Talk:Hurricane Linda (1997)

message: I'm so confused. UNISYS gives me two low pressure figures: 900 and 902...which is it?
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
:It is 902.  900 is the value given operationally (an estimate given in one of the reports while the hurricane was active).  902 is given in the post-analysis in the TCR, and is what the best-track shows. Jdorje 20:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare: TCR - gives 902, 1997 tracks, from advisories - gives 900, 1997 tracks, from best-track - gives 902. Jdorje 20:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pressure

message: Good call on the deletion of the What if section.... As for the pressure, the NHC official report says 902, which is what I based my info off of. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1997linda.html
Hurricanehink 21:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: UNISYS is unofficial; NHC is official... Jdorje 06:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What if

message: Why does it need an infobox? What needs to be done differently? Hurricanehink 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I dunno, the articles just too short... Jdorje 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Is this really low? Linda was the strongest hurricane in recorded EPAC history. That is at least Mid in my book. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it is low. It had no impact and no fatalities, so its not that important is it? Remember what WPTC considers interesting is not the same as everyone else... The record breakingness is covered in the List of articles IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Importance shouldn't have to mean damaging. Importance seems relatively synonymous with notable, and this hurricane was certainly notable. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is more important than Irene (of course) but I'm not sure if that qualifies it as Mid-importance, primarily as we are being harsh on the classes. Linda, Ginger, Dog, Faith and so on are less notable than Fabian, Juan, Iris or any other "minor" retiree. I think we should be very restrictive on which notable-for-record storms get higher classes. Perhaps what we could say are the following storms are Mid on non-impact stuff: The most intense and the longest lasting for each basin. Also any exceptional storms in terms of where they were (Catarina, Faith, Vamei or Agni) for example. That means Mid for Linda is OK, but Mid for minor impacts should be a rare occurence. Does that work for you?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. I was mostly thinking only Linda, Tip, and John as the low impacts for the Mid-class. Ginger, Dog, Faith, and other ones, now that I think about it, are fine as low class. So 1899 San Ciraco and Wilma would be the only low impacts to get mid or above, but they were very impacting, so no problem there. Faith wasn't even terribly notable. Sure, it lasted further north than any other TC, but that doesn't seem as important as longevity or strength. Catarina and Vamei should be the only other low-impact ones to get mid-class. Agni, though it was closer than any other storm, technically formed further north than Vamei, and I think the lowest latitude forming is more important than the lowest latitude. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I upped this one to Mid. I'm going to wait to confirm Mathbot picked these up and then go on the rampage tomorrow (I've been doing the No-importance articles), if you or anyone else disagrees with me, then comment on the relevant talk page...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until the minor adjustment can be made :
:1. Well written? Pass (just one comment)
:2. Factually accurate? Pass
:3. Broad in coverage? Pass
:4. Neutral point of view? Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Pass
Additional comments :
* Can it be possible to tighten the text in the Impact section into 1 or 2 paragraph as with one liker paragraphs it doesn't look/read too good/easily.
This is a good article thoroughly though the little part for which the comment is addressed to needs extrawork in order to achieve GA status. Good luck, Lincher 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: Much better with this in a paragraph instead of lines. Thank you and good luck for the future. Lincher 11:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after it passed in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates of the website sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: Per request:
*Subsequently, it rapidly intensified, reaching winds of 185 mph (295 km/h) and an estimated central pressure of 902 mbar (26.65 inHg). - Every event is subsequent to the previous; why mention it here?
**I think it improves word flow. Just saying "It rapidly intensified" feels bare. I'll rm if you think it's necessary, but I'd rather keep it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
***It's just my preference, so it's not necessary to remove if it you feel it's necessary to the sentence's flow. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Cool, glad you like it! The main kudos goes to , so you might want to leave him a note to that effect. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Did this go through vietnam? 118.71.181.52 (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No - Linda didnt go anywhere near Vietnam Jason Rees (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: You're thinking of Typhoon Linda, which struck Vietnam in October 1997. That is a different storm than this Hurricane Linda. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: Should be cool to put one of these images on the article:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/fap/image/0004/bluemarble2k_big.jpg
http://www.weatherstock.com/RFgallery/rf1/hurricanes/slides/H-RF-21.JPG  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.2.44 (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Image 

message: Linda maintained Category 5 status on the Saffir-Simpson scale for 42 consecutive hours. This tied the record set by Hurricane John of 1994 for longest duration at that strength. Linda is one of fourteen Pacific hurricanes to reach Category 5 status.
Here is the HURDAT bit I removed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  HURDAT 

message: I have a concern about the main image. I know it is of better quality than the other ones, but it has been the main image for so many years, and the gray color of it makes me a little scared. should we change it?  --加州飓风 (说话 | 大清帝国) 01:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Linda was scary. However, I like the one in the 1997 MWR as well, so I think that image should be added in the MH. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any real issue with it as is. Properly depicts the storm near its peak intensity. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm changing the image to the color one because when I made my little brother look at it he got extremely scared. CaliforniaHurricane25 18:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: External views dont count for much on Wikipedia and they certainly do not outweigh what other people have said on wiki. If you want to change the image it might be wise to justify it and get a consensus built up before changing.Jason Rees (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with him getting scared? As I said, the storm is scary. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Linda (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/20081006122021/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2001juliette.html to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2001juliette.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 one external link on Hurricane Linda (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/20090225143735/http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sgx/document/Dayinhistory/dayhistory0914.pdf to http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sgx/document/Dayinhistory/dayhistory0914.pdf
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) 08:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified