This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
I am trying to get an image for each storm, like 2005. I have started uploading ones that aren't on Wikipedia yet, and they are listed below. If you find a better image, feel free to replace it.
Is there a need for that? It adds a lot of more white space, and doesn't add much. People aren't that lazy that they can't read one paragraph for information. If the information in the infobox doesn't exist, then it should be put into the paragraph. Hurricanehink22:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good points. However it is useful to have the information in an easily available table format. But the one-table-per-storm method is bad for an article that has more than one storm in it. Better would be to have one table for the article showing information about each storm, as 1997 Pacific hurricane season and numerous older AHS articles have. — jdorje (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine to me. However this decision should be made on the wikiproject page, and then applied to all seasons. — jdorje (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the remaining boxes to neaten up the page, I decided to do this following comparisons with 2003 and 2004 pages. It looks neater to have the boxes, and also follows the same format of 2003 and 2004. Which would mean considerably more work to remove them from the project than to put them into this page.
No idea. For WPAC, you have so many other things to contend with; different classes and JMA vs. JTWC mainly. I'm not a good computer person, so I probably shouldn't. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that, although Isidore has the lowest minimum central pressure for the season, at 934 millibars, the hurricane season infobox has Lili as the season's strongest storm, at 938 millibars, with no mention of Isidore. Although I am aware that Lili's maximum sustained winds were significantly higher than Isidore's, making Lili a Category 4 at its strongest and Isidore only a Category 3, I have also noticed that minimum central pressure is usually the deciding factor when it comes to comparing the strength of different storms in Wikipedia articles. I vote for including both hurricanes in the infobox. What do you guys think is the best thing to do? Ev-Man23:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Ranking" section table, why are Kyle and Hanna not linked?
I realize that you have the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale color ratings at the bottom of the page, but would it also be possible to put them near the "Season summary" chart so that it's easier for readers to decipher what all the pretty colors mean?
In the first paragraph of the "Seasonal forecasts" section, please use the full version of NOAA first, with NOAA in parentheses, and thereafter use the abbreviation.
In the second paragraph of the "Impact" section, you say "The first, Tropical Storm Bertha, made landfall along the Gulf Coast, killing only one person." It may just be me, but the "only" is probably unnecessary, and makes it sounds slightly insignificant that a person was killed. I'm sure this was not your intention, but this was the way that it struck me when I read it.
Please be consistent with your translation of 2002 dollars into another year's dollars. In most of the article, you just say that it's 2002 dollars and leave it at that. However, in the second and third paragraphs of the "Impact" section, you have 2002 dollars translated variously into 2006, 2007 and 2008 dollars. Either pick one and stick with it for all of the dollar amounts, or say 2002 dollars and leave it at that throughout the article.
In the last paragraph of the "Aftermath" section, instead of starting out with "Elsewhere", could you start out with "In Canada" or something of the sort, just to be more specific and not leave the reader hanging until they figure out that all of the places you're talking about are in Canada?
In the "Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Ranking" section, the last two sentences need a reference.
The first paragraph of the "Storm names" section needs a ref.
Current refs 18, 19, 20, 26, and 30 need publisher information (or at least to be formatted like the rest of the refs with the publisher after the title).
Overall, this is a very well-written, well-referenced and well-illustrated article. I am putting the article on hold for seven days in order to allow you time to deal with the few minor issues I have raised above. If you have questions, you can ask them here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the prose tweaks look good. There are still a couple of reference issues that need to be addressed. As soon as those are done, I will pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These were mentioned in their season write up. I wonder why Miami hasn't looked into these any more? They had sufficient tropical characteristics.Shearwater912 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Shearwater912[reply]
Many years ago, I looked in depth at the July 2002 cyclone, and not long after talked to Jack Beven at NHC about it. During it's genesis it was overtaken by a mid summer cool front offshore the Mid Atlantic states, and therefore could not meet the definition of either a tropical or subtropical cyclone. We were in agreement that the cyclone should be considered a relatively rare "frontal hybrid" cyclone. You can see its evolution beginning with the SAT JUL 6, 0900 UTC surface map at http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/archives/web_pages/sfc/sfc-zoom.html) AJC3fromS2K (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
I have just modified 7 external links on 2002 Atlantic hurricane season. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on 2002 Atlantic hurricane season. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on 2002 Atlantic hurricane season. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While I believe this storm is somewhat notable, the season section is lacking and this article is quite short. I believe the season section would benefit from having this content merged into it since that article is an FA and must be COMPREHENSIVE in its coverage rather than simply covering the main aspects. Noah, AATalk12:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. The article that is proposed to be merged isn't notable. It fails WP:NSUSTAINED, as there is zero secondary coverage (with the exception of the tropical cyclone's TCR), and thus fails WP:GNGorWP:EVENTCRIT since there is only primary coverage available, and limited secondary coverage. This secondary source only contains a mere trivial mention of the tropical cyclone, which doesn't count towards GNG, and the only secondary source noted above isn't enough to establish notability of the tropical cyclone. ~ TailsWx (🐾, me!) 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While the storm did indirectly kill three people, I believe this is another case where the story can be told in the season article. The season section is lacking in coverage and merging this would help to make it comprehensive. Noah, AATalk12:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Cristobal clearly had impacts, indirectly killing three. However, outside that, it could easily be merged into the season article. ''Flux55'' (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is kept, there would need to be a valid reason for a delist, following the notice period and GAR process for time allotment for improvement. We can't just delist an article on a whim. If people did that, they would definitely get an ass chewing at the main GA talkpage for sure. Concerns were already raised by a GA regular specifically about not doing that before anything had started. Noah, AATalk01:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the impacts are minor enough that they can be told in this article. And as to the IP address above me, I don't think they're excessive - the proposals are generally for short articles that would improve the season article with their merge. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be ok with that. Based on what I just found, it probably shouldn't be FA or GA status. But, I still do not agree with a merge, since there is lasting coverage and impacts not yet mentioned in the article. Actually, that last part is a very easy removal from FAR and GA since GA requires that no further info needs to be added. And, that is not the case here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)01:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Cristobal was the LPA, no. Edit: Appears to be another system entirely. It depends on how bad the impacts are as to whether a new article is required. I’d recommend minimizing the mention in articles related to Cristobal since it’s only tangentially related and not directly causing the impact. Noah, AATalk01:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to bring back up the discussion of merging Cristobal. There isn't any content in the Cristobal that isn't in the section of the season article. The impacts, such as there were, are all mentioned in the section. WeatherWriter (talk·contribs) mentions distant impacts from Cristobal in Europe, but that wasn't from Cristobal itself, which was only a tropical cyclone for four days, so it's not a matter of missing the impacts. Therefore, I'm proposing merging the article again, which, again, doesn't have any content now that isn't in the season section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:POINT and WP:STICK. I know that you wanted a merge above and didn’t get it, but seriously, either let it rest for a few months or challenge the close. Proposing this is very POINTy especially when there hasn’t even been 72 hours post close. Also, just because impacts are only tangentially related doesn’t mean we don’t mention them- look no further then Hurricane Ian. 68.129.15.101 (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what WP:POINTorWP:STICK have to do with it, seeing as the previous discussion ended with no consensus. Also, 2002 AHS is a featured article and featured topic, and there was disagreement with what User:WeatherWriter said above about Cristobal's remnants contributing to distant effects in Europe, and whether that constitutes enough new information to keep the Cristobal article, or if it's too irrelevant to even include in the section in the season article (which, again, contains all of the content in the Cristobal article). You brought up Ian, but that article doesn't mention anything a continent away. Also, it is helpful to use a Wikipedia user name when engaging in discussions. It appears you have made quite a few edits, and your input is valuable, so why not consider making a user name? That way, if you're taking part of various discussions, it is clear they all belong to the same user, as opposed to potentially using various IP addresses. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@68.129.15.101: - the Cristobal article has already functionally been merged into the season article. There is nothing in the Cristobal article that isn't in the season section. To anyone else, there just needs to be a consensus to formally merge a good article that is redundant. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge – The season article section covers the storm fully and comfortably. Also, the storm was not all that notable so as to merit a stand alone article. Drdpw (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]