Talk:List of California hurricanes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of California hurricanes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

List of California hurricanes has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
	This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.
The following comments have been left for this page: See assessment page (edit)

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Northern California or farther north? 2 Rename 3 References 4 Todo 5 Problem 6 No Hurricanes to list

[edit] Northern California or farther north?

Are there any reports of any kind of land effects from a tropical cyclone in northern California, or in the Pacific Northwest? CrazyC83 19:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Typhoon Frieda became a frontal cyclone way out in the Pacific and hit Vancouver Island and the Pacific Northwest in October 1962 I think, but the only thing that made it different from any ordinary frontal cyclone is that it was once tropical.

The systems on this page are not frontal cyclones that evolved from hurricanes. They are the non-frontal remnants that either were a non cyclonic airmass or still had a circulation when they hit. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Igancio redeveloped due to a shortwave aloft and TPC declared it extratropical due to a rejuvenation of central convection (what?! It's in their report though.) The cyclone lacked a surface front when it moved through northern California and the Northwest. Thegreatdr 21:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The central convection which persisted was entirely aloft, not at the surface. Elevated convection results from radiational cooling destabilizing a warmer moist layer such as that which existed in the remnant of Ignacio.Tmangray 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Since this article is a list I think it should correctly be called List of California hurricanes. Or maybe List of California tropical cyclones, since almost all of them were only tropical storms. Jdorje 05:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could actually rename this to list of Western United States tropical cyclones. Some ePac storms affect Arizona without affecting California. Norma in 1970 is an example. They could be added to the list and keep it a featured list. I think that artificially dividing up what could be a long featured list into short ones that are closely related is a cheaty way of increasing their number. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine. We can do another rename once the list is expanded. Though I'm not sure if it should be "List of west coast hurricanes" or "List of United States West Coast hurricanes" or "List of Western United States hurricanes". (It should be hurricanes, not tropical cyclones, as for instance it is Category:Florida hurricanes.) Now on a related note, what should the category be: Category:California hurricanes, or is a larger category desirable? Jdorje 16:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, Category:Western United States hurricanes is the best name because we don't really need to seperate California and Arizona, right? Hurricane Nora (1997) would be the only one in the Arizona category, and it would also go in the California category. The only difficulties with this idea is the work with renaming category:California hurricanes and perhaps possible confusion with category:Hawaii hurricanes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There should be no title "California hurricanes" since there has never been such a thing, except POSSIBLY the storm in 1858 which anyway did not make landfall. We have our earthquakes, and hurricane envy is ridiculous. The most remarkable thing about California's summer weather is the ABSENCE of hurricanes thanks to the coldness of the offshore waters. Tmangray 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I'm unfamiliar with the Notes way of annotating an article, and am using ref as it appears the article had already begun this transition per earlier discussion. If this is a problem, can someone with the know-how convert either the refs to notes or the notes to refs, to keep it consistent? Thanks. Thegreatdr 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, converted to <ref>s. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

What's up with the broken references? Jdorje 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it... I used {{ref}} instead of {{note}}. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Because this is already a featured list, does this mean it is FA class? Hurricanehink 18:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

When the page was moved, it caused a problem with the peer review and FA thing at the top. Is there any way to fix it? Hurricanehink 18:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be fixed by moving the peer review and FLC. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Hurricanehink 20:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Hurricanes to list

This article is not a list of California hurricanes. There are none to list. The article was changed to a list of tropical cyclones many months ago. The text reflects this. I would be interested to hear arguments to the contrary, but it should remain as a list of tropical cyclones for now. Tmangray 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It should remain as a list of hurricanes for now because that is the format for all of the other such articles. It includes the remnants of Pacific hurricanes, so yes, it is a list of California hurricanes. The terms hurricane and tropical cyclone are fairly interchangeable in this basin, so why change it to a longer title when this is just as accurate? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, tropical cyclone is a term which includes all closed low tropical systems, at all levels of strength. This is far more inclusive and accurate as to the tropical disturbances that have affected California. The title is grossly misleading. Not only has no hurricane ever made landfall in California, only one tropical storm has. This is the most important and remarkable thing about the subject. Is there a list of Kansas hurricanes? Why not? Many hurricane remnants have visited Kansas. How about a list of Alaska typhoons? The remnant of a typhoon struck Alaska last year. Until more than one hurricane actually makes landfall in California, having a "list" is absurd, and clearly unencyclopedic. Tmangray 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The title is not misleading, it is for Atlantic hurricanes and Pacific hurricanes that affect California (though only Pacific hurricanes have done so). No, there isn't a list of Kansas hurricanes due to lack of information, but there could be a category for it. There's a category for Indiana hurricanes, California hurricanes, Florida hurricanes, Oklahoma hurricanes, etc., which are all part of Hurricanes in the United States. This is for continuity, not for the nit-picky exactness which isn't needed. Furthermore, one hurricane did produce hurricane force winds in the state. This list is not absurd, nor is it unencyclopediac. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. If there are no California hurricanes, how can there be a list of them? The title is patently absurd. If there really is a "list of Indiana hurricanes", that is equally absurd. It makes far better sense to re-title the article "California Tropical Cyclones" as the meteorological term "tropical cyclone" properly covers all possible systems of tropical origin that ACTUALLY affect California. And any discontinuity in categorization should be adjusted to reflect factual information, yes EXACTNESS which is what an encyclopedia versus something pop-media aims to achieve. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with subsuming the category "California Tropical Cyclones" in the larger category "Hurricanes in the United States". THAT is where exactness is not so critical. But this article cannot be falsely titled as it is. Tmangray 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)