03:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadliest world cyclones 

message: How should we handle 2005 storms on here? Obviously they aren't officially retired, but if it is clear they are going to be, should we have a section saying the following:
Hurricane names likely to be retired, but not officially retired yet; a decision will be made by the WMO in the spring of 2006:
* (name), 2005 - (description)''
That line would be repeated for each name that is likely to be retired. That seemed to be the standard used for 2004. CrazyC83 8 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)
:This is an encyclopedia: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, for ones that are OBVIOUS cases, then you can mention it separately, as seen in this version:  However, don't put them in any list form until the official NHC request has been made, as per this version: . A problem with popping the stuff in to list form before the season is over is that it's still in flux; damage estimates and death counts will still be coming for a while. --Golbez July 8, 2005 00:30 (UTC)
::The NHC request usually comes in December, after the season ends. If a storm was destructive elsewhere but missed the US, they may come at different times or may not be well reported. I also don't want to go into "jumping the gun" either on "iffy" storms, I know a few (last ones being Bertha in 1996 and Bonnie in 1998) that I personally thought might be retired but weren't. An example is if Dennis gets overlooked heavily by Cuba and then weakens and makes final landfall at Category 1 or low-end Category 2 unless it stalls. CrazyC83 8 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
::Sometimes it may not be as obvious as it seems. Some that I personally believed should not have been retired that were (Klaus, 1990), and at least one that was seemingly a no-brainer that wasn't retired (Gordon, 1994). bob rulz July 8, 2005 05:13 (UTC)
The gut reactions from the casual users has already began! It is likely that newbies will continue to add Dennis (and other 2005 names later in the season) that are likely to be retired...looks like you'll be doing a lot of reverting! However, Dennis is likely to be an obvious pick to be sent to the dustbin, so once it dies and everything becomes official, (and it will likely be joinedw by several other names later in the season) we can put it in the separate mention. (Not in a list format until the NHC makes the case to retire it) CrazyC83 9 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
:Will Dennis be retired? I'd say yes (even if it died before reaching the US); Cuba should get the choice of name since they were hardest hit (that alone would retire the name), as he weakened before reaching the US Gulf Coast. CrazyC83 01:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dennis and Emily now...and most likely more to come later...I expect another record to be broken this year: most names to add to the list. (My guess is 5 to 7 - and 7 would be one-third of the list!) CrazyC83 18:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And now Katrina...the most obvious case yet... CrazyC83 16:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And now Rita and Stan. I think 2005 wants another record... --69.86.16.61 20:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least there's only one more name left...unless they shock us on Ophelia (which IMO shouldn't be retired, but still might) CrazyC83 04:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And that one more name... BAM! *sigh*. Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma; I think 2005 is all over the most-retired-names record.--69.86.16.61 23:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, there is a chance some Greek letters may be retired, but they don't get replaced... CrazyC83 02:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No. This is not a crystal ball, and the WMO may disagree with you. --Golbez 18:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 hurricanes 

message: Someone needs to verify the listing of this hurricane at 31 days longevity.  The sources I've seen don't seem to be consistent with this: it is reported to have struck Puerto Rico without warning on August 8, 1899, and made landfall in North Carolina on August 16-17th.  This accounts only for 8-9 days.  Since hurricanes mostly could be tracked only by landfall in those days, that leaves a question as to how the 31-day interval was determined. (Part of the confusion may be due to the fact that a second hurricane struck Puerto Rico on August 22nd, and that it is recorded that it rained in Puerto Rico for 28 days straight.) CoyneT talk 02:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How? Ship reports. At least, that's how they determined the track of the Galveston hurricane that struck a year later. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane San Ciriaco 

message: It is difficult to find what the daggers and double-daggers refer to since they are first references at the very top of the article but aren't described until the very bottom of the article in the Notes section.  I was trying to think of a way to make their references easier to find.  My first thought was to use the old footnote template  and } but this template is rarely used.  Also I couldn't get it to work using the dagger symbols.  A thought would be to use the newer footnote format  and , but the default text for this template is to use the text "Note 1".  An alternative would be instead of using footnotes, just to provide a link to the #Notes section for each instance of the dagger or double-dagger.  Does anyone have any suggestions? —Brim 17:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Maybe just make each symbol (dagger/double-dagger) be used only within the table rather than throughout the whole article?  Then it could be explained at the bottom of the table (where I normally look for it anyway).  The current amount of separation between use and explanation is very bad for the cohesiveness of the article - this article is too big anyway, and this would impede any attempt to break it up. Jdorje 06:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: As I suggested at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season I'd like to better organize work on hurricanes.  My initial suggestion is that we use a template, which I have put at Template:hurricane, on the talk page of hurricane and hurricane season articles.  We should then have one centralized place for discussion of standards (for naming, season layout, etc.).  (This place need not be/should not be the template talk page; it's easy to point the template to somewhere more permanent once we have such a location).  Unless there are objections I will add this template to some talk pages.  Jdorje 18:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  more organization of hurricane pages 

message: From the List of previous tropical cyclone names article:
* Hazel 1969
I don't know why. Was a TS at landfall. Perhaps because of the horrible Atlantic storm?
* Irena 1971
I can't find this at Unisys. Maybe a mistake?
* Sharon 1971
Didn't make landfall.
* Adele 1970
I don't know why. Didn't make landfall.
* Kathleen 1976
Definitely because it flooded Ocotillo, California and killed three people.
Should these be added to the retired names in the article? And should we add that Dalilia was "accidentally" removed due to an error in documents?
The only 2 of these the WMO appears to recognize ] are Hazel and Adele. Ha Ha. The WMO doesn't know why either was retired!
They also mention that names may have been retired because of "pronunciation ambiguity or a socially unacceptable meaning" in one of the languages.
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More Epac Retirements

message: Just a few minor problems with it. First, it should be Total tropical storms/total hurricanes/total major hurricanes, not just storms that only reached storm strength. For example, 2005 should be:
21/12/5, rather than, 11/5/5. 
The latter makes it seem that there are only 5 hurricanes, of which all 5 became major hurricanes. Having 21/12/5 shows that there were 12 hurricanes, of which the 5 became m.h.'s. If it is to go by my format, they should go by Most T.S.'s, and if they are tied, then the most hurricanes (2005 would go first because they had more hurricanes).
Second, it is fine to mention that there was a subtropical storm, but the subtropical storms were included in the total. The 1969 season, for example, had 18 storms, 17 of which were tropical. I'm not sure how you should differentiate them, but when you say + 1 subtropical storm, it is actually incorrect, as the subtropical storm was already included in the total. That's basically it... Hurricanehink 19:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: About the numbering system, I don't have an opinion but it must be done consistently for all seasons (someone changed just the 2005 numbering, whichis obviously wrong).  About the subtropical storms, I agree with you that the current method of showing them is confusing/misleading. Jdorje 19:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Coincidentally I've just been updating the layout of the lists on this page for the last couple days, putting things in easier to read and maintain tables. Hopefully the way the active seasons section is layed now makes more sense. --Fxer 20:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Active Seasons 

message: What is the appropriate order of these when there is a tie for number of storms? Is it oldest season first? Should it be by most major huricanes then by most hurricanes? Should this even be in this article which is about notable cyclones not about notable seasons? crandles 13:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's officially a tie, yes, no, no. Jdorje 17:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Listed by most total storms: Post-1900 

message: Pacific Typhoon recon flights were discontinued in 1988. Almost all typhoon minimum central pressure reports after that day are based on Dvorak numbers and windspeed/air pressure relationship estimates. This would include almost all typhoons on that list, except for Tip, Forrest and (possibly) Nancy. This is why same pressure number is given to many different typhoons. Methods have margin of error about 10mbar or so.
I think, at minimum, list should put a note next to all typhoons whichs' readings are estimates, not actually measured numbers. In addition, there is no real reason to disqualify Southern Hemisphere cyclons from the list, as their central pressures are measured by exact same method. Possible candidates would include at least Cyclone Zoe, Cyclone Gafilo and 1991 Bangladesh cyclone.
:Um, yes, all "estimates" should be removed.  And as for the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone, the article says it had a pressure of 898 mbar at landfall.  This came from a UK technical memorandum on the 1999 Orissa cyclone (listed in the external links), but it is mentioned there only in passing and is almost too low to be believed (I'm fairly positive this would qualify as the most intense recorded landfall anywhere). Jdorje 18:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't advise removing all the estimated entries, because then the list would look really silly and ppl would think that Wilma is the third most intense TC ever or something. Just put an asterisk or whatever. As for Indian Ocean cyclones, at least three have their maximum intensity recorded as 898mb (Dvorak number 7.0): 1991 and Orissa cyclones, and Cyclone Gafilo. These numbers come from Annual Tropical Cyclone Reports, which are available at JTWC website. At least Gafilo and 1991 storm made landfall at that intensity. What the actual intensity was, is anyone's guess. Remember, Labor Day Hurricane made landfall at 892mb, and some Pacific typhoons probably have also made landfalls at those intensities. Dvorak number chart --Mikoyan21 10:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've finished digging up JTWC archives and would like to have some sort of consensus before major changes are made. I have checked all Super Typhoons between 1959-2004, all Southern Hemisphere Cyclones between 1984-2004 and most of Northern Indian Ocean Cyclones for storms which are not yet in the list. Results: I have found total of 30 Typhoons and 3 Cyclones with measured or estimated MSLP 895mbar or lower. SIX of these storms were under 880. In addition, from other sources I found STY Ida,1958 - 877mbar measured by aircraft and unnamed typhoon from 1927 - 887mbar measured by a ship (gosh). So, what now? It's obvious that 895 is just too ordinary in Pacific to be listed. On the other hand, list is going to be totally swamped by Pacific storms anyway. Wilma would struggle to make top 20 in all-time list. The list is getting ridiculously long if we want to include meaningful amount of Atlantic or Eastern Pacific storms. Should we put the list in separate article? Should estimated storms have separate list? One annoyance is that data is sometimes re-evaluated and estimates change, and it may not show in ATCR: for example Forrest went from 883 to 876. Nancy(1961) is listed as 882mbar by JTWC, but 888 in some other sources, which one is correct? Even if we put Pacific cut-off to 885mbar, it would still put 10 new entries on the list. --Mikoyan21 09:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Use caution when adding West Pacific storms. Storms with an 885 pressure and higher are quite common over there. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, we should list ALL tropical cyclones we are bale to find at those low enough intensities. I know it may have been hard to bump Wilma off the 10 list, but it was necessary. We need typhoon articles for those major storms and also pics. We have an Ophelia article, thenwhy don't we have a Super Typhoon Forrest, Super Typhoon Gay, or Super Typhoon Ivan article? Remember a NPOV and don't just try for equal representation within the lowest pressure list. I recommend a note next to some of the typhoons about Dvorak estimation of intensity and windspeed and possible inaccuracies or discrepancies. Finally, I think we should include all storms below 900 mb, although there are plenty of typhoons to go below this mark. It is only fair to have a complete list as opposed to making Rita look stronger than other 880-890 mb typhoons. The great kawa 18:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most intense storms list needs to be fixed 

message: That's right. I came across this report online, so here: http://www.typhoon2000.ph/karl/hoarau001.pdf. It is quite interesting and says that Angela and Gay have all indications of being stronger than Tip at max intensity (in regard to pressure). Also, there are a lot of super typhoons that are stronger than the ones listed in Wikipedia's records, I propose we update this. I'm also interested in starting a articles for the major super typhoons like Gay that need to have their own article. As soon as I have some time and desire to research it, I will get started. If you are interested then help out. The great kawa 18:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, some typhoons reportedly had higher Dvorak numbers than Tip. I've read that STY Angela had the highest estimated Dvorak number ever - 8.3. Nevertheless, Tip is impressive, because it was mighty intense whilst being enormous in size; as in contrast to Wilma which was very small at it's peak intensity. It's a great pity that Pacific typhoon recon flights have been discontinued. Dvorak method came to use in 1984, and recon flights were discontinued '88, giving mere 4 years of comparative data. By the way, reason why Pacific typhoons tend to have lower central pressures than Hurricanes is that MSLP is somewhat lower in Western Pacific. This is why I don't want outright accept JTWC estimates for Indian Ocean storms - they're done using the Pacific scale, since there is too little direct information about IO cyclones. I think some IO nation should put some effort to this field - India, I'm looking at you! --Mikoyan21 20:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Stronger Than Tip Evidence 

message: According to UNISYS, no tropical cyclone ever struck New England in August of 1934, like the article says. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, and I googled everything I could think of for 1934, yet nothing came up. Nothing is in the Monthly Weather Review. I think it should be removed until there is evidence of a storm, let alone a powerful storm. Hurricanehink 02:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I know, right? I looked every where. Cyclone1 15:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great August Gale 

message: Just setting up the chart for the inevitable. Some numbers will change with the final reports. I doubled the middle of the insured estimates for Rita and Wilma to get somewhat accurate damage totals. I'm assuming that the damages listed for Dennis and Emily are total, not insured, as their articles do not indicate otherwise. Death tolls for Katrina and Stan are my own estimates for what the final declarations will be.
--69.86.16.61 05:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked some of the death toll figures to match the current estimates. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey, this is a good idea, let's make a chart that we won't need for four months. --Golbez 07:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is, why not? You didn't lose anything as a result of this being created. Also, katrina death toll is 1,302, IIRC, but still rising, so I set it at 1,302. -- 69.86.16.61 00:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Won't Ophelia be retired ? Irene in 1999 wasn't retired, so Ophelia won't be retired either, will she ? --HERB 11:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it will, but I wouldn't be shocked if it is - they have done stranger things before. I'd leave it off there. CrazyC83 03:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Retired Names 

message: We have most intense cyclones worldwide, so I propose having a worldwide longevity one, which would look something like this. Only storms lasting more than 20 days (so 20 days aren't listed here) are here, with the exception of Faith so you could see her true longevity. For accuracy purposes the Southern Hemisphere only goes to 1980.
Duration (days)	Name                  	Basin                          	Date
32.5           	Cyclone Pancho-Helinda	South Indian                   	January 1997
32             	Cyclone Katrina       	Southwest Pacific              	January 1998
31             	Hurricane John        	Eastern/Central/Western Pacific	August 1899
28             	Hurricane San Ciriaco 	Atlantic                       	August 1899
27.25          	Hurricane Ginger      	Atlantic                       	September 1971
26.75          	Cyclone Rewa          	Southwest Pacific              	December 1994
26.5           	Cyclone Justin        	Southwest Pacific              	March 1997
26             	Typhoon Page          	Western Pacific                	November 1990
25.5           	Cyclone Phil          	South Indian                   	December 1996
24.75          	Hurricane Inga        	Atlantic                       	September 1969
24.75          	Typhoon Rita          	Western Pacific                	July 1972
24.5           	Hurricane Tina        	Eastern Pacific                	September 1992
24             	Super Typhoon Paka    	Central/Western Pacific        	November 1997
22.5           	Cyclone Elinor        	February 1983                  	
22.25          	Cyclone 8             	South Indian                   	December 1989
22             	Typhoon Orson         	Western Pacific                	August 1996
22             	Hurricane Kyle        	Atlantic                       	September 2002
21.25          	Typhoon Wayne         	Western Pacific                	August 1986
21.25          	Typhoon Verne         	Western Pacific                	October 1994
20.75          	Hurricane Carrie      	Atlantic                       	September 1957
20.75          	Typhoon Owen          	Western Pacific                	November 1990
20.75          	Hurricane Keoni       	Central/Western Pacific        	August 1993
20.75          	Cyclone Leon-Eline    	South Indian                   	February 2000
20.5           	Typhoon Orson         	Western Pacific                	October 1996
20.25          	Hurricane Inez        	Atlantic                       	September 1966
20.25          	Typhoon Oliwa         	Central/Western Pacific        	August 1997
16.25          	Hurricane Faith       	Atlantic                       	August 1966
Just a note, these dates are when the storm was tropical or subtropical. Hurricane Ivan, for example, included its extratropical stage, which goes against the word tropical in the title. Faith, I have no idea how that was done. I included it here so you see it wasn't as long as once thought. It existed for 26 days as some sort of cyclone, but only 16 of those were as a tropical cyclone. Would something like work in the article? Hurricanehink 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of this data is horridly incorrect. JTWC (the equivelant of the National Hurricane Center for the West Pacific and Southern Hemisphere cyclones), says Pancho lasted 25 days, Katrina lasted 22, Rewa lasted 16 days, Justin lasted 19, Phil lasted 18...I could go on and on and on. This table needs to be revised before I'm willing to put it in the article. Also, the table should include only time as a tropical cyclone (sorry 1899, Faith, Ivan, Phil...). Even if you include Ivan's time as a remnant low, it still would give you just 22 days, not 26. 2-24 September, 2004. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? I am really confused. I used the Best Track for JTWC, but most of the dates are still correct. First, I included Faith so the world knew how long she really was, and I had no intention of including her in the real thing in the article. Ivan was less than thought. The remnant low was as an extratropical depression or storm, not as a tropical cyclone, as stated in the NHC report and Unisys. I only included the tropical portion of the 1899 storm. Going one by one (sorry!) Rewa was 26.75 per the best track of JTWC, Pancho-Helinda was 32.5, Justin was 26.5, Phil good, Katrina good. Using the best track, unless my calculations are wrong, I don't see the problems. Where in JTWC did you get yours from? I got mine from https://metoc.npmoc.navy.mil/jtwc/best_tracks/shindex.html the best track portion of the site. Hurricanehink 14:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I got my data from JTWC's post-season reports. The best track data is created at the same time, so there shouldn't be any discrepency. One thing I've noticed in studying West Pacific and Southern Hemisphere storms is that JTWC likes to include the Invest stages of the cyclone into the best track. Don't ask me why, they just do. If you look at the tracks in the post season reports, the TCFA (Tropical Cyclone Forcast Area) is at a point after the start of the the track (it's more noticeable in pre-1996 season pdfs). Ex: Super Typhoon Ruth. See the hollow circles and then "TCFA" after them. Those hollow circles mean 'tropical disturbance'. It wasn't a tropical cyclone until the start of the solid circles. You may be inadvertently including this into the duration. That may be why there's a discrepancy. Further evidence for this: . The NOAA FAQ site lists Hurricane John of 1994 as the longest lasting tropical cyclone on record. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, now I'm really confused. It appears at the bottom of this, the Southern Hemisphere reports for 1997, that they included the invest stage for tropical depression. Rather than going back and fixing them all, I say forget it and leave the main page as is. Hurricanehink 22:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest Lasting Tropical Cyclone on Record Worldwide 

message: What tropical cyclone is the second largest? I think it is Typhoon Lupit. Irfan Faiz Cyclone/Aviation Expert - Even tough i know about cyclones but some stuff i didn't know yet...
:Unless you have a source for that it is not a record. Jdorje 03:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second largest tropical cylcone? 

message: Even though the threshold for a typhoon being mentioned as particularly intense has been raised from 895 mb to 890, the most intense list is still swamped by typhoons. I have changed the threshold be raised again to 885 mb. This way, after the first couple of non-typhoons (Zoe and Wilma) appear, the list is devoid of typhoons, making it easier to see the relative intensities of storms in the less intense basins.  - Cuivienen 02:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typhoon Qualification to 885 mb 

message: The headings need to be changed so anchors such as List of notable tropical cyclones#Off-season storms don't collide.  There needs to be a way to jump to the Pacific off-season storms section, for example. --AySz88^-^ 03:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agreed. I just noticed that problem, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Maybe just retitle it as Atlantic Off-Season Storms, Eastern Pacific Off-Season Storms. Hurricanehink 03:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be separate articles: List of notable Atlantic hurricanes, List of notable Pacific hurricanes, etc., containing each set of lists for each basin. Jdorje 04:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not sure what you are talking about.  What is wrong with List of notable tropical cyclones#Off-season storms 2? --Ajm81 05:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I didn't know they worked that way. --AySz88^-^ 13:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just my two cents, think the heads should be reworded to be specific and remove the "listed by" redundancies. IOW, I'd prefer "Costliest Atlantic Hurricanes," "Longest-lived Atlantic Hurricanes" and so on. DavidH 19:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headers 

message: Agnes (1972), Bill (2003), Christine (1973), Subtrop 3 (1976). All of these formed over land! Every Hurricane 101 book tells you this is impossible! Help me!  Cyclone1 05:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's most likely that it was simply be a timelag - the depression formed over the Gulf of Mexico, but the first advisory was not issued until it was inland. --Golbez 05:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at :Image:Bill_2003_track.png and the best-track data, you'll see it was a non-tropical low (not tropical or subtropical) when the land advisories were issued. Jdorje 06:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That makes sense! Thanks guys!   Cyclone1 14:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation over land? 

message: :I heard somewhere that if a storm crosses into the Pacific from the Atlantic (or vice-versa) past 2002, it kept it's name. True?  ... lets say (FOR EXAMPLE - NOT REAL! - Hurricane Zelda made landfall in Nicaragua and continued West. It crossed as a Tropical Storm and moved into the Pacific. Hurricane Zelda? or the next name on they're list?) PS. I know Zelda's not on the naming list. Don't E-mail me about it! Cyclone1 15:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. Any storm that maintains circulation will keep its name. For example, in 2002, after the policy was implemented, Hurricane Iris crossed into the Pacific from the Atlantic. However, it lost its circulation and generated new circulation in the Pacific and was renamed Miguel. There was some speculation that this year's Hurricane Adrian would be the first crossover storm to maintain circulation, but it did not, and, in fact, it didn't cross over at all. I believe Hurricane Cesar-Douglas was the last crossover without loss of circulation. - Cuivienen 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossover Storms 

message: The unusual landfalls section is not useful and should be removed or cut down.  Note that there is already an *identical* section in the tropical cyclone article.  It should be sufficient just to give a list of areas that are not usually affected by hurricanes, with a link to the category or list giving the storms for each section. Jdorje 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you just removed the section on tropical cyclone, so they need to be kept somewhere.... Though, I agree with creating (a) seperate list(s) or category(ies) somewhere and linking tropical cyclone and this list to it/those. --AySz88^-^ 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The categories already exist...see :Category:California hurricanes or :Category:Hurricanes in Europe or :Category:Hurricanes in Costa Rica or :Category:Georgia hurricanes or...etc.  However these categories only hold storm articles so storms without articles are not included.  But then, if a storm isn't notable and doesn't have an article, why is it in the list anyway? Jdorje 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If/when such a list is created, reference should be made from the extratropical cyclone page as well (or mid-latitude cyclone depending how that whole thing shakes out).  Many tropical cyclones transit outside the tropics and still have an affect worth note.  See also Columbus Day Storm.  wac(talk contrib) 04:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Georgia landfalls section is ridiculous. The reason there are few landfalls there is because Georgia has a short section of coastline. Small sections of coastline are always going to have fewer landfalls than a longer one, all else equal. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of my purpose in adding the Georgia section was to show how ridiculous it is.  Even so, Georgia has a longer coastline than a lot of the other areas mentioned! Jdorje 19:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual landfalls 

message: The article says these are not economic impact estimates, and yet they are still far larger than the direct damage estimates reported by SHELDUS  .  As I understand it, SHELDUS figures attempt to incorporate only the cost of destroyed and damaged property and crops.  So that they do not include costs associated with cleanup, emergency supplies and services, or any of the more nebulous economic impact costs.  According to SHELDUS, Hurricane Andrew rated only $2B (1992 dollars) in terms of their direct damage costs.  As this is only a few percent of the $45B (2004 dollars) cost reported here for Andrew, I am wondering what all is included in the difference?
For perspective, the worst SHELDUS year for severe weather was only ~$16B (2004 dollars) incorporating the direct damage costs of all hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, etc. affecting the US in that year (1995).
Dragons flight 10:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The costs all come from the NHC so you should look at their info: . Jdorje 21:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is in the costs, really? 

message: The EPac section was over 6 pages long, so I split it off into a separate article as well.  We should, however, try to make the different articles follow a similar structure. — jdorje (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of notable Pacific hurricanes]]

message: The following text is currently in the article.  The symbols don't seem to be used, but I got reverted.
:== Notes ==
:*†: a very severe hurricane (category 5 at landfall on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale)
:*‡: a tropical storm, not a hurricane
The symbols are indeed used again in the page, but the seem to be redefined in those sections. --AySz88^-^ 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did the reversion, but you may be right.  Those symbols seem to be redefined throughout the article. Jdorje 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned symbols? 

message: There are way too many sections. Here's some that I think can go elsewhere-
#Fastest forward speed- Given that every storm but one was Atlantic, I propose it goes to the List of notable Atlantic hurricanes. The rest, while noteworthy, would be impossible to find. Once moved, the section should be deleted.
#Extreme Latitudes- Similar to above, I propose the Atlantic ones be moved, and the current table be expanded (outside of the Atlantic).
#Strongest Inland- First, most are Atlantic. Next, none have sources, and aren't that particularly notable. If anything, the records should be mentioned in the season articles, if they are not already. I propose this list be deleted.
#Unusual formation- What defines unusual? Does Hurricane 12 of 1975, forming to the northeast of Hawaii from an upper level low and a tropical storm, classify as unusual? What about Hurricane Clara of 1977, which formed from the outer bands of Hurricane Babe? If anything, this should be expanded upon by discussing it here. 
#Most named storms in one season- Why most named storms? Given the importance of this, it should just be storms, due to the fact that named storms are a relatively recent occurrence. 1933 used to be the most active Atlantic hurricane season, and that should certainly be mentioned. I propose this be renamed and edited to be only storms.
Hurricanehink 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'll do that. Hurricanehink 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneeded sections? 

message: The term "notable" is POV.  None of these factors are synonymous with "worthy of taking note," which is a value judgement.  It would be more accurate and neutral to describe these as tropical cyclone superlatives (costliest, deadliest, most powerful), as we do with automobiles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all of them are superlatives, but if we can't find neutral criteria for inclusion, we run the risk of being indiscriminate.  It's already iffy with the "unusual landfalls" that's currently pure opinion on what's unusual. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notable is pov 

message: Hmm... I'm thinking the list is probably too long and is bordering on being an indiscriminate collection of info/listcruft. I'd prefer a shorter one, say, top 5 from each basin, listed by basin. That would give 35 (WPac, EPac/CPac, Atl, NIO, SWIO, SEIO/Australia, SPac). As it stands only the section on the North Atlantic has a list of most intense storms within the basin. We could probably move that down to this section. That would solve the problem that we have right now, not knowing when/whether to list storms. Also, right now there's far too much emphasis on the WPac in this section. Splitting by basin would be better and remove any sign of systemic bias. – Chacor 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There can't be systemic bias in the present situation. That would be like saying that a list of the highest-scoring NBA players ever shows a systemic bias towards black people. By the same logic, someone could say putting the 5 strongest of each basin gives undue recognition to basins which have traditionally far weaker storms. I suggest have both - a global list of the strongest, then a list of the 5 strongest in each basin. --Golbez 10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To truncate the list, how about cutting the list to lower than 900 mbar? KyuuA4 (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of tropical cyclones#Most intense storms on record 

message: I'm still getting used to adding in info in "boxes", so my latest edits took a while to actually get it right. Apologies... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gavirulax (talk • contribs) 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry.... I probably made the edit history look disgusting 

message: ...but I left the no reference tag at the top of the page. Considering how many "facts" are on this page, we should have more than 9 references for the page.  If everything was well referenced, this page could become B class.  Of course, some entries like Isobel would be gone, for the page's benefit.  Thegreatdr 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed direct links to inline references 

message: Hmm... I read somewhere that Keith's 872 mb pressure was measured by a plane but I wanted to confirm it before I changed the article. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keith 

message: I think that Typhoon Man-Yi should be part of the Significant Typhoon list, but I am not sure where to put it. It is significant because, according to Japanese national broadcasting company NHK, it is the 'strongest typhoon to hit the country in July since recording started after WWII'.
I am currently in Japan, and getting updated on this information by use of Japanese Weather website Tenki.JP. It is, however, only classed as a Category 1 typhoon, and that could cause controversy. lallous 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it could be added to the significant typhoon list, provided that is correct that Man-yi was the strongest typhoon to strike Japan in July. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About Man-yi's winds, I have looked at all sorts of sources and they all say 155 mph; I even saw Man-yi have this windspeed on television reports in 2007, so I am pretty sure the winds were 155 mph, not 145 mph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typhoon Man-yi (Japan 07/2007) 

message: Shouldn't the 1856 Last Island hurricane be added to 10th place in the most intense U.S. landfalling hurricanes list? It says in the main article "it tied with Hurricane Hugo as the 10th most intense hurricane to hit the United states." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Island hurricane 

message: With some intense tropical cyclones in the most intense tropical cyclones list, there is no article for them, so, for example, for cyclone Orson in 1989, can you put 1985-1990 southern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons#Cyclone Orson instead of saying Cyclone Orson (1989)? it just says next to this (Page does not exist). It says this with lots of storms. Also, in the "list of most intense tropical cyclones", there is a cyclone named Theodore in 1994, but I can't find any info on this storm and it should be deleted; I did find a storm in Unisys in 1994 hurricane/tropical data for southern Indian Ocean that reached a 145 mph peak and lasted 25 days, but it does not say if it was Theodore or not, but later I found a best track for the 1990-1995 storms, and that storm was Rewa, but I couldn't find any info on cyclone Theodore so I could assume there is no such thing. In the most intense Pacific hurricane list, it says, for example, Hurricane Trudy (1990) (Page does not exist), but if you Put 1990 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Trudy, it works and refers right to it, so you should put this instead, because there is no main article for Hurricane Trudy, and you should do this with several other storms. With Hurricane John in 1994, it first says in big black letters "Hurricane John" and below that, it says Main article: Hurricane John (1994). It doesn't say this below Hurricane Olivia in 1994, and it is only essential to put hurricane Olivia (1994) if it says the above article below the big letters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-article storms 

message: This should be renamed, either back to list of tropical cyclones or to lists of tropical cyclones (hmm where does that redirect to?). See Wikipedia:Lists_%28stand-alone_lists%29#Naming_conventions Kappa 07:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? This isn't a list of a random bunch of tropical cyclones. They're here because they're notable in some way. I like List of notable tropical cyclones better. That's what this article is, a list of notable (ie: significant or otherwise out of the ordinary) tropical cyclones. I don't agree with this name change. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the subjectivity of notable, I would rather have the important info here moved to the List of tropical cyclone records page, which is currently rather short and pining for expansion. For now, though, I would rather move it back to List of notable tropical cyclones and talk about it, since something should be done. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I suggest that the presentation be tidied by creating a single table with many columns - rather than the current costliest, deadliest etc?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.95.0 (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name

message: Hey guys, I'm planning to edit the section titled "Tropical cyclones and Airplane crashes". If you come to think of it, not only an airplane crash would be a tragedy associated to tropical cyclones. And to name one, there is a whole bunch of Maritime disasters associated with the ravaging of tropical cyclones. So I guess it would be nice to use a "general" word so there will be greater chances of expansion. What do you think? --Rex 1213 (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to get rid of the list alltogether. Jason Rees (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm.. I have just thought about this one all over and I think there are far too many tragedies related to tropical cyclones that we might even know. So I've decided not to further change that section since it will be just a useless documentation of millions of disaster. So, shall we remove it or not? And sorry for a delayed response about this.  --Rex 1213 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tropical cyclones and Airplane crashes", why not "Tropical Cyclone-related tragedies?" 

message: One of Accuweather.com's blogs cited this article for a Cyclone Nargis statistic. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame this article isn't cited nearly so well.  Thegreatdr (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: December 3rd, 1999 there was a hurricane landfall in denmark, with a wind power of 150 km/h. Information is scarce in the english world, heres what i could find: http://www.winddata.com/hurricane/
The hurricane is known as Anatol in Germany and Adam in Denmark, i added it but it was removed, should be added.--77.213.191.134 (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And it was not a hurricane. It was a european windstorm Jason Rees (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A European Windstorm is an extratropical mid-latitude cyclone while we cover tropicalcyclones in this article.  --Priyanka 03:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark 

message: There are quite a few landfalls there. I think this section should be removed. Does anyone else agree with this? Rye998 (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual landfalls/Arabian Peninsula 

message: Hi. Currently, the article lists storms by region in separate tables. Wouldn't it be nice if one table could list the top ten most intense/devastating/costliest/ect storm in the world? Rehman(+) 09:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing by region 

message: Here it says the diameter of Wilma is that of 1065 km gale-wise, but in this advisory the diameter can be seen to be 1390 km storm-wise, and this is two advisories before it turned extratropical. Explanations? I am not familiar with the data listed in the table as a source, but from the NHC I gather that since the radius of storm-force winds is 695 km, it would be more logical that the diameter of gale-force winds be greater than the 1065 km listed. Furthermore, the maximum extent of Igor's storm-force winds according to the NHC here is identical to that of the gale one listed here as 1480 km. Why list the winds in terms of gale-force measurements if the NHC tends to list the same or higher (at least for those two storms, unless they're just odd coincidences and exceptions) in terms of storm-force winds? UltimateDarkloid (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're saying but it's a common mistake that most people seem to make. To obtain the actual maximum diameter gale-force winds, you can't just double the maximum radius, you must know the two largest radii that are opposite of each other. For instance, although Igor had a maximum gale radii of 833 km; however, the radii opposite of that was 648 km, giving a total of 1,481 km (rounded to 1,480 km since the NHC always rounds units to the nearest 5). I hope this clears things up a bit. If you need more of an explanation, just ask. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diameter 

message: Shouldn't there be a list for storms that formed in an unusual way(I mean a storm that didn't form the way hurricanes usually do.)? 32ieww (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special storms