[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:2010 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tropical Cyclone Reports and Best Tracks

[edit]
Storm Name TCR Best Track
KMZ FTP NRL
01L.Alex December 15, 2010 [1] [2] [3]
02L.Noname October 21, 2010 [4] [5] [6]
03L.Bonnie December 28, 2010 [7] [8] [9]
04L.Colin October 4, 2010 [10] [11] [12]
05L.Noname November 4, 2010 [13] [14] [15]
06L.Danielle December 15, 2010 [16] [17] [18]
07L.Earl January 13, 2011 [19] [20] [21]
08L.Fiona October 18, 2010 [22] [23] [24]
09L.Gaston November 18, 2010 [25] [26] [27]
10L.Hermine November 22, 2010 [28] [29] [30]
11L.Igor February 3, 2011 [31] [32] [33]
12L.Julia December 9, 2010 [34] [35] [36]
13L.Karl January 31, 2011 [37] [38] [39]
14L.Lisa November 15, 2010 [40] [41] [42]
15L.Matthew December 30, 2010 [43] [44] [45]
16L.Nicole January 31, 2011 [46] [47] [48]
17L.Otto November 17, 2010 [49] [50] [51]
18L.Paula December 20, 2010 [52] [53] [54]
19L.Richard January 13, 2011 [55] [56] [57]
20L.Shary January 3, 2011 [58] [59] [60]
21L.Tomas March 7, 2011 [61] [62] [63]

Intensity changes from operational advisories

[edit]
Alex

Winds upped to 110mph and pressure lowered to 946mb

Two

No Change

Bonnie

Winds upped to 45mph and pressure lowered to 1005mb.

Colin

No change

Five

Pressure increased to 1008mb

Danielle

No change

Earl

Pressure lowered to 927mb

Fiona

Winds upped to 65mph and pressure increased to 998mb

Gaston

No change

Hermine

Winds upped to 70mph and pressure lowered to 989mb

Igor

Pressure lowered to 924mb

Julia

Winds upped to 140mph and pressure lowered to 948mb

Karl

Winds upped to 125mph

Lisa

Winds upped to 85mph and pressure lowered to 982mb

Matthew

Winds upped to 60mph

Nicole

Winds upped to 45mph and pressure lowered to 995mb

Otto

Pressure increased to 976mb

Paula

Winds upped to 105mph

Richard

Winds upped to 100mph and pressure lowered to 977mb

Shary

No Change

Tomas

References

[edit]

Hi I was wondering, is there any reason that the template {{Reflist}} was replaced with {{Reflist|colwidth=45em}}? I am using the Google Chrome browser, and every time that the {{Reflist|colwidth=45em}} is used, it ends up splitting the last few references and doubles the length of the page. It especially happens on this article, reference #62, 63, and 64 have been affected by this, and this is a very annoying browser compatibility error, and I think this also occurs on Internet Explorer. I tried reverting this, as I could see it correctly with {{Reflist}}, but Cyclonebiskit reverted it, can every article that was this new extension just go back to the old {{Reflist}}, as I see no reason why this was done. Does anyone have a logical reason why this was done, because all it is doing is causing problems for me.--12george1 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am using Internet explorer 7 and in an edit preview I see no diffrence in removing the 45em so I have no idea why it was placed either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what happened, but that new addition to the reflist template is on the Atlantic hurricane seasons from 2005-2010. I am just going to remove all of them since they really aren't having any positive impacts (and even producing errors on my part).--12george1 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IE7 has horrible (well awful) compatibility to web standards so I'm even surprised that it still works. (Upgrade to something newer, IE9 is the best in the IE series for standards) Anyways, a picture of the problem would be nice. I dont think its your browser thats the problem...rather your screen resolution, using the colwidth (which is pretty much what it means, column width) and getting a graphical error usually means that 45em is too wide. I dont know wikipedia code to well, but I am assuming that {{reflist|colwidth=45em}} would translate to <.td style="colwidth: 45em;"> </.td> in HTML (without the periods). Yqt1001 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving storms a new article.

[edit]

I put all the storms in a sandbox. Modify the main article and the sandbox if necessary and try to publish the matter before Dec 31. Thank you. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulated rainfall map

[edit]

I uploaded the cumulated TRMM rainfall map under File:2010 Atlantic hurricane season cumulated rainfalls.png but have no clue where to add it in the article. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already have one in the article File:2010 Atlantic hurricane rainfall.jpg Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add record of AHS vs PTS

[edit]

JR mentioned on my talk page that he found a reference that said the AHS was more active than the PTS. Since January is here, could this be mentioned in the article now? There are also some other records that could be worth mentioning from this reference, too. Rye998 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, is anyone here? Sorry if i'm being impatient by any means, but can this record be mentioned? No one responded to this for 2 days or so, but is this record worth mentioning in the article now? Rye998 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could, but why would you? In the grand scheme of things, how important is northwest Pacific tropical cyclone activity to this article? If we had an overall northern hemisphere tropical cyclone annual summary, I could see its significance. Whether it is the season article, storm article, or any of the meteorological articles, editors in this project need to keep in mind this question: "Is this fact really important to this article?" Today, I had to make significant corrections (in this case, deletions) because the storm surge article had become seriously US-centered, and therefore did not have a neutral point of view. Just keep that question in mind and the correct choices will come to you. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may, but how often does the most active tropical cyclone basin in the world lose to a basin that typically sees no more than 10 storms per year? Oh, yeah, 2005 is the only other time that happened. I do know that the northwest Pacific and Atlantic are rarely connected by any means, but if this was mentioned in 2005's summary, why not here as well? I mean, it's not like we "don't need" to put the emphasis on Hurricane Celia being only the second June category 5 in the Eastern Pacific, and, if there is emphasis put on this kind of fact, and it "rarely ever happens"(Like Celia), why shouldn't it be put in? I do not think that it "improves and maintains the article" by every means, but if these things are extremly rare, then why shouldn't the emphasis be put on it in articles? I believe it's notable enough to be mentioned in a seperate part of the season, like a seperate summary section of it or so. I agree with you in the fact that there is no need to mention any really specific details in the seasonal summary, like "Earl was the 4th strongest hurricane so far north" or "Karl was the earliest 5th major hurricane since 1961", but with near-unique facts like this one, there is no "nonsense" in putting it in. I agree there is no need for us to mention trivial facts like "Hurricane Rita was the strongest Gulf of Mexico hurricane to be retired", but a fact like "the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season had more named storms than the Western Pacific basin. Aside from 2005, this never happened before", isnt trivial at all. It's like not mentioning that "Allison was the only TS to be retired". Why wouldn't that be notable? I believe this record would definitely bear mentioning in the main article, but we need to make a new section about the seasonal statistics. It isn't very appropriate to mention it in the lead paragraph. Rye998 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I agree with DR. It would be more useful if it was in a broader article (like Tropical cyclones in 2010, which we should get around to making someday), but I honestly think we should avoid intra-basinal records (like the one with Omeka being the first December storm in the western hemisphere since X year being removed). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been thinking about this record over the last couple of days and i dont think it should be mentioned until all the NHC/JMA/JTWCs BT is all done, as it wouldnt surprise me to see a few systems added to the WPAC count. Although that said let me lead you on a merry dance around a few possible issues. 1) Do you keep it to just JMA? - if you did you could face a possible 1 min Vs 10 min issue since the JMA uses 10-min winds to name and the NHC uses 1-min (ie a 30kt JMA TDs would be 35kt NHC TS using a standard 10-1 min conversion). If you used JTWC tropical storms you would avoid that issue, however a fresh issue would crop up over them not being the official naming agency anymore. Also aside from that what about the two misfits of the PTS, Domeng and Omeka, that were considered to be tropical storms whilst in the WPAC by PAGASA and <Sarcasm>one of which quite remarkably transformed into a tropical storm as it crossed the IDL</sarcasm> the NWS. So maybe it would be best just to leave it out and maybe remove the record from 2005 since it doesn't sound that important.Jason Rees (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really a trivial record, but we never put the emphasis on the Atlantic being more active than the EPac since it's happened almost every season since 1995. I agree that it isn't exactly improving or maintaining the article, and it isn't the most notable feature to be mentioned, I just believe that rare events like this do bear mentioning. However, since it isn't exactly improving or maintaining the article, it doesn't exactly have to be mentioned in the article. It is notable, but I guess the question is "is it mentionable?" I am not bad with it not being mentioned in this article; I agree with HurricaneHink; it should probrably be mentioned in a seperate article such as "Worldwide storms in 2010". We don't mention Hurricane Felix as being the second of two category 5's of a season, since it wouldn't be able to do it without Dean; it's a seasonal record. We can't just say the Atlantic was more active than the WPac because the Atlantic couldn't be more active if the WPac was this quiet; it's an inter-tropical cyclone season record, not a record for this season alone. And JR, I never mentioned that we should say something like "Hurricane Igor was stronger than any storm in the WPac this season" just because the JMA uses 10-minute winds, but if no one else believes that this record is "extremly important" to this article, then it doesn't really have to be mentioned. Rye998 (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, it would be very hard to reference per the reasons Jason has mentioned. This year, it was easier to beat the western Pacific because they had record low activity, per the JTWC. But did they set a record per JMA, the RSMC of the western Pacific? And did the Atlantic numbers beat what JMA recognized, or just what JTWC recognized? Thegreatdr (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And in 2005, it was easy for the Atlantic to beat the Western Pacific because the Atlantic had record high Activity that year. However, the factors for tropical cyclone activity rarely play in favor of the Atlantic over the WPac; this season and 2005 are the only times that has ever happened. And the JMA is the official RSMC for the WPac. We have to follow the official RSMC data no matter what other tropical cyclone warning centers say. The JTWC is an alternative source used for determining the SSHS maximum category of storms in the WPac. The JMA scale is: tropical depression, tropical storm, severe tropical storm, and Typhoon, and that's that. We go by TD, TS, and the 5 categories of hurricanes. The JTWC may have monitored more storms than the JMA, but it doesn't matter which one you want to go by; neither warning center observed more than 14 named storms in this WPac season. And per JMA data, 2010 was the least active season, as well as per the JTWC. This kind of thing rarely happens, and that's the main reason why I believe it's worth mentioning. It's not every day this kind of thing comes across us, but every basin worldwide in 2010 exept for the NIO and Atlantic were record-low active. If you don't believe it's mentionable just because the WPac was record dead in 2010, then 2005 isn't mentionable either because the Atlantic was record active in that year. Rye998 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you do decide to mention it, all that would need to be said is "Atlantic tropical cyclone activity was above average, and for the first time since 2005, exceeded activity in the northwest Pacific." And, of course, provide the necessary (non-blogged) reference. There's no serious harm in adding something minor like that...just don't get into a paragraph (or multi-paragraph essay) about it. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is fine mentioning. I just put it in the last part of the 2nd paragraph(with the activity). But how can you make that into a short number? I'm not so good at this part. Rye998 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a non-dead reference, please try to use some sort of citation format rather than a bare external link. Inserted a fact tag. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same reference, but I don't know how to put it in the proper format, or put it in the reflist. Rye998 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check your talk page. It's really easy when you use the buttons provided. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it, and changed it, is it good now? Thanks for the advice DR, BTW. Rye998 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm?

[edit]

Where did the seasonal forecasts section go? Rye998 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask that yesterday, but got up in something else...That's a very good question. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did some wacko decide to delete it, or is it being archived into a different article? I hope it's not no. 1... Anyways, it was put back. Rye998 (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was hidden, but Hurricanehink (talk) uncovered it when I asked everyone about it last night. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got an e-mail about this myself. The section is relevant and should remain on this page. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Igor and Tomas

[edit]

Did anyone update Igor and Tomas yet?--Darkinferno30 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Define "update". Do you mean the TCR's, or some other thing on them? Their TCR's are yet to be issued, so if that's what you mean, then have patience for them to be issued. Rye998 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When?

[edit]

Does anybody know when the retired names would be announced? I know it will be a few months away, but I want to know. --Weatherlover819 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They will most probably be announced around Easter in the build up to the 2011 AHS.Jason Rees (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason and Weatherlover, per this newsletter from the WMO from meteoworld, the 33rd session of the RA IV Hurricane Committee is currently being sceduled for March 8-12 in Georgetown in the Cayman Islands, the same time it was last year. It might be postponed if not all of the TCR's are issued by then, however. We will hear status about our retired names by then. I hope that helps clear things up. Also, any speculations should be kept to the Hurricane Wiki mentioned below the orange box at the top of the page. Rye998 (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Rye we will not hear anything about the retired names until after the WMO meets, since its them who decide the names - hence why i said we will hear the new names around easter. Also the WMO will not postpone their meeting until after all the NHC TCRs are out in fact in previous years weve gone into previous WMO meetings with them not out.Jason Rees (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that is when the meeting is being sceduled, however, and even though the NHC may not update their website until later, per 2007, that is when the RA IV will happen, and it also doesn't mean we will not have info on our retired names by then, per 2008. And anyhow, any further word of retirement speculations should be kept to the Hurricane Wiki. Sometimes the NHC may update their website on retired names weeks later, but that doesn't mean it's always going to happen that way. And yes, the retired names will be announced by then, but per what you said, you think it will take some weeks for word to get out. Anyways, I hope this discussion has been concluded. Rye998 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give Hurricane Lisa a article?

[edit]

I think Lisa deserves a article for being unique.

It didn't do anything really, there's no need for one. Its season section is sufficient. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sign your post with 4 tildes(~). IMO, Lisa doesn't really need an article. An article only needs to be made if there is enough information on the storm to warrant it. There isn't really much that can be said with Lisa, so it's just fine being in the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season without an article of it's own. Rye998 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can Gaston get an article?

[edit]

I'm just wondering, Gaston might warrant a article. Gaston did cause some rain in the Leeward Islands.

Nope. "Some rain" does not mean it should have an article. A storm has to actually do something to get an article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your post with 4 tildes(~). Gaston does not need to have an article. There is not enough information on that storm. Rosalina2427 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning Talk

[edit]

If we were to make article about Lisa and Gaston, which would be more notable?39.tg (talk)

Neither are notable enough for an article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, sign your post with four tildes(~). There is no need for every storm in the season to have an article. See WP:Notability. Only storms that had any effects on land should be mentioned, or that meet the notability criteria. Rye998 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

t

Page locations for Igor, Richard, Shary and Tomas

[edit]

I moved them all back to (2010) since that goes against precedence of hundreds of other articles and creates confusion between storms. Of those names, Igor and Tomas have reasonable retirement cases (but WP:CRYSTALBALL and we should be looking for written proof that a case is being made), while Richard and Shary are almost certainly not going to be retired. It had long been clear that in basins with repeating name lists, no number at the end = retired name. Colin, Fiona, Julia and Paula (the other new names) were never moved and shouldn't be. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on article standards in Wikipedia (WP:COMMONNAME). There is no need to have a year identifier if there is only one storm of a particular name. The WPTC should really be following overall WP standards better, and not making up its own rules. Even whether something is retired or not doesn't mean it should automatically have the main article title. If there happens to be some scenario where a name is retired but isn't overwhelmingly the most common title, then it needn't be at the main article. For example, if there happens to be a particularly severe Hurricane Celia in the EPAC and is better known than the Atlantic one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the rule was retired or otherwise unused gets the main article? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, see Hurricane King, Hurricane Beta, Hurricane Irene–Olivia, etc. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 23#Retired storm article nomenclature. I moved them back. If we ever do get another Richard, we can move the pages back. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally disagree with that. Although Hurricane Richard is the only storm named Richard, it most likely isn't gonna be retired, and it probrably will be in use again in 2016. I agree with storms like Hurricane Francelia and Hurricane King however, because they are the only storms of their names and currently aren't on any other naming lists, wheras Richard, Shary, Colin, and Julia are and probrably will be again in 2016. In cases like Celia, I'm not so sure as to what we should do if there is a retired Pacific storm of the same name, but because that probrably won't happen with the one we have now, there isn't any need to discuss about that. Rye998 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But we wouldn't even have to worry about that until 2016. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much of a difference between Francelia and Richard. There is no guarantee Richard will be used again (the naming lists might change, terrorists could drain the Atlantic Ocean and stop storms from forming, we might enter an ice age, etc.) If it comes to us moving it, we can, but there is no need to have a (2010) hash on the end of them. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is no need to worry about it for now. I mean, this is several years down the road, and it isn't worth debating for something that probrably won't be worried about for several years. Rye998 (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Celia, if that happened that an EPAC Celia was retired, then Hurricane Celia would move to Hurricane Celia (1970) and the EPAC one would be Hurricane Celia (2016) or whatever, since neither could take real precedence. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should now move the names that were the only one of its name. 39.tg (talk) February 23 2011

Move to what? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main article, I think he meant. If, by chance, an Atlantic and Pacific Celia/Hilda/Dora become retired, I would prefer the articles to be named Hurricane Celia (Atlantic) and Hurricane Celia (Pacific), or something like that. A different way to determine consensus on that issue is to determine which of the two retired names sticks out more than the other one. However, because that will not be an issue for possibly several years down the road, there is no need to continue it here any longer. Rye998 (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A (basin) suffix would be rather counterintuitive. We use the year identifiers to differentiate between storms of the same general level of notoriety. If two Celias are retired, then we go back to using the years... Juliancolton (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best track ACE for Igor

[edit]

I have updated Igor's ACE in the ACE calculations subpage. Would someone check my calculations and edit it on the main page? --Weatherlover819 (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMO conferences

[edit]

When are the WMO conferences? --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the "When?" section above? I said it would take place from March 8-12 in Georgetown in the Cayman Islands, per the WMO newsletter I found... --Rye998 (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be impatient. The conferance is in 1 week from now. 67.9.35.6 (talk)

Yes the WMO meetings will commence next Tuesday but, as I said earlier, if you have any speculations on retired names of 2010, put them Here, not here, as Wikipedia is not a forum. Cheers, Rye998 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the NHC recently added the 2016 list with no changes from the 2010 list, however, I assume this is only preliminary, since the same thing happened in 2008 just before the 2007 retired names were announced. ANDROS1337TALK 21:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's gonna be be interesting if they didn't retire any names.65.32.55.162 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, let's not get too off topic everyone. If you have any comments, put them on Hurricane Wiki. And yes the NHC list is only preliminary, Andros. Although I don't have any official word yet, it's just not possible for no names to be retired from this season. At least Karl should be going, and several other names could be retired as well. If there are any other retirement predictions you have, put them on Hurricane Wiki. I will be searching for a reference today and tomorrow if there is any info on our retirees. Be patient just a bit longer... Rye998 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...The WMO confrences end today. I still can't find a reference about any possible retired names we had in 2010, but I expect one will come out very soon. Rye998 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WMO are commonly slowpokes as posting the press release. My thought is they will be up by the 18th, but we'll see.Mitch32(Erie Railroad Information Hog) 13:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just breaking that Igor and Tomas are gone, with everything else set to be reused. See this. Juliancolton (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Karl back. Before everyone goes ape, let's have a new discussion on this, since Karl wasn't retired, its (2010) should return.Mitch32(Erie Railroad Information Hog) 18:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? 2010's Karl was still the most notable Karl, as all of the others were fish storms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BUT, there have been other Hurricane Karls, and notability is equal when names are not retired. Karl definitely should be moved back if it hasn't already been. We had this debate in 2005 with Emily. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with that. Naming is certainly not equal. What does it matter if it was retired? Wikipedia rules dictate that if one topic is more well-known than others, that should have the main article. I personally think Emily should've remained at the main article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the side of having a storm be at a main article based on the scale of damage as well as if it was retied. Though many storms have been kept despite the scale of damage left by them, they are well-known in that particular year. Karl is probably the most recent case of a storm that truly should have a main article despite not being retired. Also, what's the harm in not having the year there...We'll just move it in six years. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should keep the (2010). It probrably won't be viewed any more often than any other Karl now, and at the very least we could make a "lack of retirement" section on Karl's article, but not being retired, I don't see why it should have the year anymore. Also, the 5.6 billion could be downed to ~3 or less billion soon, and that may discourage people from paying attention to Karl's article in the future, especially if the 2016 Karl challenges the 2010 Karl's notability. Emily will be reused this year anyway, and for that reason moving her to the main article would be a waste of time if the Emily this year challenges it's notablility. If anyone wants to go nuts over anything in 2010 not being retired, do it on the Hurricane Wiki, please. Rye998 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct further discussion about Karl being at (2010) or not at Talk:Hurricane Karl#And.... --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damages

[edit]

Each Tropical Cyclone Report issued gave an updated estimate to the damages in USD, but the Damages chart was never updated with this information. For example: The Report on Karl clearly states that damage was limited to 206 Million, and not 5.6 Billion. Alex was 1,510 Billion and not the current figure we have listed. And the Report for Depression Two isn't "unknown" .... they state that the damages were "None".

The damages can and should be updated with the information provided by the National Hurricane Center, shouldn't they? SargeAbernathy (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The National Hurricane Center doesn't focus much on the actual impact of storms, most of that is left to the media and agencies that are in that field. The damage totals listed for storms in the Wikipedia articles generally follow what is stated by a country's government, especially for Mexico. The damage from storms is often substantially underrepresented in the TCR (as is the case for Alex and Karl) and sometimes storms that cause some damage are reported as having none, like Tropical Depression Two. Hopefully that clears things up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense. I can't imagine an organization dedicated to learning about the science of Hurricanes to be also employing actuaries and calculating the total cost of the damage. That being said, are the only sources for damages from the individual media reports made slightly after the event? I would trust figures given by the government several months after the storm, not a couple of days. I suppose what really annoys me now are the Tropical Cyclone Reports. Looking at, say Alex, I see several "rough estimate based on media reports" but they don't cite which reports and when. I'm glad I didn't go ahead and change the damage statistics for each hurricane, I had a feeling that there was something I was missing. SargeAbernathy (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Initial estimates published by the media tend to be too high. We might see wether one or more of the reissurers will report damages, f.ex. Swiss Re claims that Alex caused an economical damage of 3,45 billion USD total damage (with 209 million USD insured damage) and according to them Karl caused total damage of 4,13 billion US (203 million USD insured damage), see their PDF "sigma 1/2011", page 24 and 25 (page numbers refer to the German language version, I didn't look up if the English language version page numbers differ). --Matthiasb (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

[edit]

Where dd the season summary map go to? 71.99.32.171 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? It's sitting right there in the infobox. Rye998 (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2010 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 true or failed 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'll be reviewing this article against the GA criteria. My assessment may take a couple days. Some initial comments:

I'm getting a little bored, so I'll stop reading here and finish the other eight sections later. On-hold for now. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More:

I think that's about it. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
K, I'm satisfied with your changes. Thanks for taking action so quickly! Passing GA. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2022

[edit]

The "Main Article" under Julia's section should be changed to from "Hurricane Julia" to "Hurricane Julia (2010)". Glaceonstan (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mikelr (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

[edit]

Change Hurricane Julia link in summary timetable to Hurricane Julia (2010) AnDeargMor (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Special:Diff/1116662012. I also changed a few other instances. Skynxnex (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

[edit]

In the "Storm Names" section, in the opening paragraph, can you please italic "Charley", "Colin", "Frances", "Fiona", "Ivan", "Igor", "Jeanne", "Julia", "Paula", "Richard", "Sharry", and "Tomas". I have been italicizing the names in opening paragraphs of the "Storm Names" section. Can you please do what I said? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:74EF:5FFC:C6C1:905A (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: no valid reason given to support the change.. M.Bitton (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just want the names italicized in the "Storm Names" section in the first paragraph. Can someone do it? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:74EF:5FFC:C6C1:905A (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to italicise the names. — 😈🥟🦆, 23 August 2023, 11:33 (UTC)

Question

[edit]

Why did they retire Igor and Tomas, but not Alex, Hermine and Karl too?

Proposed merge of Hurricane Julia (2010) into 2010 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NWX since the impact was minimal. Most of the impact is already mentioned there and the rest of this article could be easily summarized. Noah, AATalk 14:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Impact is not what makes or breaks a cyclone's article. There is sufficient information on the impact in Cabo Verde to justify keeping this article, as well as its notable met history. I'd argue it's a similar case to Hurricane Sam. JayTee⛈️ 00:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sam was very long lived and intense, remaining a major hurricane for a week - those kinds of storms have their own pages even with a lack of impacts just because the met history would be too long/is notable in its own right to warrant one. Julia only lasted a day before weakening. Impact was nil to none, so an easy merge is the best idea. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue most of the impact falls under WP:ROUTINE. Noah, AATalk 12:27, 6 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.

Proposed merge of Hurricane Shary into 2010 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that like others have in the past that this storm does not pass the notability requirements for an article. This storm had a minimal impact to land and only lasted for four days and thus does not meet WP:NWX. While the storm's article is indeed well-developed in the met history section, much of this can and should be summarized to improve Shary's season section which is lacking in details. An article's status does not and should not be a factor in considering whether or not it is merged. The standards for quality have risen considerably over time and merging this would definitely benefit the season article. Noah, AATalk 20:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge – This storm does not pass the notability threshold for a standalone storm article. It has an unremarkable history and had minimal impact to land. Its story can be well told in the season article. Drdpw (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support article consists largely of a met history that is for the most part a regurgitation of what the NHC has to say. Impacts being minimal, Shary had little independent notability; and most of the article can be more neatly summarised in the main season article. JavaHurricane 07:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The preparations and impact section in the article is rather short, as it only had minimal impacts. It isn't close to being notable enough to necessitate having its own article. The well-detailed met history in the article could be summarized to fit into the bare storm section in the season article, instead. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 20:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport This Hurricane Didn't Really Have A Remarkable History, Little To No Impact, And Very Short Lived, And Its Story Can Be Told In This Articles Section MrLegacyVideoMaker666 00:03, 23 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2024

[edit]

Can someone please add "(and only, in the cases of Igor and Tomas)" into the storm names section of this page, because if a new name is used for the first time but is retired the following spring, it was used only once. Can someone please do what I said? Please. 2601:40A:8400:2250:34C6:599F:DDBC:9036 (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is because Igor replaced Ivan after 2004 and Tomas was never used until 2010. Can someone please add "(and only, in the cases of Igor and Tomas)" into the storm names section? Please. 2601:40A:8400:2250:E4AD:EAD2:C75D:60A7 (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done – It adds only clutter given that retirements are noted later in the section. Drdpw (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Tropical Depression Two (2010) into 2010 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was... Merge. OhHaiMark (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It basically has no reason to be its own separate article. It didn't cause any deaths, had minimal damage, and only really produced heavy rains due to Alex striking the same place previously. OhHaiMark (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. When I created that article back in 2010, I felt like there was a decent amount of preps and impact. However, looking at it years later in hindsight, the article seems to be esentially a long-winded way of saying that the depression dropped more rainfall about a week after Alex, but not even that much more in most areas, other than in a few tiny pockets. --12george1 (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Little noteworthy here; can easily be merged into the season article, where its story can be well told. Drdpw (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nothing too notable happened with that system. Most of the impacts section is talking about rainfall anyways. It can be trimmed down and be add on to its season section with no problem. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 00:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fairly short article that can be incorporated into main article. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I see nothing wrong with this suggestion. ChessEric 02:44, 10 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1239763877"