Talk:Hurricane Emily (2005)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones. |
 |
Hurricane Emily (2005) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
Archives: 01.
Contents |
[edit] Todo
Shorter intro, more structure (subsections). Jdorje 03:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Just nine days before"
The intro (and numerous other places) say that Emily broke dennis's nine-day-old record for July intensity. But such a claim of precision is very dubious. Dennis reached 150 mph/938 mbar on July 8 at 1200 UTC breaking Audrey's record (145 mph/946 mbar) then. However, it reached peak strength 140 mph/929 mbar on July 10 at 1200 UTC in the Gulf. Thus Dennis broke Audrey's record on the 8th and then broke its own record on the 10th. Emily broke Dennis's record reaching 155/929 on the 16th (pending TCR). I changed the wording in the intro to "just six days before" but it might be safer to be a little more fuzzy with "less than two weeks earlier". — jdorje (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Damages
Does anyone have a source for the correct estimate? It looks like the number in the infobox was taken from the estimate for Mexico alone. I was hoping the TCR would clear this up, but it hasn't. ETA: I changed the casualty figures to agree with what was in the TCR. Feel free to add a citation, although I didn't feel the need to since we are not doing this for all storms. Good kitty 22:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I know that Mexico was around $400M and Grenada was $110M. Since there was some damage elsewhere as well (Texas, Jamaica, several other islands of the Windwards), I think the actual number is in the $550-600M range. CrazyC83 23:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- At one point, back when the article was very incomplete, the infobox listed something like $600 million but the main article only listed a small fraction of that (adding mexico and grenada together), so I changed the infobox. Of course we should attempt to find the best possible estimates for each area and then just add them together to get the total - having a table here might be of some use. — jdorje (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect
Since the name wasn't retired, should we abolish the redirect? I am not sure about this, so others should have their say. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean? There will need to be major work done, to change all the Hurricane Emily links to Hurricane Emily (2005), because of this surprise (the biggest surprise since Gordon in 1994). Until that is all done, we should keep the main article as the redirect here. CrazyC83 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is fine either way. I also think it would be fine with 2005's Emily having the main name. — jdorje (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Luckily I had a day off work and needed something to do... so I changed as many Hurricane Emily links as I could find (not on people's talk pages, just main articles) to Hurricane Emily (2005). Just go to the Hurricane Emily redirect page and click "What links here" in the toolbox on the side. That's how I found the links that needed changing. PenguinCDF 14:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
As I see it we have two choices.
- Redirect Hurricane Emily to the disambiguation page, or simply move the disambiguation there.
- Keep the 2005 storm under Hurricane Emily, since it is undoubtedly the most notable Hurricane Emily to date and therefore by wikiproject practices may get the main article name. Hurricane Emily (2005) would of course remain as a redirect.
The current method of redirecting Hurricane Emily to this article is bad. If we're going to do that we should just give this article the main name. However I do realize there's a lot of links to be fixed before we change the redirect. — jdorje (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Tropical_cyclone_article_naming. This may naturally need some revision after the current discussion as it's never been challenged before. — jdorje (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd support keeping this article at the main name, unless/until? another Cat 5 Emily comes along. NSLE (T+C) at 04:55 UTC (2006-04-08)
- At least altering the links is straightforward enough see Special:Whatlinkshere/Hurricane Emily (2005). Whether this storm gets Emily or Emily (2005), all the links (at least those in articles) should point to the article. Nilfanion 10:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Considering Emily won't be used for another 6 years, I think it should be at Hurricane Emily, without the year. Hurricanehink 13:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Since the 1987 and 1993 Emilies also have articles, the main article should be the disambiguation page once all redirecting is complete. CrazyC83 22:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed. The main article should be the disambiguation page, and the articles should all carry years. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The only links to Emily which redirect from the main page to (2005) are in userspace, WP pages or talk pages - none from articles. If Emily is moved back to the main page, redirects through (2005) arent harmful are they? Nilfanion 22:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Grenada Damage
Is the damage estimate for Grenada for the insured damage, or is total damages? Let me know soon okay.--Lionheart Omega 15:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA on hold
The storm history section is nicely written, but I'm concerned with the patchiness of the impact section. By my count there are four paragraphs that contain only one sentence, and another two paragraphs that contain only two. It gives the impression that you're trying to stretch a limited amount of information further than it can confortably be stretched. Can you edit this section so that it flows a bit more naturally, and perhaps add a few more details? MLilburne 11:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks; it looks a lot better. I have made a couple of small changes myself and will pass the article. MLilburne 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
