Talk:2003 Pacific hurricane season

message: Shouldn't we have a short paragraph on all the storms? Aren't we supposed to have as much info as possible?Icelandic Hurricane 22:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is incomplete.  Yes, every storm should have its own paragraph and section. — jdorje (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All storms

message: I've done a lot of work here what class do we think?--Nilfanion (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. I've upped it to B. One thing that could be added is a season summary. Per the WMO, the 2003 season (AHS and EHS) had the most Mexico landfalls in a long time, so that could be worth adding. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go through all the good seasonal articles looking for ideas. This article has the main bit of the topic, but all the extras are not there.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Class

message: Can someone with a good knowledge of Spanish, look over the Mexican summary of the storms here? There is some decent impact/preparations info there that may be useful either here or in the daughter article(s)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is Noras badly translated summary - The day 1° of October of year 2003, in the evening, formed tropical depression no. 14-E of the season in the Northeastern Pacific Ocean, from a tropical disturbance; one began to 580 km to the Southwest of Manzanillo, Cabbage, with 45 maintained maximum winds of km/h, 65 gusts of wind of km/h, minimum pressure of 1007 hPa and displacement towards the West. At dawn of day 2, when it was to 620 km the Southwest of Manzanillo, Cabbage, the DT-14 was developed to the tropical storm “Nora”, with 65 maintained maximum winds of km/h, 85 gusts of wind of km/h and one minimum pressure of 1005 hPa. During the morning, “Nora” was reducing its speed of displacement reason why in afternoon of this day, it was to 655 km the Southwest of Manzanillo almost stationary, Cabbage, with 75 maximum winds maintained of km/h and 90 gusts of wind of km/h, same characteristics that conserved now until the dawn of the following day, when it recovered his movement, towards Nor-Northwest. During the day 3, “Nora” it maintained his desplazamieto towards the Northwest in parallel form to the coasts of the Pacific, while it acquired major forces, reason why in the last hours of the day, when it was to 665 km the Current Southwest of Cabo, Jal., intensified to hurricane, with 120 maximum winds maintained of km/h and 150 gusts of wind of km/h. In the morning of day 4, to 600 km to the South-Southwestern of Cabo San Lucas, “Nora” reached 165 maintained maximum winds of km/h with 205 gusts of wind of km/h, reaching category II of the scale of Saffir-Simpson intensity, same force with which the rest of this day stayed. When arriving at the zone of less warm waters of the West of the Peninsula of Baja California, the hurricane “Nora” began to lose force, and thus, in the evening of day 5, when its center was to 540 km to the Southwest of Cabo San Lucas, BCS., it was degraded to hurricane of category I, with 150 maintained maximum winds of km/h. While one approached the zone of cold waters of the West of the Peninsula of Baja California, “Nora” continued losing force, reason why in the morning of day 6, when it was to 485 km to the Southwest of Cabo San Lucas almost stationary, BCS., was debilitated to tropical storm, with 95 maintained maximum winds of km/h. The tropical storm “Nora” remained stationary, while it was debilitated more and more, getting to have 65 maximum winds of km/h at the end of the day, at the same time as it began to move with a course drastically modified, because now its trajectory aimed towards the coasts of the Northwest of Mexico, the previous thing due to the presence of a lowest part of valley in the layer mediates 850-250 hPa (Figure 1). At dawn of day 7, when it was to 410 km to the Southwest of Cabo San Lucas, BCS., with slow displacement towards the Northeast, “Nora” was degraded to tropical depression with 55 maximum winds maintained of km/h and 75 gusts of wind of km/h. During the rest of the day, the tropical depression “Nora” stayed with slow displacement, while it began to move erratically towards the East, course towards the coasts of the Pacific; at the end of the day, one was to 280 km to the South of Cabo San Lucas, BCS. The displacement towards the East was originated by the binary interaction with the tropical storm “located Olaf” to 860 km to This-South-east of the vortex of “Nora” (Figure 2). At dawn of day 8, the tropical depression “Nora” was debilitated even more and acquired 45 maintained maximum winds of km/h with 55 gusts of wind of km/h, while it continued his passage approaching the coasts of the state of Sinaloa. Shortly before the midnight, “Nora” touched earth to about 20 km South-South-east of the Cross population of Elota, Without., with 45 maximum winds maintained of km/h and 65 gusts of wind of km/h. After entering earth, “Nora” continued its passage on territory of the state of Sinaloa, reason why in first hours by day 9, it approached about 15 km to the Cross Northeast of Elota, Without. When advancing on earth, the tropical depression “Nora”, continued being debilitated and thus, in the first hours in the morning, when it was in earth to 80 km This-South-east de Culiacán, Without., had 35 maintained maximum winds of km/h with 45 gusts of wind of km/h, already in dissipation process. (I Like the cabbage translation!) Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican info 

message: When did we start naming hurricanes? Stuart hallam (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends where you are in the world! See History of tropical cyclone naming. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  15:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  naming hurricanes  

message: This article was promoted to Featured article in 2006, and no longer meets Featured article standards. There are some unsourced sections, and two "Seasonal summary" sections. Many sections are very short, and overall it seems less comprehensive and fleshed-out compared to similar articles such as 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. CMD (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with FA status

message: On the FAR talk page: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/2003 Pacific hurricane season/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  03:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCI check 

message: Fails WP:NWX due to the minimal impact. Most of the impact mentioned isn't very notable and would be considered routine. This article could be easily summarized in the season section. Noah, AATalk 14:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak oppose - If not for Nora's remnants producing flooding in Texas, I'd agree. Flux55 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  It could likely be mentioned in the season section which still has room to expand. The evacuation part is already mentioned. That just leaves the road closures and tornado sentences for Texas. I don't see why a whole paragraph detailing the rest of the impact couldn't be included. The met part could likely be expanded a bit too. That would round out the coverage in the section. Noah, AATalk 00:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, seeing the state of this article, I'd agree. Flux55 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Support - The preparations and impact section isn't large enough given its minimal impacts. It isn't notable enough to warrant its own article, too. The storm's section in the season article could use some expanding anyway. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Hurricane Nora (2003)]] into [[2003 Pacific hurricane season]]