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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
I think it's good to have millibars and inches of mercury for the benefit of weather professionals who read the Hurricane Linda page, but pressure should also be in PSI, which is the most commonly understood unit to general audiences in the US and some other places.
I don't know what the common unit is the UK and east of there, but if it's not millibars or inches of mercury, we should include that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.20.98.115 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a project wide issue. Most of the world used to use inches of mercury, and as such it's still common to see used. The rest of the scientific community uses millibar/hectopascals. As such, the tropical cyclone Wikiproject has a standard to use those two measurements. Having PSI as a third measurement would make things rather long-winded. Do you have any evidence that PSI is used as often for weather as you say it is? Otherwise, I'm worry, but we can't really change this one article, when we have over 1000 others on a different format. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that the most commonly understood barometric pressure unit in the United States is inHg, not lb/in^2. (The "proper" unit would be the atmosphere, which is equal to 29.92 inHg). PSI is never used in this context, not even in popular usage (see nightly newscasts, for example). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)05:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that PSI is used more often in the US for weather (by non-weather buffs), though it probably is. The point is that, at least in the US, PSI is the only unit of air pressure most people know--from pumping up tires and basket balls, etc., and the average educated person likely knows the 15 LBS per square inch at sea level rule. I've never heard anyone outside of weather or science talk about how many inches of mercury to put in their tire. If this Wikipedia article is only for weather experts and scientist, you don't need PSI. If it's for a general audience, PSI belongs there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.20.98.115 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But those are different usages of pressure. For scientific purposes, and yes, scientific purposes should be taken into account, PSI is never used, either by scientists or the layman. Also, consider that PSI is an American unit. Should we include other forms of pressure, such as the atmosphere or the torr? We're just trying to keep it simple, without too many units, every time pressure is included. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If giving the pressure in atmospheres and torr would spare a significant number of readers having to look for a conversion table, perhaps they should be there. I often have to research what the audience for something I'm writing expects in word choice or alternate spelling (email, e-mail, Email?). I find a "search engine survey" a useful tool. Search on multiple spellings in use for a particular word, and see which one gets the most hits. Here is the result for searching (on Google) for the phrase "atmospheric pressure" AND:
millibars 296,000
PSI = 264,000
"inches of mercury" 43,100
Millibars come in first (all those science papers), followed closely by PSI. "Inches of mercury" comes in a distant third.
I realize that it's mostly the US and some other English speaking countries that use PSI (I know they still use it in the UK, and it was what we used when I was a boy in non-English speaking Haiti), but this is an English-language page.
Again, if the article is really for weather experts and enthusiasts, perhaps PSI represents an 'impure' layman's unit. If the article is for the general English-speaking public, PSI should be there. If that seems too cluttered, consider dropping 'inches of mercury,' since that is evidently much less in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.20.98.115 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind waiting before a consensus is agreed, before adding PSI to the article again? The idea for using PSI for hurricanes is a little unusual, as PSI is never used for tropical cyclones. A search engine survey for "atmospheric pressure", "hurricane", and PSI yields only about 4,000 hits. I don't think we should be using a unit in a hurricane article when the unit is almost never used in that field. For what it's worth, inches of mercury isn't used very often on TC articles.
That seems fair. I agree, if you're talking about meteorologists and other professionals, that PSI wouldn't come up in describing tropical cyclones—and shouldn't be used in articles exclusively for experts in the field. I also agree that millibars, as the unit experts in the field use, should be the primary unit. I believe strongly however, that the tiny bit of space it takes to express the pressure in units more familiar to the average person is worth it in terms of making information accessible to non-expert Wikipedia readers.
If you used the term, "minor second," writing for musicians, you wouldn't add, "the difference in pitch between two adjacent notes on the piano," but you would add some jargon-transcending phrase like that if you were writing for a general audience.
When I first read the article, I wondered what the air pressure was relative to normal. At the time I thought, "everyone knows 15 PSI at sea level (slightly rounded, of course)...why don't they give that as a secondary unit so the average person has a better sense of what's going on?" On further reflection, "everyone knows..." is just an assumption on my part. I just asked my wife and she knew—but she's a scientist (not even vaguely related to weather) who occasionally works with big tanks of gas, and they compare PSI in the tanks relative to the rounded-off 15 PSI. I'm now curious enough to start asking people at random. My hypothesis is that, of those people who know what average atmospheric pressure is, most of them will know it in PSI.
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. Jdorje20:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, Lincher12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
While near its peak intensity, Hurricane Linda passed very near the unpopulated Socorro Island, damaging meteorological instruments on the island. - Two redundant words here.
When Linda was initially predicted to make landfall on California, it would have been the first to do so since a storm in 1939. - No need for "initially".
Though it did not hit the state, the hurricane produced light to moderate rainfall across the region, causing mudslides and flooding in the San Gorgonio Wilderness - "Though" → "although".
Done, and did the same elsewhere in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
there, two houses were destroyed and 77 others were damaged, and damage totaled $3.2 million (1997 USD, $4.3 million 2008 USD) - "There" is redundant, as you already specified the location.
As with before, I liked having it for word flow, but I don't mind removing it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
The wave tracked westward across the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea without developing - Waves don't develop; they sometimes spawn other storms, but they never develop themselves.
Hah, way to steal from my own book. I changed back to "development", as that implies a broader aspect of not developing (no systems along the wave developed). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
it crossed Central America into the eastern Pacific Ocean - When?
TCR doesn't say, and in fact they don't even mention the wave crossing. I removed that part. I mention the Pacific Ocean in the next sentence to clarify that it's on the Pacific coast of Panama (there's a place in Panama where west is still Caribbean). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
An area of convection, or thunderstorms, developed to the west of Panama on September 6, believed to be related to the tropical wave. - "Believed to be" → "believed to have been".
Deep convection and banding features increased, and the depression intensified into a tropical storm early on September 10; at that time, the cyclone was named Linda by the National Hurricane Center (NHC). - Remove "at the time"
I disagree. "at that time" is specifying that when it reached TS status, it was named. Otherwise wouldn't be as clear. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
Subsequently Linda began to rapidly intensify; its small eye became well-defined and surrounded surrounded by very cold convection. - Ditto with the first bullet point.
Same with first point, I think it's useful for word flow, more so than its use in the sentence. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
Its maximum sustained winds were estimated from 180–195 mph (290–315 km/h) - "From" → "at".
Are you sure? It's "estimated from 180 to 195 mph". Saying "estimated at 180 to 195 mph" doesn't sound as right to me. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
Also, its pressure was estimated at 902 mbar (26.65 inHg), making Linda the most intense Pacific hurricane on record;[1] when the storm was active, its pressure was estimated to have been slightly lower at 900 mbar (26.58 inHg). - Change the first instance of the word "was" to "is", to clarify the differentiating time frames.
Around that time, tropical cyclone forecast models suggested the hurricane would turn toward southern California;[1] this was due to an approaching upper-level trough expected to bring the storm northward. - Unnecessarily complex. Change to "Around that time, tropical cyclone forecast models suggested that the hurricane would turn toward southern California due to an approaching upper-level trough."
Alright. I'm not too attached to the sentence, so I'll steal your prose. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
On September 14, the Hurricane Hunters and airplanes from NOAA flew into the hurricane to provide better data on the powerful hurricane. - "Flew into" → "investigated".
Nice, agreed. It's rather obvious that planes fly. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
Two days later it weakened to tropical depression status, when located about 1105 mi (1785 km) west of the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula. - Add commas to the numbers.
Moisture from the hurricane moved across the state, dropping heavy rainfall, as well as producing golfball-sized hail. - Was the hail related to thunderstorms?
I didn't explicitly mention thunderstorms there, so I'll do one better. "across the state, producing heavy rainfall as well as golfball-sized hail". ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
Moisture from Linda spread further inland into the Upper Midwest. - Some more info regarding this would be great. Any rainfall totals?
Great Article. I was in San Diego when this hurricane was anticipated to make landfall and remember seeing the "arms" of the hurricane stretching from the horizon to over the city. Rob (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment I don't expect this to be retired in near future, so if someday the storm with this name are MORE popular than this one (particularly the ones that is very damaging and probably retired) i expect this will maybe returned back. Oh, and i looked at the history of the title of that article meant to be moved into, and... well! At that time though, it was seem to be more conservative than it was now, see Hurricane Gert for that evidence. Originally it was titled Hurricane Gert (1993) but later it was moved into Hurricane Gert for the "primary topic" reason, even the name Gert wasn't retired! So when i compare to past i believe that these moves seems to be more liberal than it was before it. I admit to be honest about that though.--SMB99thxXD (contribs) 09:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Prior to Patricia I would've said yes, considering it was the strongest EPac storm on record. However, now that it's been bumped to second, I don't see any reason for moving it. The only thing IMO that would maybe support it would be the intensification rate, which is quite rare for an EPac. Plus the 2015 Linda was closer to land and had more impacts. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dropping the year is reserved for when it's clear cut the primary topic, like Gert ot retired systems. Not the case here, as Mario demonstrated. YEPacificHurricane16:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – unclear whether this is the primary topic. Even though 2015's was less intense, it had more severe impacts. ~ KN2731 {talk} 10:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
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:
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 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:
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.
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
