Talk:2003 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

Tropical Storm Peter

Friends, enemies, fellow Wikipedians and hurricane fanatics; I made the decision to merge the stub page Tropical Storm Peter with the main article summery. I did this because I felt the page would not survive by itself. It did not add much information to what was already there but felt what little information it did contribute was relevant and helpful. I felt a vote for deletion was too drastic and that a merger was much better. I just thought I'd let everyone know. If anybody has any objections to this move, scream at me.

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast 4 February, 2005

Damage estimates

I was wondering if someone could give an accurate number for the $ amount of damage for this season and put it in the infobox and incorporate it into the article somehow. Thanks. --tomf688^(talk) 04:29, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I gave as close to an accurate figure as I could come up with. $3,900,000,000 is the number I calculated from the NHC reports. However the the damage figures for Hurricanes Erika an Juan were not listed. Erika's was likely low (<$100 million). Juan's could be anywhere from $200 million to a billion. Also the number of deaths is 92...

Ana-2

Bill-4

Claudette-3

Erika-2

Fabian-8

Isabel-50

Juan-8

Larry-5

Odette-10

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

The best estimate for the damage of Juan I can find is around $300 million (I've seen between 100-500M) - where did that $1 billion come from? It would take a Category 4 hurricane to strike Halifax (almost impossible) to do that much damage... CrazyC83 04:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images for each storm

I am trying to get an image for each storm, like 2005. I have started uploading ones that aren't on Wikipedia yet, and they are listed below.

Can't find a Mindy one.... Little help? Hopefully you can add some of them to the article. Hurricanehink 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Claudette, as there is now a Claudette article. Hurricanehink

Got a Mindy one, so this season is all done. Woohoo! Hurricanehink 14:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

A season synopsis is needed. Right now the article is just a list of storms, and the only synopsis is the intro. Also, the intro needs to be rethought a bit. Hurricane Isabel was more notable than Tropical Storm Ana, and the introduction should give the storms that caused damage more weight. Jdorje 05:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with adding a season summery section and with the statement that only the most notable of season's notables should be mentioned in the intro. Only extremely notable storms should be mentioned there, unless the season had none, then you'd mention the most notable storm of the season. The storms section should remain the main focus of the article however. -- §Hurricane ERIC § archive -- my dropsonde 04:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ana

Kind of strange how on the track map, they have T.S. Ana on the inset, almost as if they are treating it as not part of the season. Weatherman90 16:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. If they were treating it as not part of the season, then why include Odette and Peter? Hurricanehink 16:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually they do that when the storm wouldn't fit on the area covered by the rest of the map. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. — jdorje (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only other example I can think of when they used a small map was for Beryl in the 1982 season. Hurricanehink 21:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you haven't seen the Vince/2005 map yet. — jdorje (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, UNISYS uses the inset in a few different seasons. Not sure if the NHC will do it for 2005; Vince would surely justify it except that Delta is over there too. — jdorje (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

The infoboxes should not have the year in the date; it causes it to wrap. Except for year-crossing storms the year is obvious and isn't needed. — jdorje (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2004 season page has the same format, but I'm not really having display problems with either. Where do you get the dates for when the storms are active? I looked at the dates at the tops of the charts in the TCRs which seems to correspond to when the systems were at tropical depression strength or greater. I noticed some storms (Claudette and Fabian were a bit different. Not that any of this is really important, but I like to be accurate.) Good kitty 22:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only two sources for this information are the TCR or the best-track data (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html). For 2003 it is pretty much certain the two are the same. There is some possibility for debate, however, about what constitutes "formation" and "dissipation". Is formation the date that it achieves depression strength or that it achieves TS strength - I'd say the latter. And if a storm turns extratropical, does that count as dissipation? — jdorje (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TDs

What about TDs? There was 2, 7, and 14. They deserve a mention. Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. Hurricanehink 00:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Icelandic Hurricane #12 16:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

intro pic

Henri, Fabian, and Isabel on September 7

The intro is now 3 full paragraphs long (which is longer than needed, but not too long) and includes a picture. The picture is a bit of a problem. Hurricanhink told me it needed to be moved because it caused whitespace, but it looks to me like the whitespace is caused by the really-long ToC and the picture just helps to fill it. However, when you collapse (hide) the ToC, the picture really clashes with the start of the storms section. Unfortunately I don't know where else this picture could be moved. If we had a separate "statistics" section it could fit in there. — jdorje (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way it was before, with the summary section, allowed for no white space at all. I suppose you could get rid of the picture, but having an article summary section that's below the lead couldn't hurt. Hurricanehink 20:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although it still has the same problem if you hide the ToC. The article has to have an informative lead section, however, and given the current amount of content this would already cover 60% or more of what would go into the summary section. So what we have now is fine, except for what happens to the picture when the ToC is collapsed. However if more can be written about the season as a whole, this could go into a new section (or an intro to the storms section) and that could provide room for the picture. — jdorje (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be removed until later? Hurricanehink 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I don't think it's that big of a problem. Just a fairly minor formatting issue. — jdorje (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I removed it to get rid of the white space. Hurricanehink 23:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damage totals by storm

First table

(removed)Hurricanehink

Discussion

The 7-column form is problematic, becuase in addition to being very ugly some storms (Wilma?) could far exceed 7 columns. How about we instead add more rows. — jdorje (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(removed)Hurricanehink That works. I was only using that as an example. Would something like yours but with my information work for every seasonal article to keep things organized? Hurricanehink 02:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, something like that. However it would be possible to extend it - as 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics does - to include deaths and potentially meteorological stats. 1997 Pacific hurricane season has some good examples too. We should pick one format and use it in all seasons. Below is another example, now with made-up numbers - note that with the GDP deflator inflation works differently in different countries so it has to be calculated separately in each column and then added together at the end. In the below example I use 8% inflation for the U.S. and 9900% inflation for St. Lucia (just to make the point). — jdorje (talk)

Part of the question is whether we want the table to take up the whole page (centered) or to be aligned to one side with text. — jdorje (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's only in the talk page, I suppose it doesn't really matter, but centered would work. This sort of thing could be moved to the bottom of the article as part of a statistics section, though. Hurricanehink 11:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is only intended for the talk page? I'd assumed we would add it to the article somewhere... — jdorje (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believed it should be temporarily here until we get everything, unless you think it can go right away. Should we have the top one (which I finished) or the bottom one (which I can easily do)? Hurricanehink 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can stay here until it's finished. I guess which one we use should depend on if we have text to go with it. However I'd say the bottom one is better since it lets us add all the info. — jdorje (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do the bottom one. Once that is done, then it can go in the seasonal article. Hurricanehink 21:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipedia page List of countries by past GDP (nominal), they give, I believe, what we want. The GDP for Saint Lucia, for example, was $693 million in 2003. The current GDP (2006) is $1.016 billion. Using the $3,074,450 damage total in East Caribbean Dollars, how do you find the 2006 total? Hurricanehink 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using total GDP for the deflator, you'd just multiply the damage by the GDP ratio: $3,074,450 in 2003 USD would be multiplied by (1016/693) to give $4,507,419 million. Of course the accuracy of this number isn't so high; 2 digits is probably best so it's $4.5 million. However that's using total GDP. I can't remember if the Cuba analysis and the U.S. costliest list uses total GDP or per-capita GDP; if the latter, then we need to find the per capita GDP for those years. Also, and just as importantly, we need to make sure we use the same sources for GDP as the NHC uses, so that our data will match theirs. — jdorje (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried emailing NHC, so maybe you should email them and ask what they use. A quick search on their site reveals nothing on this subject. Hurricanehink 21:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is this ready to be put into the article? I was unsure of Odette's 2006 damage total, because, according to the Wiki link, the country's GDP in 2003 was 15,915, while the 2006 one was around 60,000, I think. Hurricanehink 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found my problem. I fixed Odette, and I'm putting it in the article, provided no one minds. Now that this is on the season article, should this be removed from here? Also, is there any season in particular I should do next? If no one minds, I am doing 2004, though that should be pretty easy. Hurricanehink 21:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the table show subnational regions (US states mainly) in the same column as other countries? That seems a bit US-centric. Nilfanion 21:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's more US-centric is the fact that damage totals are unavailable outside the US for most storms. The only non-US storms I could find damage totals are St. Lucia (which doesn't have any subnational regions),Dominican Republic (which doesn't state where the damage occurred), and Juan (where I mentioned Nova Scotia). In addition, I believe there was an agreement that subnational entries would only be used for Mexico, U.S., and Canada. Yes, it is US centric to use this, but U.S. states are larger than most countries in the Caribbean, and they are much more recognizable than Cuban or Honduran provinces. Hurricanehink 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should definitely not add more columns; that's what makes the 2005 deaths tables so obnoxiously unreadable. However the "atomic" unit of breakdown of damage/deaths may vary by each storm; for some storms it should go by nation and for some by state. We should include Mexican state breakdowns where appropriate and available. There's nothing U.S.-centric in the format, it's only U.S.-centric because so much more information is available from here. — jdorje (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there, would it work if we put a blank row in with United States in it and had the states listed after that? It's not exactly that big a deal though really. Nilfanion 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what that would add. Each column just provides one atomic unit of area. What atomic units are used depends on the storm and on what data is available. Having a blank row wouldn't particularly separate the rows below it (it would still look like "Mexico" was a part of the "United States" set of rows). — jdorje (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Jdorje with the changes. Nilfanion, having USA totals would make it way too big. What purpose would it serve? What about Isabel? It only affected the United States. The US total would be an exact copy of the storm total. Hurricanehink 22:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good point Hink, actually looking at the table "Atlantic Ocean" is hardly a country is it and an extra column would just make a mess of things. The order of damage regions seems haphazard. Perhaps arrange it so it is alphabetical, with the states grouped together and 'atlantic ocean' last? Nilfanion 23:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I wasn't sure about Atlantic Ocean. However, the section is location, not country. The order of damage regions is set from the storm's genesis to dissipation. Henri, for example, first impacted Florida, then Delaware, then Pennsylvania. Feel free to edit it around, but don't do it here. Be sure to change the table on the main article, if anything. Hurricanehink 23:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! I found a damage total for Larry. According to this Spanish website. Larry caused 53.6 million dollars. It doesn't say in what currency, but a spanish friend of mine told me that dollars typically mean pesos. Assuming it is 53.6 million pesos, that equals $4.7 million (2003 USD). Finally, using GDP deflation, Larry caused $5.3 million (2005 USD). Should that total be added in now, based on this assumption? Hurricanehink 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Hink, it shows the Gilbert damage as 76.0 - and in the source referred to in Gilbert the figure is much higher. [1] Nilfanion 15:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they could work. The site you gave said 200 billion pesos. Converting that from 1990 (no 1988) Mexican Pesos to USD gives $71 million (1990 USD). That is pretty close to the $76 million figure my site says. It is possible the damage figures are given in that year's USD. Any thoughts? Plus, $5 million is a little low for Larry. $53 million sounds closer. Hurricanehink 15:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like year of event USD to me. Take the 1985 quake - $4 billion is about that sites figure and the USGS one. And in the Gilbert article it said 'billions of dollars' I changed that to 'billions of pesos' (not sure how to do the currency conversion right) Nilfanion 16:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion is easy. Use this site, and enter the amount of foreign currency you want into that year's USD. You have to specify the year, but unfortunately it only goes back to 1990. After that, you use the GDP deflation, and you have 2005 USD. If you can't do the GDP deflation because it's too old, you can probably use a US inflation calculator. The one we use is located here. So is it alright that I put the $53 million figure in the article? Hurricanehink 16:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I'd say put it in, that organisation looks like a government-sponsored body (would help if I could read Spanish...) Nilfanion 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I finally found a good use for Spanish! I'll put in. Hurricanehink 16:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic now I guess. I guess those damage/death tables are a good source for a lot of storms - like 2003 EPac's Marty. But slightly earlier there is mention of 2005s Emily does that mean $26 million damage? That seems waay too low. - Nilfanion 17:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could have been a first mention or something, but the site I provided did not have Emily. I'm really not sure. Hurricanehink 17:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided did have a mention of Emily, if you look before the table there is a breakdown by year which goes up to 2005. Having said that, the data there looks suspects, maybe is preliminary? Nilfanion 18:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I missed that. Yea, it's probably preliminary data. Hurricanehink 18:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am going to go ahead and do 2004's. If anyone wants to help, feel free to join. Hurricanehink 18:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest holding off until we decide on a final format or templated version. Does the template interface (linked below) look okay? If so we can just use that which allows formatting to be changed later. — jdorje (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, now that I got a chance to look at after the Wikioutage, that works well and can work well for all other seasons. For 2004, you might have to make a little change, as you won't need to have a 2005 USD. Just be sure to rename the templates before making the main article changes. Hurricanehink 02:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table

(the table was removed from here, and added to the main article)

Table todo

Before we go further with this we should use a template for this to make it infobox-like. 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics uses a similar template except that that table is unacceptably awful. We should aim for this table to replace that one eventually. — jdorje (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help, but computer stuff isn't my thing. Is the table fine as it is, though? Hurricanehink 22:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jdorje/Sandbox2 shows my preliminary attempts. It is uglier than I'd hoped. — jdorje (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the table looks OK Hink, I just hope noone says 'hey lets colorize it'. I have rearranged the order to follow these rules, does they seem reasonable?

Treating the US states as one entry, arrange the countries those with damage figures alphabetically, then those with any Unknowns and the Atlantic last.
Then same treatment for US states (and presumably Canadian/Mexican when they occur).

--Nilfanion 23:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, lets colorize it!

Lol Jdorje. Nilfanion, the order now doesn't make much sence. Using Henri as an example, why should Delaware appear first when Florida first experienced its effects? Hurricanehink 00:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not convinced by it either, but maybe there needs to be a clarifcation somewhere saying that that is the order - its not blatant. I'll go and revert the ordering. On format - the $ on all the entries are not needed with the (USD) stated at the top are they? (Lol Jdorje.) Nilfanion 00:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The colorization comment was a joke btw.) I think chronological order makes the most sense for the table; it only seems arbitrary at a glance because you're not familiar with the storm, but if you saw a similar list for Katrina you would expect it to start with Florida, then Louisiana, then Mississippi, then Ohio. Also there is a problem with the current "auto" colorization in that the horizontal "totals" for each storm use ! but represent something different than the vertical "location" column or the season summary column; it is possible that in some seasons the entire table would be formatted via ! and that is just not right. Using colors is one solution to this problem, but certainly not the only one. However if we use templates for this we can control the formatting globally and make a final decision later. — jdorje (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I did know, just made me wonder if i've been winding you up) Yeah it is the only sensible order I agree. Oh and on a more substantial issue, how about giving the damages to 2 or 3 significant figures and moving the 'millions' up to the header? Nilfanion 01:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's just so hard to get a joke in on wikipedia I jump at any chance. — jdorje (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damages are usually only accurate to 2 significant figures; occasionally 3 for low-digit values (like 10.2, but never 90.2). However when adding up one must be careful to keep the imprecision: if one storm caused 9.8 billion and another caused 199 million, the total is 10 billion (or maybe 10.0 billion). Finally, I disagree with putting all damages in millions, I'd rather have units on each. — jdorje (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, some storms only caused damage in the 10,000's, while Isabel caused over a billion. I thin kthat is fine how it is. I think all of the adding is fine, is it? Hurricanehink 01:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current addition is fine except the total should perhaps be 4.0 billion. — jdorje (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Hurricanehink 02:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were a couple of the inflation value entries to 4 sig figs, reduced those to 3. Nilfanion 09:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdorje, great job with the templates. It looks much neater. Anyone opposed to putting them in place of the current table? Of course, you'd have to rename the templates first. Hurricanehink 20:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't quite finish with the templates. I should have time tomorrow (unless someone did it already). — jdorje (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it (cue big sigh of disappointment), this isn't as useful as I imagined. Provided the deaths and damage are included in their articles, this isn't needed as it currently is. However, something like this might be more advantageous. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Atlantic hurricane statistics
Storm name	Dates active	Storm category at peak intensity	Max wind (mph)	Min. press. (mbar)	Landfall(s)			Damage (millions USD)	Deaths
Storm name	Dates active	Storm category at peak intensity	Max wind (mph)	Min. press. (mbar)	Where	When	Wind (mph)	Damage (millions USD)	Deaths
Ana	20 - 24 April	Tropical storm	60	994	none			0	2
Two	1 June	Tropical depression	35	1008	none			0	0
Bill	28 June - 2 July	Tropical storm	60	997	King Lake, Louisiana	June 30	60	50	4
Claudette	8 - 17 July	Category 1 hurricane	90	979	Puerto Morelos, Mexico	11 July	50	180	1 (2)
Claudette	8 - 17 July	Category 1 hurricane	90	979	Matagorda Island, Texas	15 July	90	180	1 (2)
Danny	16 - 21 July	Tropical storm	75	1000	none			0	0
Six	19 - 21 July	Tropical depression	35	1010	none			0	0
Seven	25 - 27 Jul	Tropical depression	35	1016	St. Catherines Island, Georgia	26 July	30	0	0
Erika	14 - 17 Aug	Category 1 hurricane	75	986	Boca San Rafael, Mexico	16 August	75	.01+	2
Nine	21 - 22 August	Tropical depression	35	1007	none			0	0
Fabian	27 Aug - 8 Sept	Category 4 hurricane	145	939	Bermuda	5 September	115	300	8
Grace	30 Aug - 2 Sept	Tropical storm	40	1007	San Luis Pass, Texas	31 August	40	.1	0
Henri	3 - 8 Sept	Tropical storm	60	997	Clearwater, Florida	6 Sept	35	20.6	0
Isabel	6 - 19 Sept	Category 5 hurricane	165	915	Drum Inlet, North Carolina	18 Sept	105	3370	16 (34)
Fourteen	8 - 10 Sept.	Tropical depression	35	1007	none			0	0
Juan	24 - 29 Sept	Category 2 hurricane	105	969	near Halifax, Nova Scotia	29 Sept	100	200	4 (4)
Kate	25 Sept - 7 Oct	Category 3 hurricane	130	952	none			0	0
Larry	1 - 6 Oct	Tropical storm	65	993	Paraiso, Mexico	5 Oct	60	53.6	5
Mindy	10 - 14 Oct	Tropical storm	45	1002	none			unknown	0
Nicholas	13 - 23 Oct	Tropical storm	70	990	none			0	0
Odette	4 - 7 Dec	Tropical storm	65	993	Cabo Falso, Dominican Republic	6 Dec	60	8	8 (2)
Peter	7 - 11 Dec	Tropical storm	70	990	none			0	0
Season Aggregates
21 cyclones	April 21 -Dec. 11		165	915	12 landfalls			4200	48 (44)

Hey I was psychic wasn't I? I think the 2005 table is just wrong, but it is better than the current table. It makes things look messy and is hard to edit, imagine Hurricane Charley; according to the TCR it had 5 landfalls. I think the single best thing to do with this table is to remove the landfall information, if you want it look at the storms article/summary. With that gone a much better table would exist. Also I think theres no point to the ACE column (too trivial), with those gone we could incorporate 2 columns for damage (03 and 05 dollars), which is useful. In any case we really should redo that table, it requires 23 template, thats ridiculous. Currently, this table would be easier to edit if it was using the raw code not templates.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, how could we have missed that? Yes, the table is a bit big and bulky, but the current one serves little purpose as a season summary. This is what Charley with 5 landfalls would look like.

2004 Atlantic hurricane statistics
Storm name	Dates active	Storm category at peak intensity	Max wind (mph)	Min. press. (mbar)	Landfall(s)			Damage (millions USD)	Deaths
Storm name	Dates active	Storm category at peak intensity	Max wind (mph)	Min. press. (mbar)	Where	When	Wind (mph)	Damage (millions USD)	Deaths
Charley	9 - 14 August	Category 4 hurricane	150	941	Playa del Cajio, Cuba	13 August	120	16000	15 (20)
					Cayo Costa, Florida	13 August	150
					Punta Gorda, Florida	13 August	145
					Cape Romain, South Carolina	14 August	80
					North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina	14 August	75
Season Aggregates
					landfalls

Too much orange, and way too big. Perhaps we get rid of the colors for the left side? I'm not so sure the landfalls should be taken out, though. It does serve its purpose in season statistics. However, ACE is completely useless to someone who doesn't know what it means, and should only be in the articles. Raw code might seem easier all around, but this is more organized. I don't know. Any thoughts? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should move this thread to the project pages. What I meant by the raw code being better is the templates need a full rewrite, but before we do that we need to decide what it is we want.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a possible simplification (for Charley):

	SSE of Barbados	9 August
	Playa del Cajio, Cuba	13 August	120	966
Charley	Cayo Costa, Florida	13 August	150	941	15 (20)	16000 (16000+)
	North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina	14 August	75	997
	Virginia Beach, Virginia	14 August

The column on the left could be the max category color. The coloration is much reduced here, so thats one issue with the 2005 stats table gone. It is still too tall vertically but if we treat the specific time details as giving key points (as opposed to just landfalls) in the storms history it makes more sense. This could be a start I think.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea on moving it. Every season article should have something like this. There's less colors, but I didn't mind the colors before, too much. Charley is only a rare example of a storm having more than three landfalls. How about this? If a storm has more than three landfalls, the first will be listed, then there will be a link beneath to More landfalls. This way, it will link to (hopefully) info where the other landfalls are, while not being too big. Imagine storms like Georges that move through the Caribbean and have a lot of landfalls? Georges technically had 8. In my proposal, those rare storms wouldn't become too big. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for all storms

Since we need to work on the articles before it we should get all the current articles up to GA-Class or higher.Currently only Odette and Claudette have hit to that level.

Ana-GA

Bill-B

Claudette-FA

Danny-Start

Erika-Start

Fabian-Start

Henri-A

Isabel-B

Juan-B

Kate-Unassessed

Larry-GA

Nicholas-Start

Odette-GA.HurricaneCraze32 13:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just put Larry up for GAN. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree of getting every article up to GA for making ones for all?HurricaneCraze32 13:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what does that mean? Of course all of the articles should be GAN'ed when they are GA standard (not before), and they all should be raised to that quality, but what exactly did you say?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting all the articles to GA Class before making articles for ALL storms.HurricaneCraze32 13:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get all existing articles to at least GA before making them all, but some can be made in the mean time. I started an Henri page on my computer that's almost done, so I'll post that later on. I also have Erika, Grace, and Nicholas started. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt Storm05 have an Erika one?Why not he work on it--Who's gonna do Danny, Mindy,Kate and Peter?HurricaneCraze32 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Storm05 had an Erika one, but I'll still do it. We can worry about the others later. We should either get existing articles to GA class, or, if anyone wants, they can make another article, but they have to do a good job and get it to GA right away. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did-you redirected it.[2].HurricaneCraze32 13:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who was planning it, please do not make a Grace article. I am in the process of doing it, and I'll take care of it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are left that anyone can do:

Mindy

Peter

Dumped Nicholas-I am starting one.HurricaneCraze32 16:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Rather, could you get Kate and Erika up to better standards first? We need more good, existing articles rather than poorly written new articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its already been created: Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I left him a note on his talk page. If you're going to make a new article, try and add more than just the TCR. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate

My Kate one is working well-just not enough impact.HurricaneCraze32 14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, forgot about that one. If you are serious about making a Kate article, or any article for that matter, you should follow the guidelines I sent you. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a Kate article too, it didn't do any damage so my Impact section only contains "There were no reports of damage or casualties associated with Kate." Irfanfaiz 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How you guys think of this ? Irfanfaiz 08:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no impact section, then there would have to be another section to supplement it. Look at Irene (2005). It's a featured article for a long-lived fish storm. That would be a good article to base it off of. It's a good start, but I wouldn't publish it until you had one other section besides Storm history. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well i can do a bit better than. Well i think i missed some stuff. But Kate didn't broke any records by the way. Irfanfaiz 22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used some of the stuff related in impact in Kate's section of the season article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irfanfaiz (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 July 2006.

You will probably want to look in more detail at the NHC and CHC advisories in addition to the TCR. The NHC discussions should provide more detailed storm history (was the high intensity unexpected for example?). The CHC provides a brief summary giving actual impact and the CHC bulletins will almost certainly have that in more detail. A Google search for "Hurricane Kate" 2003 Newfoundland provides this Nfld provinical govt message and a CBC news story on the rain in Nfld.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may freely update my version of the article. Irfanfaiz 05:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article update. Irfanfaiz 07:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

I see that this article has been nominated for good article status. On first look there are no major problems I can see, although some units have not yet been metrified... Hurricane Fabian's section also says "300 million (2003 USD)", and I had to fix a section that said "lowest pressure of 1007." - please make sure such silly and small mistakes are avoided...

The real problem is the lack of sources in the storm section. You'll notice that 27 of your 32 citations come in the impact section. Most of the storm sections have only technical details about the storm's life, and I think, where possible and is needed, you should merge these two sections.

I personally wouldn't pass this as a GA, but maybe someone else will. Given the long list at GA, this may take a while to be reviewed - please use this time to improve the article. Chacor 01:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

I have just reviewed this article and failed for a number of reasons.

it needs a copy edit, examples;

in lead although the season really lasted from April 20 to December 11 - really? why is it there, try this although the season lasted from April 20 to December 11 , or although the 2003 season lasted from April 20 to December 11 .
in tropical storm ana was the first ever recorded tropical or subtropical cyclone in April, though there have likely been others that were undetected. redunant information from comma by saying first ever recorded means that unrecorded events could also have occured.
in Tropical depression two east of the Lesser antilles and developed capitalise Lesser Antilles also link there is an article on the place.

there are more these were the first few I recorded,

a reference would be nice for each named storm even though they have a main article (alone not enough to fail) but for the tropical depressions where there is no main article they must have a reference.
in the Storm Name section the unused names have the tag (unused) after them, why not a tag (retired) after the three names that where retired.

I've solved three of them-i cant find a reference for the depressions, if someone can that would rock.Mitchazenia 18:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update-i ref'd the tcr's to the depressions.Mitchazenia 18:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::Help-these references are against me!! They wont work right for me.Mitchazenia 22:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ok its ready for re-nom. I have finished everything mentioned.Mitchazenia 22:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, a lot of the links aren't working. All of the ones you called "XX Damage report" don't work. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Unfortunately- every time i find a maestro link-it is busted already like Erika '97.Mitchazenia 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, here you go. I forgot the maestro links were just copies of the NCDC storm events. In that link, it has storm event reports for every storm from 1993 to May of 2006. You'll have to manually go through the database, but all of the info that you need is in there. Just click on date, specify the time period, and find the event report that gives the info. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

'1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Additional comments :

Bill is blamed for four deaths, can a storm be actually blamed? Altough I doubt it should be changed ;)
In Hurricane Erika formed out of a non-tropical low first spotted 1000 nm east... does nm mean nautical miles or nanometers? ;) Please fix this as it is confusing.
The choice of "mbar" or "mb" should be decided throughout the article ... I mean the first one should say "mbar" and the other pressures should be "mb".
The money figures should be like $ N,NNNN (2003 USD) for it is not consistent throughout the text.
In Tropical Storm Henri, the speed figure is not consistent for it changes from "mph" to "kt". See Hurricane Isabel, it now is mi/h, please use only one figure.
In heavy flooding across the Mid-Atlantic of up to 10 inches., the heavy should be dropped for it gives a subjective idea and because there is a more accurate figure 8 words later (up to 10 inches).
No forecast section, could there be one.

Good work on the collecting of information. Nice work in trying to prose the article and remove redundant information. Best, Lincher 18:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter and an article

Well now as we look at it, every storm but Peter has an article, wanna finish the season and make one for him, or bother leaving it alone?HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Peter could get an article, but I think it should be left to an experienced author. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting to write it.HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2003 Atlantic hurricane season/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Add a season summary, expand storm summaries, add inline citations, format external TCR links appropriately, and format the table using the 2005 format, instead of 2004's. Tito xd^(?!?) 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)