Talk:Tropical Storm Beryl (1982)

message: Beryl's winds were measured at 63 knots, which nowadays is rounded up to the nearest 5...65 knots, hurricane strength. Thoughts? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It will probably be upgraded in post-analysis. That's 2 mph off, and is close enough in my opinion. Hurricanehink 22:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Post-analysis?  This storm is 23 years old right?  I imagine any analyzing has already been done... Jdorje 01:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, LOL, I meant re-analysis. As I'm sure you already know, a re-analysis is under way for the Atlantic basin, meaning whenever they release new information, a lot of stuff will have to get changed. Hurricanehink 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh, I knew what you meant.  What I was trying to say is that...I thought that re-analysis was already done, and that's where the best-track files come from?  Surely they'll be updated from time to time but I doubt we can *expect* any particular change. Jdorje 03:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That info probably won't come out for at least another 20 years. By the way, in my personal database, Beryl is listed as a hurricane, per common modern-day practice. If Beryl had happened today, I'm sure it would have been designated a hurricane. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 02:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think it will take that long? You may be right, but you never know. They're already at 1914 and have first version fixes up to 1930. It could be upgraded to a hurricane when Hurdat gets there; look at Hurricane Andrew. Hurricanehink 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Drew's was a special interest investigation. Judging by the rate you give, it will still take at least 15 years. They have been working on this Hurdat project since the mid-1990s as far as I'm aware. That means it took them 10 years to re-assess 30 seasons. Ten years from now, they'll be at 1960 and ten years after that, they'll be at 1990. 1982 won't come much before that IMO. Anyway you look at it, we got a long wait. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beryl a Hurricane? 

message: There's practically nothing on impact. Jdorje 05:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there's nothing available online. The NHC report doesn't even state that Beryl caused those deaths. Not sure what we should do. Merge it? Hurricanehink 12:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Weather Underground website listed Beryl as killing 115 people and i think at the time, info was hard to come by since there was no internet or instant textmessageing back in 1982. Also I think the 115 deaths might be in the Deadlest Tropical Cyclones 1492-Present section in the NHC website, check there. Storm05 18:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How many times do I have to say that the Weather undergound is not a good source?  You need primary sources like the NHC, not secondary ones.  Look at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadlyappref.shtml, it lists 115 deaths and cites "unpublished NHC notes" as the source.  However the fact that 115 deaths may have been caused by the storm really doesn't help the problem; the problem is finding out how. — jdorje (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could infer it, based on other similar storms. What we know is Beryl was a tropical storm while moving close to the islands. I would bet the deaths came from mudslides, given the mountainous terrain of the islands. Of course, unless we find sources proving that, it would be difficult. I just checked the Fran (1984) report, as that caused around 40 deaths in the island, but again, no mention. What if we reiterated the difficulties getting the reports, due, as Storm05 said, lack of "internet or instant textmessageing"? That could fill some space. I still think a storm this deadly should be kept, but if something isn't found, we might have to merge it. Hurricanehink 21:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Sure, not many people might know of the storm, but Beryl did cause over 100 deaths. That sounds fairly important in my book (i.e. Mid-class). Hurricanehink (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was one I was unsure on, its either a high-end low or low-end mid. I went for low on the grounds of no-damage info, but given the novel location I don't know whether Cape Verde should be compared with Hispaniola or Bermuda for death toll figures. Perhaps bump it to mid as it was damaging to an unusual area?--Nilfanion (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, there's no info (grr...), but because it caused over 100 deaths, I bumped it up to mid, mainly because deaths there are rare. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that there's a Very-low grade, I recommend Low for this one. Pacific typhoons with 100 or more get placed in that category pretty often: Typhoon Irma (1981), Typhoon Dot (1985), Typhoon Zeb, Typhoon Muifa (2004), Typhoon Ora (1972), Typhoon Patsy (1970), Typhoon Rose (1971), Tropical Storm Kim (1983)...  What do you think? Potapych (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The 100 deaths this storm caused were in a region that very rarely receives significant tropical cyclone impact. Those other WPAC ones caused 100+ deaths in areas regularly impacted by typhoons. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, if you're going to have a Very-low grade, these should be sussed out better. Most of the Mid grade articles are retired storms. There are very few at very-low, but Low isn't the lowest anymore. Potapych (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but this storm could've been retired with its death toll. It's not like it caused only 20-30 deaths. It caused over 100 deaths in an area that rarely receives tropical cyclone impact. Low importance is reserved for the storms that cause little impact (i.e. affecting land but not very severely). I don't think this would qualify as that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the source and I didn't find anything about 100 deaths. At most it had 3 for a tropical storm September 29, 1982 (likely a typo). There's no mention of any fatalities from the wire reports either. Potapych (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. CB updated the article with the proper source, which is reliable. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: I recreated the article since $3 million in damage and 3 deaths is pretty notable for a storm, especially a storm that hit Cape Verde. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 22:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable, yes, but there's practically no new info added here. For an article to be sustained, there would need to be more news coverage and government reports, which I've never seen in my years of researching this storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  13:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Recreated