Talk:Hurricane Nora (1997)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about Natural disasters during the week starting 20 February 2006.
Featured article star Hurricane Nora (1997) 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.
June 3, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted


Contents

[edit] Not a "California hurricane"

This storm did not make landfall as a hurricane in California. It is improperly categorized as a "California hurricane". Stop with the ridiculous hurricane envy.Tmangray 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

However, it had affects in California, thus its categorization. I'm not sure what you mean by the hurricane envy, but Nora was a California hurricane and an Arizona hurricane (or tropical cyclone, whatever). Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Nora was not a hurricane when it affected California. Many hurricane remnants have affected California, but the most remarkable thing about California is that no hurricane has ever made landfall here, mainly because the ocean temps are far too cool.Tmangray 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but it is still a California tropical cyclone. The category is California hurricanes, which is the same as every other category, regardless if a hurricane actually affected the area or not (Florida hurricanes, Texas hurricanes, Cuba hurricanes). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The category as titled is grossly misleading. It should be re-titled "Ex-hurricanes in California". Incidentally, there have been far more remnant tropical cyclones affecting California than the few listed, including some old typhoon remnants.Tmangray 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats almost certainly true, but the category will not have them if they don't have articles...--Nilfanion (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It may be misleading, but you should take it up at the Wikiproject page before blanking a category that does serve purpose. If anything, it should be Category:Tropical cyclones that affected California, or something. In addition, California hurricanes still follows the format for every other category. How do you know about the typhoon remnants? Through some research I have done in the past, the only Pacific storm that made it across to the US affected the Pacific northwest (Freida in ~1961). However, you're right, most storms that affect California are either the remnants or outer bands of a storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You should take this issue to WP:CFD if you believe the WikiProject is wrong in this, and follow Wikipedia procedure for renaming the Category. That way a broader view can be obtained.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Many more typhoons than Frieda have contributed their moisture and energy to higher latitude storms which have affected California. Frieda was remarkable because of the tremendous wind associated with the storm which had entrained its energy. Several Gulf of Mexico hurricanes have likewise sent moisture to California via the southwest monsoon. What then is the criterion for this category? As for the re-titling, what you suggest is ok with me, but aren't the Wiki categories supposed to be a bit shorter? That's why I suggested "ex-hurricane". But I'd go with your suggestion.Tmangray 19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's more indirect effects. The category should be storms that directly affected California, be it through strong waves, outer rainbands, winds, or whatever. The category might be wrong, but why go through with the change if the current title of California hurricanes suits it well? If that is absolutely horrible, what's wrong with California tropical cyclones? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Nora

I've gone through the Navy site archives, and they have archives back to 97 (thankfully!).

I'm in the process of back tracking to the images of 21/09/97 1200 UTC. NSLE (讨论+extra) 08:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: 1330 UTC September 21, 1997 OR 1211 UTC September 21, 1997... NSLE (讨论+extra) 08:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyone against swaping the infrared image in the infobox with the visible in the article? Either way is fine, I'm just particularly fond of visible images. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

This article has a lot of content; only a few teaks are needed for B-class I think. The intro needs to be fleshed out. And an external links section is needed. Jdorje 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to expand it a bit and to add references to it. I'm not done, though, but I think this article can become A-class soon. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The storm history should probably be cut down some. It is currently very long. Hurricanehink 12:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of the sections read like they are an exact copy-and-paste of the NHC Nora Report. Compare the last paragraph of the impact section here with the last paragraph of the Meteorological Statistics section in the NHC Report. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Before I started working on the article, it basically was a copy of it, which we could technically have, as the report is in the public domain... I guess much more rewording and reworking of the information is needed. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Taking a copy of NHC releases is a very solid way to start an article. At least that way you know you have all your facts straight. Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Bob were also taken from the NHC TCRs IIRC, and this is nothing to be ashamed of. But copyediting is needed, since the TCRs are more detailed and more technical than wikipedia should be, and also because new information can be included that wasn't in the TCRs. So in summary, further copyediting is needed that will probably end up condensing and removing some detail from the storm history section. — jdorje (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Condensing is definitely needed in that section, I agree. However, I can't seem to find anything about preparations in Mexico... and I've looked in both Spanish and English sites alike. There's no impact pictures of acceptable size/copyright status anywhere... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I upped it to A class. Not sure what else can be done. Hurricanehink 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How come there isn't a (Lack of) Retirement subsection?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
That's something particularily new in articles, and since it would be a stubby section, no one thought about adding it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
True, I think we need to think how we can make a retirement section a bit less stubby. A possibility is to cover naming in it and say "this was the nth storm to be called....".--Nilfanion (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 130 mph

130 mph =/= Cat 4 hurricane. Cat 4 is 131 mph+. Is this a discrepancy in the NHC's reporting of the storm or an error on our part? —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 30 March 2006 @ 00:42 (UTC)

Ah, right. It's the 115 kt problem we encountered at Hurricane Eloise. A direct conversion of 115 kt gives 132.25 mph, but the NHC always rounds that up to 135 as 131+ is Cat 4. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 30 March 2006 @ 00:44 (UTC)
The NHC doesn't always round it up. At http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html you can see best-track info for the Atlantic; if you look at the "easy-to-read" version it shows mph and includes both 130 mph and 135 mph entries. For the pacific, however, the only best-track info I know of shows only knots so I know of no way to differentiate which it is supposed to be. — jdorje (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Either way, I used the knots value the NHC Preliminary Report gave, and I used the knots value at Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale to figure out the category. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)