Talk:Hurricane Iniki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Hurricane Iniki is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Featured topic star Hurricane Iniki is part of the "Retired Pacific hurricanes" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 15, 2007.
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about Natural disasters during the week starting 20 February 2006.
This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.5 test release, which is of limited size. It is now being held ready for a later version.

Contents

[edit] Enid

Since when is Iniki Hawaiian for Enid?

I agree, and removed it. --Golbez 18:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Iniki is indeed Hawaiian for Enid, see here: [1]. I reverted the edit.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I lived thru Iniki, and I have never heard anything about it being called Enid. From what I remember, Iniki is a word for "Fierce Wind." I could understand if Iniki and Enid started with the same letter, but they don't, so it can't be a renamed storm or anything... --Max Johnson

Yes, well, the CPHC says it's Hawaiian for Enid. Take it up with them. --Golbez 16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
What the heck is an Enid? lol, I was taught in school and by the Kapuna's that Iniki means Piercing Winds lol. Oh well --Aoikumo 14:49, 01 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a name. --Golbez 00:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean like how Kawika is David in Hawaiian?...well actually Kawika was originally used by the haoles for David, but you know what I mean lol. but, aiyah no wonder I couldn't find any definition for Enid >.< but that does make sense, it's the Hawaiian name for "Enid" but the meaning is "Sharp or piercing." Unfortunately I dont' have an official source to state that, but I could probably get a letter from the governor's office later =) --Aoikumo 24:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


I think the Hawaian people are intelligent enough to know our own language, (my grandfather spoke it fluently) but since written "proof" is asked for:

ʻiniki vi. To pinch, nip; sharp and piercing, as wind or pangs of love. (Probably ʻini- + -ki, transitivizer.) cf. ʻiniʻiniki, ʻīnikiniki. ʻIniki welawela, a sharp pinch. (PPN kiniti.)

Hawaiian Dictionary (Pukui/Elbert dictionary) Copyright © 2003 by University of Hawaiʻi Press

Hopefully this satisfies any insistence that "Enid" remain the definition of a storm that is a sharp and piercing wind. Does this satisfy, Golbez? - Kealaaumoe Brown, June 4, 2007

No, that is not valid proof. You need to email the Central Pacific Hurricane Center, or something, as currently that is our most official meaning for the name. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed the CPHC as requested.

I apologize to any good researchers and editors, but the stubborn attitude of a number of editors on this site has convinced me that Wikipedia is not a valid place for factual information. True researchers know how to find facts from different sources and especially which sources are more appropriate for which types of information. (As in the University of Hawaii Press being reliable for Hawaiian language facts.)

This site is too sloppy with who makes decisions and what is decided. It may sound like a beautiful idea, but it is irresponsible. Mature, experienced editors do not allow arrogant pride to cloud facts. Wikipedia does not have enough real editors checking the information being sent out to so many thousands of people every day.

I'm sure you will be pleased to know that I will not be coming back to this site except to make sure the proper changes are made to the Iniki definition.

Kealaaumoe Brown June 6, 2007

And if the CPHC confirms our etymology over yours, will you be supplying an apology for calling us arrogant and stubborn? --Golbez 09:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim Weyman June 25, 2007

I am the Director of the Central Pacific Hurricane Center (james.weyman@noaa.gov) and I would like to make some comments regarding this discussion and part of the beginning short write up on Hurricane Iniki: 1. After a detailed study and input from the University of Hawaii, Manoa Campus, Hawaiian Studies Department, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center is going to change our on-line report on Hurricane Iniki to read "Hurricane INIKI (Hawaiian for sharp and piercing wind)...". So we now confirmed Kealaaumoe Brown's and the Hawaiian Studies meaning is the correct one. 2. At the end of the first sentence, "in recorded history" should be "in the 20th century." 3. In the second paragraph, end of second sentence, it should read, "in the central Pacific." Because the east Pacific would include hurricanes which hit the Pacific side of Mexico or Central America. Thanks. James Weyman 00:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If that indeed correct, the article can wait until the website is corrected. However, I have to disagree with the third point, as the east Pacific includes the central Pacific, and Iniki is indeed one of the costliest hurricanes in the Central and Eastern Pacific (Pauline is #1, Iniki is #2). Additionally, recorded history for natural disasters doesn't go back terribly far, and based on available data Iniki is the most powerful known hurricane to strike Hawaii. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In the area of hurricanes, the east Pacific does not include the central Pacific. The National Hurricane Center in Miami makes the forecasts and names tropical cyclones in the east Pacific. The Central Pacific Hurricane Center makes the forecasts and names tropical cyclone in the central Pacific. Even internationally, it is broken into central and east Pacific. Look at the World Meteorological Organization site and you will see Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC) Miami Hurricane Center is assigned the east Pacific and RSMC Honolulu Hurricane Center is assigned the central Pacific. So in the topic of hurricanes which this article is about, the central and east Pacific are divided nationally and internationally. For hurricanes, east Pacific does not include the central Pacific. I stand by my original change. Regarding recorded history, Samuel L. Shaw wrote "A History of Tropical Cyclones in the Central North Pacific (note use of Central) and the Hawaiian Islands 1832 - 1979" and published it in September 1981. In this document he describes the "North Kohala Cyclone" which passed over the northern part of the Big Island and Maui. Some could justifiably argue that this hurricane was as strong or stronger than Iniki. So saying Iniki was the strongest hurricane to hit Hawaii in the 20th Century is correct. Saying it is the strongest in recorded history may not be. James Weyman 01:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

When dividing the Pacific into two, the central Pacific is included with the central Pacific, hence why Wikipedia includes the CPAC into EPAC season articles. Secondly, Iniki is the strongest tropical cyclone in the best track, which is the hurricane record and thus recorded history. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't so bad a wait, was it? Better to be safe than sorry. --Golbez 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Storm history

The 'storm history' for this storm is obnoxiously long. Jdorje 08:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I lived through the storm at Puapu Beach. We were told soon after that it was a cat 5. One one govt website I saw it mentioned as un-categorized. Is 4 really correct? gary knopp

[edit] Todo

More impact, separate the preparations out of the storm history and put them into their own section, and the intro needs a little work. Jdorje 20:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sidewalk and tree damage from Iniki
Sidewalk and tree damage from Iniki
Almost done. I uploaded an extra picture that I wasn't sure where it could go, located to the right. If you can't see it, it is a damaged sidewalk from the storm surge and high winds. In addition, I found an overhead view of the damage located here, though wasn't sure if it would be appropriate for the article. Hurricanehink 18:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Okeydoke, this article is re-done. Is it a B or better yet? Hurricanehink 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, could be A/FA. It's unlikely anyone will find anything more to add to this storm (but see my question below). — jdorje (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yea, doubt it can have any more info. Where should the table for costliest EPAC canes go? I'm glad you got rid of the picuture (did little), so maybe there? I don't know, it would be out of place... Possibly a list of Hawaiian hurricanes? Something should go there, though. It looks like something's missing. Maybe a different view of it making landfall, like this? Hurricanehink 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
That picture's just like the one in the infobox. — jdorje (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yea, but a different perspective. I just had another idea. Once the Global ISCCP B1 Browse System (this) is working, maybe there could be a picture of Iniki while passing south of Hawaii. I dunno. Hurricanehink 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Crap, no picture of it from that site. Oh well, I suppose it's good enough as it is. What more is needed for A class? Hurricanehink 20:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's A-class now. Nominate it on the wikiproject page. Maybe we should PR and FA this one before Georges...because it's so much shorter it'll be less work. Still todo however: change the references to use proper citations with {{web reference}} and {{news reference}}. See Dennis, Floyd, and Okee for examples. — jdorje (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The references are fixed with proper citations. Hurricanehink 00:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Costliest/most intense

Is Iniki the costliest Pacific hurricane? It's certainly the most intense U.S. Pacific hurricane. These should be mentioned (probably in the intro and storm history). Should we have tables for these things (like {{Costliest US Atlantic hurricanes}})? — jdorje (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Officially, it is the costliest, but some hurricanes, like Pauline, might have caused more (their USD amounts are unknown). These are the costliest EPAC tropical cyclones with a damage total of over $1 million (2005 USD). Hurricanehink 01:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So I guess it's the costliest U.S. Pacific hurricane? And, what's the source for this list? — jdorje (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, the Top Arizona Hurricane/Tropical Storm events says that 1983's Octave caused 370 million dollars in today's money. I don't the year that was so it cannot be adjusted (It must be between 2005 and 1997). Also, the 1970 MWR says Norma in 1970 caused 1 million in damage. That would be enough to make it to the list. Finally, I think there should be articles for everything from Dot up (except for Octave 1983 due to too little info). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. I just went by the storm summaries in the list of Pacific hurricane seasons. I'm not sure what we should do about Octave. It never even made landfall. One reason we might not include it is because the damage came from multiple storms' remnants. What does anyone else think? Hurricanehink 02:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The sources for the Hawaiian ones and John are the CPHC website. For Bridget and the 1943 hurricane it is that years Monthly Weather Review. For Raymond, Calvin, Nora, Kenna, and Winifred, it the the NHC storm reports. For Kathleen, I found various estimates and took the highest and lowest ones I found to get the range. For Norma (which is combined with Lidia), it is from a online New York Times article and a Texas NWS site. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

We can't have a "trivia" section. However the info in it isn't trivia at all (except for the part about the coincidence). We should fold it into the impact or aftermath sections. — jdorje (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The trivia could easily go in the impact section, although re-worded a bit. Hurricanehink 12:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A trivia section would be great. Like did you know that this hurricane delayed filming of Jurassic Park? In some of the scenes the rain and clouds is from the storm. Filming had to be moved back to Universal Studios. Jurassic Park (film) 75.70.7.108 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AVTRIV... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)

[edit] FAC Time?

The article assessment recommended it, and I can't think of anything else to do here. And Hurricane Floyd has been promoted. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless we've got a better candidate, sure. — jdorje (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
There's one major problem with the article. It is only ~14 kb long. Typical FA's are much longer, normally at the very least 15 kb. If the length is too short for it to be a FA, what section or sections should be expanded? After all, it did only effect one place.... Hurricanehink 03:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Lack of length is not a problem in my opinion. The question is whether there's anything the article doesn't cover in enough detail. — jdorje (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
One thing that could be expanded is the retirement of the name. I didn't know that Iolana was not in a yearly rotating list, and I immediately looked at the 1998 Pacific hurricane season believing that Iolana was going to be found there. However, Iolana occurs in List IV of the Central Pacific, as seen on the Lists of tropical cyclone names article. I'm pretty sure others would be confused about it too. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
That list is incredibly long. 48 names in the list...and apparently there have only been 11 of them used in the 14 years since Iniki, so it'll be some time before Iolana comes up... — jdorje (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Strangely, lists of tropical cyclone names seems to be saying there have been no named cpac storms since 2002? — jdorje (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it either, but I don't know where to check to confirm that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Did it perhaps occur to y'all to look at the season articles? CPac storms are extremely rare. Most of the ones that DO enter the CPHC's sphere of influence drift in from EPac. At the rate we're going, Iolana will come around sometime in the next century. --Golbez 05:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Naturally that occurred to me. Unfortunately the 2003-2005 season articles are all incomplete and do not list all storms; at least one of them has no concrete information in the intro, and none of them (that I could easily find) say how many cpac storms formed. 1997 Pacific hurricane season should be the paradigm article here (it mentions 5 cpac storms). — jdorje (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
(Actually, 1997 says 2 named storms and 3 depressions.) — jdorje (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my tone earlier (long day), and you're right, it should be mentioned in the intro. It is, however, mentioned in the "Storm names" section of every season. I know, I put it there. --Golbez 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

<------ Should we have a rare formation section? CPAC storms are rare, and Iniki is likely one of the strongest that formed in the basin (well, received its name in the basin). In addition, no tropical storm has hit Hawaii since Iniki. There could be enough information for a section like that. Hurricanehink 12:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, saying that Iniki is the strongest hurricane that has formed in the basin is certainly worth a mention, but the rarity of CPAC storms should perhaps go on Tropical cyclone or somewhere else, as it is not restricted to this storm. By the way, Central Pacific Hurricane Center has the storm lists in a different order than Lists of tropical cyclone names... which one is "correct"? As they're not annually rotated, it isn't really right or wrong, but which style are we going to use, for consistency? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't find a source for Iniki being the strongest hurricane in the CPAC that also formed in the CPAC, though by looking at the Best Track it is true, at least since the satellite era of 1960+. Hurricanehink 05:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I put it up for FAC. Be sure to bookmark the FAC page. Hurricanehink 19:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

The preparations and aftermath sections could do with a picture each. — jdorje (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see that the aftermath already had {{Costliest Pacific hurricanes}} when I added it. I suppose it could be kept there (though it fits better in impact IMO), in which case we don't need a picture for that section. — jdorje (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I was switching pictures around because of that... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA

Congratulations everyone! We got another FA! Hurricanehink 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA?

Shouldn't the pronunciation be IPA? 74.106.19.218 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism?

"It was caused by Takuma Kobayashi" - seems like vandalism to me? – Rafiki (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

I thought that a huricane was only in the atlantic and when they were in the pacific that they were called typhoons? just asking, i could be wrong.Razor romance 14:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

East of latitude longitude 180° storms reaching 75 mph are hurricanes. Only storms west of the Date Line reaching 75 mph are typhoons. – Chacor 14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Longitude, not latitude, but yes. Tropical cyclones are typhoons in the Western Pacific but hurricanes in the Eastern and Central Pacific. Some storms (Hurricane Ioke, Hurricane John (1994), etc.) were both. —Cuiviénen 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Latitude 180? What was I thinking!? :P – Chacor 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For God's sake, what about In Popular Culture?!?!

Where's the In Popular Culture section? Has Hurricane Iniki ever been mentioned on Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Surely a webcomic must have made some mention of it. Perhaps a video game contained some reference to it? With all the millions of garage bands out there, one of them must have written a song which at least referred to it in passing. All Wikipedia articles MUST contain an in popular culture section, with a bulleted list of trivia which readers can add to. If one isn't added promptly, then this article should surely be deleted, for utterly failing to live up to the standards which we, the Wikipedia reading public, have come to expect and depend on. --Xyzzyplugh 18:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually trivia sections are being trimed down all over the place thus the addition of one would be pointless. -Dark Dragon Flame 18:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What?! Now how will I find out if Hurricane Iniki has ever been mentioned in any Xena Warrior Princess fanfic? Surely at least one episode of The Simpsons must have contained some reference to it. Please, don't leave me hanging here! --Xyzzyplugh 18:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? The section would be pointless. For what it's worth, I've seen nearly every episode of the Simpsons, and if you are that desperate to find out, Hurricane Iniki has probably not been mentioned anywhere else you inquired about. Now, please stop trolling before you are blocked. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
While I certainly wouldn't want to risk being blocked, I have to point out that In Popular Culture sections serve a valuable purpose of which you clearly are unaware. Look at Richard Nixon, for example. Between the Media on the Nixon presidency section and the Trivia section, I count 67 seperate bullet points of valuable trivia and popular culture references. One can obviously tell, from looking at the many thousands of Wikipedia articles with these Trivia and In Popular Culture, that a good Wikipedia article should ideally contain every bit of information which exists on a topic. As there is no possible way to integrate all of this information into the actual text of the article, the only way to fit it in is the time honored and true method of a lengthy list of bullet points at the end of the article. The best articles will, of course, have a section full of bullet points which is far longer than the rest of the text of the article, as this demonstrates that every possible bit of info in existence has, in fact, been included in the article. Now, come on, you can't tell me that no one has ever mentioned Hurricane Iniki in a popular Youtube video, can you? Please, look into it as soon as humanly possible, the public wants, and dare I say, NEEDS, to know these things. --Xyzzyplugh 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't trolling, this is ironic humor. I like it, Xyzzyplugh. :) --Golbez 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden away

It's interesting to note that you have managed to hide this away so that a Google search[2] for

  • Oahu Iniki site:en.wikipedia.org

doesn't find this article. Several which discuss and likely link to this article, but not this article itself. Gene Nygaard 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "oahu" doesn't appear in this article, therefore, a google search on "oahu iniki" will not find this article. --Xyzzyplugh 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my point, of course. The article discusses Oahu extensively. Yet the search doesn't find it. So why would you want to hide it away like that? Gene Nygaard 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, good point. I suppose the answer is that we don't write our articles with the idea of google searches in mind... or with the idea of internal searches in mind either, really, other than the article title where we provide redirects. I think everyone tends to just think in terms of people finding articles via internal links, the article title, and categories. --Xyzzyplugh 20:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add de-okinaized versions of the major words to an HTML comment or something? Or would that work? --Golbez 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Or stumble into another Elvis Presley song that mentions Oahu. Without that fortuity (or the headline that shows up in references only), the same result would happen for a search for
  • Hawaii Iniki site:en.wikipedia.org
which would be worse. But no, Google doesn't index comments which aren't visible on the page. So that idea wouldn't work. Gene Nygaard 22:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is obviously {{okina}}. If it wasn't used in this article Google would find this page. Whether the template should be used as it is here is an open question - I don't know the relevant MOS issues regarding that. It might be worth taking the technical issue to Template talk:Okina or VPT.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another stupid hurricane?

so sick of hurricanes making featured articles

what about maths, science,culture, music, cars..etc etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.113.51 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Check out Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2007 for a list of recent and upcoming featured articles. Only one hurricane article in the bunch, that being today's. --Xyzzyplugh 20:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me throw out this idea: Hurricanes not only tend to be well documented but also have a significant impact on the people that survive them. Giving the people that survived them both significant motivation for writing a detailed article and the documented resources to do so. Barak181 07:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

yea but that's only in march, I seen at least two more hurricans FA in the past few months

The last hurricane-related featured article was January 29. The last one before that? December 1. Before that? September 29. So, one every 2 months, or 6 a year? Out of 365 days? Yeah, we're really clogging the works. Go troll somewhere else. And get a doctor to fix your memory. --Golbez 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)