Talk:Hurricane Erin (1995)

message: It's more than a stub, but without more content in the impact it should be merged. Jdorje 06:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Where's the proof that Erin reached Category 2 status? because all of the other souces put Erin at a Category 1 status. Storm05 17:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NHC report. Hurricanehink 17:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean by "proof" or "all of the other sources".  The only sources that matter are the TCR and the best-track: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5104.html#1995_5 .  The best-track clearly shows the hurricane at 80 knots (90 mph) max.  The TCR is not referenced in the report so it can't be used as a source.  If there is disagrement between the two, you need to find out why.  It's possible that the best-track doesn't include the datapoint for the strongest winds.  More likely though is that the max winds were changed in re-analysis. — jdorje (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, it was 100 mph at landfall, but that was at an in-between point. Erin report. Hurricanehink 17:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's landfall but it is an in-between point, and BTW that point also says 973 mbar.  I find it really annoying that the best-track doesn't include those in-between points for landfalls and max strength that the TCRs do...once some of these storm do get re-analyzed if those data points aren't included it makes it impossible to determine the correct value for max winds.  A few storms, like andrew (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5104.html#1992_1), do have these extra points but almost all do not.  Even more odd, a few of the TCRs (in 2005 at least) don't have the in-between points for landfalls listed. — jdorje (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, that will be a big problem that hopefully won't happen. Hurricanehink 19:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the top-level reanalysis page at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html does have numerous other forms for the data.  The "list of U.S. hurricanes" here does indeed give 973 mbar and 85 knots for Erin's landfall intensity. — jdorje (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good. I just hope they will update that, then. Hurricanehink 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I really wish they'd update it all in one document.  Once the 2006 hurdat update comes out I'd like to update the track map generator to use the complete version (so that it will show andrew as a cat5 at landfall), and it would be nice if all the storms showed their landfall locations and intensities. — jdorje (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat 2 hurricane?

message: Seems to fit the standards to be a B-class article, there is a good amount of information in the article. Hello32020 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs a good copyedit to get rid of all the silly typos like "Jamacia". – Chacor 01:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyedit done, errors fixed, upgrading. Hello32020 01:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class 

message: :Image:2-erin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:2-erin.jpg

message: The track for Hurricane Erin is misleading. According to the track the highest category it reached was 
category 1, but in the article it says Category 2. --12george1 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, there's not much we can do. It was only a Category 2 hurricane in between 6 hour data points. The Andrew 92 track has a similar problem, in that it does not show its Category 5 landfall on Florida. As HURDAT only does the 6 hour points, yea, there's not much we can do. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading Storm Track