Talk:Hurricane Nora (1997)

message: This storm did not make landfall as a hurricane in California.  It is improperly categorized as a "California hurricane".  Stop with the ridiculous hurricane envy.Tmangray 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it had affects in California, thus its categorization. I'm not sure what you mean by the hurricane envy, but Nora was a California hurricane and an Arizona hurricane (or tropical cyclone, whatever). Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, but it is still a California tropical cyclone. The category is California hurricanes, which is the same as every other category, regardless if a hurricane actually affected the area or not (Florida hurricanes, Texas hurricanes, Cuba hurricanes). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats almost certainly true, but the category will not have them if they don't have articles...--Nilfanion (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It may be misleading, but you should take it up at the Wikiproject page before blanking a category that does serve purpose. If anything, it should be :Category:Tropical cyclones that affected California, or something. In addition, California hurricanes still follows the format for every other category. How do you know about the typhoon remnants? Through some research I have done in the past, the only Pacific storm that made it across to the US affected the Pacific northwest (Freida in ~1961). However, you're right, most storms that affect California are either the remnants or outer bands of a storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should take this issue to WP:CFD if you believe the WikiProject is wrong in this, and follow Wikipedia procedure for renaming the Category. That way a broader view can be obtained.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's more indirect effects. The category should be storms that directly affected California, be it through strong waves, outer rainbands, winds, or whatever. The category might be wrong, but why go through with the change if the current title of California hurricanes suits it well? If that is absolutely horrible, what's wrong with California tropical cyclones? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a "California hurricane"

message: I've gone through the Navy site archives, and they have archives back to 97 (thankfully!).
I'm in the process of back tracking to the images of 21/09/97 1200 UTC. NSLE (讨论+extra) 08:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: 1330 UTC September 21, 1997 OR 1211 UTC September 21, 1997... NSLE (讨论+extra) 08:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone against swaping the infrared image in the infobox with the visible in the article? Either way is fine, I'm just particularly fond of visible images. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Nora 

message: This article has a lot of content; only a few teaks are needed for B-class I think.  The intro needs to be fleshed out.  And an external links section is needed. Jdorje 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to expand it a bit and to add references to it. I'm not done, though, but I think this article can become A-class soon. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The storm history should probably be cut down some. It is currently very long. Hurricanehink 12:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the sections read like they are an exact copy-and-paste of the NHC Nora Report. Compare the last paragraph of the impact section here with the last paragraph of the Meteorological Statistics section in the NHC Report. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. Before I started working on the article, it basically was a copy of it, which we could technically have, as the report is in the public domain... I guess much more rewording and reworking of the information is needed. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a copy of NHC releases is a very solid way to start an article.  At least that way you know you have all your facts straight.  Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Bob were also taken from the NHC TCRs IIRC, and this is nothing to be ashamed of.  But copyediting is needed, since the TCRs are more detailed and more technical than wikipedia should be, and also because new information can be included that wasn't in the TCRs.  So in summary, further copyediting is needed that will probably end up condensing and removing some detail from the storm history section. — jdorje (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Condensing is definitely needed in that section, I agree. However, I can't seem to find anything about preparations in Mexico... and I've looked in both Spanish and English sites alike. There's no impact pictures of acceptable size/copyright status anywhere... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How come there isn't a (Lack of) Retirement subsection?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's something particularily new in articles, and since it would be a stubby section, no one thought about adding it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I think we need to think how we can make a retirement section a bit less stubby. A possibility is to cover naming in it and say "this was the nth storm to be called....".--Nilfanion (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo 

message: 130 mph =/= Cat 4 hurricane. Cat 4 is 131 mph+. Is this a discrepancy in the NHC's reporting of the storm or an error on our part? —Cuiviénen,  Thursday, 30 March 2006 @ 00:42 (UTC)
:Ah, right. It's the 115 kt problem we encountered at Hurricane Eloise. A direct conversion of 115 kt gives 132.25 mph, but the NHC always rounds that up to 135 as 131+ is Cat 4. —Cuiviénen,  Thursday, 30 March 2006 @ 00:44 (UTC)
::The NHC doesn't always round it up.  At http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html you can see best-track info for the Atlantic; if you look at the "easy-to-read" version it shows mph and includes both 130 mph and 135 mph entries.  For the pacific, however, the only best-track info I know of shows only knots so I know of no way to differentiate which it is supposed to be. — jdorje (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either way, I used the knots value the NHC Preliminary Report gave, and I used the knots value at Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale to figure out the category. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  130 mph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Nora (1997). 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/20050925163209/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1997nora.html to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1997nora.html
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) 08:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Nora (1997). 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/20010223010517/http://156.42.96.39/alert/nora/nora_rpt.html to http://156.42.96.39/alert/nora/nora_rpt.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623064455/http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/goes/pub/goes/QTmovies/9709.nora.mov to http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/goes/pub/goes/QTmovies/9709.nora.mov
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) 10:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Viewing this version:
* This source says it is CNN, with an author and Reuters named at the bottom,, but the citation says Associated Press.  Same for other citations.
* Wikilinking needs attention, MOS:OVERLINK drinking water, but no link on Category 4, so both over and underlinking needs to be checked. California linked twice in two sections in the US section.
* Prose ... Hurricane Nora caused two direct deaths in Mexico and three or four indirect fatalities in the United States ...
* MOS:BADITALICS non-English proper names are no longer italicized.
* Needs updating or as of or time context ... Hurricane Nora was only the third tropical cyclone on record to reach Arizona as a tropical storm, and one of the rare cyclones to make landfall in Baja California.
* Problem here: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Hurricane+Nora+%281997%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 NOAA is public domain, but needs attribution.  Unsure what the second one is.
** But https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=28954726&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0
** And https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=28954726&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Falert.fcd.maricopa.gov%2Falert%2Fnora%2Fnora_rpt.html
** Most from here ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Nora_(1997)&diff=28954369&oldid=28953354
Since the original contributors no longer participate, I will place a notice of Featured article review needed at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  02:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @SandyGeorgia I've provided attribution for the NOAA references; the second link that looks like an ip address is some old NOAA site. For the other three, the content from https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/127/10/1520-0493_1999_127_2440_enphso_2.0.co_2.xml is the same content from the public domain NOAA source, so it can be ignored. I'll get back to you on the other two as soon as I can... Moneytrees🎄Talk/CCI guide  05:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

text: @SandyGeorgia Alright, sorry for the lengthy delay, I was busy for a while, got a little sick and had to keep my eye on some cross-wiki chaos, I have been trying to get "back into things" over the last few days... I'm going to try to get to all of these now, the content in the 2005 edit is attributed now, and https://alert.fcd.maricopa.gov/alert/nora/nora_rpt.html contains the same content as the ip page, which is now attributed, so everything should be good here, I'll check it off at the CCI. Moneytrees🎄Talk/CCI guide  06:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks ; I am traveling now, so iPad editing, but will have a more thorough look and response when home tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  14:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

text: End of 2005, Nora vs. 1997 Season article, Earwig and stepping back through diffs reveal no WP:CWW. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  15:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

text: June 2006, when Nora became FA, no indication of WP:CWW. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  16:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Earwig is cooperating today, even from a hotspot connection in my car, so I believe I was able to finish this one.  Now I know how to attribute PD on the others I have looked at; thanks!  And I believe this one is also clear of WP:CWW.  I determined that by a) stepping back through the most significant diffs as this article and the season article were built, and b) running Earwig on this article vs. the 1997 season article at critical points in the articles’ creation.  If you believe my methodology to be correct, this article is now completely CCI clear, but I have not done the corresponding thorough check at the 1997 season article.  If I’ve done all of this correctly, I may now have the correct methodology to check through the other hurricane FAs as they come up; please let me know if I’ve missed anything.  , I have already noticed this article, but could you have a look?  It’s possible that the small things I’ve found so far are fixable, now that this article is CCI clear. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  16:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I will try to have a look in a couple of days. I am trying to fix up some of my older FAs that need some attention and need to finish the one I am currently working on. NoahTalk 16:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: *Diavio de Colima September 18, 1997
*Diavio de Colima September 19, 1997
*Diavio de Colima September 20, 1997
*Diavio de Colima September 21, 1997
*Diavio de Colima September 22, 1997
*Diavio de Colima September 23, 1997
*Diavio de Colima September 24, 1997
*Diavio de Colima September 25, 1997
*Diavio de Colima September 26, 1997
*Diavio de Colima September 29, 1997
*ATLAS DE RIESGOS DEL MUNICIPIO DE MEXICALi
*SMN Annual report
Jason Rees (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources to be added