Jump to content

Talk:2016 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alex's records (?)

[edit]

So now this is rare as we have Alex. I just wanted to confirm if these 2 things are really a record for Alex:

1.) With a location of 27N and 31W, did Alex made the record for being the most northern and eastern tropical system in the Atlantic in the month of January or in the months from January through to April?

2.) Similar to 2012, did Alex (and Pali) made the record for having the first time a tropical cyclone is active in both the Eastern P. and Atlantic before their official starts?

Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first is trivial, but the second is more noteworthy. In 2012, Aletta and Alberto were both active and pre-season storms, but Aletta was in season by the time Alberto formed. Apparently there were simultaneous storms from January 3-5, 1938 in the Atlantic and EPAC, but the EPAC one was before the database began. Still, we'll have to rely on NHC, Jeff Masters, or anyone else reputable for including any records in the article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So should we add the first one in the List of Atlantic hurricane records? There is a list in there which states any other records a storm made, and it says in that section "list is incomplete". Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the first one isn't a record, it's trivia. Someone has to call it a record for it to be a record. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... Where did the season summary map come from? It's wildly inaccurate.

[edit]

The season summary map, linked below, shows a track which covers the entire Atlantic from East to West, as if this was either a storm which formed off the African coast and made its way over towards the Caribbean, or else began its life in the Western Atlantic and tracked Eastwards towards Africa. Either way, the track in no way relates to anything Alex has done, or indeed is projected to do - and reads like the track summary of an entirely different storm.

How are these track graphics generated, and why is this one so inaccurate...?

Even if it is accurate, I agree that the history trail is way too long. This implies the system formed possibly much earlier. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing inaccurate about the map. The NHC first began tracking the extratropical low that led to Alex in the vicinity of the Bahamas. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admittably the track could be misleading: the storm indeed originated near the Bahamas and travelled from West to East, not the other way. ~ KN2731 (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole thing is misleading, I understand it is accurate but shouldn't we start tracking when the system turns subtropical (As indicated by the light blue square)? I can see why readers are getting confused. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more misleading to not include the extratropical portion of the track. This is how the NHC has portrayed Alex's history. Until this track is changed by the NHC we are in no way going to censor it. Supportstorm (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is Alex 2016 track.png, not a summary map. Someone can upload a summary map that does not include the extratropical period, but please do not remove the extratropical part in the Alex track map. -- Meow 15:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that as being workable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I uploaded Alex's track right after it was upgraded and I put it in the 2016 AHS summary image since we didn't have one for this season yet (and I don't know what parameters to use to get the entire basin in the track map generator). — Iune(talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal forecasts table

[edit]

Okay, I want to have a discussion on this matter before all of the tables are overhauled by two editors. I do not like the new table design as the look feels cluttered, why fix something that isn't broken? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would at the very least like to get a consensus from editors on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: First of all, thank you for replying about this. @Jason Rees: started the new format, but only for the PTS forecast table. However I decided to the same to the EPac and Atl basins. So I would say to talk more to JR about it, I guess. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus should be pulled on this as it is a major sweeping change, I wont be against it if I can see a good reason, and others are on board with the idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will start the consensus in the Wikiproject talk page. But JR is a good person to talk too as well. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can always ping him to the discussion. My view is that both tables have virtually the same info, I combined a bit from both including the sources but kept the open layout. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did ping him (my first reply here). Just to note that it will be my first time making a consensus, I will be doing the same like Hurricanehink in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 35 if that's all right. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and sure. (I think you meant Cyclonebiskit though) I feel there is more than enough room for an agreement as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done it now! I did 5 options if that's ok. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been away for a few days and had limited internet access, so I will respond now with my thoughts. I changed the format a few months ago now to reflect the format used elsewhere within the project, which I feel works a lot better than the older format. However, thats not to say its perfect and I think there is work to be done on the format. I also suspect that both formats may have accessibility issues especially for screen readers.Jason Rees (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle - Final Paragraph - All of the state?

[edit]

The article states that Danielle prompted school closures across much of the state, however, looking at the source, it says that schools were closed across much (or 'a great part') of the state. rectify speedwise check antefilling Izmik (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense to me. The text is supported by the source. United States Man (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Number 59, source, Danielle did NOT prompt school closures across all of Veracruz, only a lot of the state. Izmik (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article. What the Danielle section says is backed up by the source. That is all there is to it. United States Man (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You speak Spanish? Because it's incorrect. Izmik (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been corrected already, but you could always be bold and change it next time. ~ KN2731 {talk} 08:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Izmik: Sorry. I see now that the problem was fixed between your first comment and my first comment. By the time I looked at it, it was already fixed. That's why I couldn't understand what the problem was. United States Man (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation?

[edit]

Do we have a cite for "However, after Danielle, activity halted, as no storms formed in July, an occurrence not seen since 2012."? Sario528 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sario528: There is the National Hurricane Center's Atlantic Monthly Tropical Weather Summary linked here. ~ KN2731 {talk} 12:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invest 99L subsection?

[edit]

Although it's not yet named, Invest 99L is getting a lot of attention (e.g. s the Wait-and-See Game With 99L Ending?) due to its predicted path, particularly the potential to cross Florida into the Gulf and become a threat to Lousisiana. Is it worth a subsection under "Storms" yet, or is that clearly reserved for named storms? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We only add storms once they are classified. If non-developing disturbances get enough notoriety on their own (like the Louisiana floods), they could get an article, but we only specifically add tropical cyclones. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's now officially Tropical Depression 9 so it has finally made it after a very long wait!!!ShadowDragon343 (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Track image for Fiona

[edit]

Why isn't there a track image for Fiona? Fiona dissipated five days ago, and there still isn't a track image. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: has been uploading most of the track maps so far, so I'll ping him for help. ~ KN2731 {talk} 09:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole's watches table

[edit]

Currently has Bermuda sub-listed under the UK. While Bermuda is a UK territory, I think listing it under it may alarm those people in the actual territory, when Nicole most likely will fizzle out in the Atlantic after passing Bermuda. I have repeatedly tried to remove the UK tag but get reverted by an IP (without an edit summary as to why) who doesn't heed the 3RR warning. Thoughts? 

{{HurricaneWarningsTable
| HUW =
* '''United Kingdom'''
** '''Bermuda'''
| source= 
}}

— Wyliepedia 07:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, User:CAWylie also does not heed the 3RR warning, having also reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours. Anyway, I'm past this, so I removed my revision of UK territory, even though clearly I don't endorse removing it. My impression is that we normally list the top-level bullets by the governing country, followed by sub-bullets to specify which parts of the country -- including overseas territories -- are being warned. Is this not similar to sub-listing Hawaii under the US on the 2016 Pacific hurricane season page whenever Hawaii is placed in a watch or a warning? 68.4.223.138 (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, shouldn't sub-listings (or -bullets) only be needed when there is more than one top-listing, as in to distinguish countries or territories? If only one affected area, why list a c/t? Also, if there is just one affected area, why even have the template table at all? Why not just have prose to say "There is a hurricane warning (hurricane conditions expected within 36 hours) for Bermuda"? — Wyliepedia 08:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the UK is pointless; Bermuda is a UK territory, not part of the UK in the same way as, say, Wales. Moreover, Bermuda is a long way from the UK land mass, which makes the inclusion of UK confusing, and has an independent identity, making the addition of UK unnecessary. Frankly, this feels like rather pointy editing by an editor with an agenda. --Drmargi (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was typing when I had an edit-conflict, but I was saying pretty much the same as Drmargi Red Jay (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a good reason for its addition at all. The editor is doing the same thing on the Hurricane Nicole article as well; I've just reverted there. --Drmargi (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julia

[edit]

User:MarioProtIV recently created an article for Karl. @MarioProtIV and Cyclonebiskit: could you help create the article for Julia as well? Julia has some impacts on SE United States, and also it was the first storm forms inland since Beryl in 1988. --219.79.181.210 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably within the next few days. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --219.79.181.210 (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otto

[edit]

Right now it is WP:CRYSTAL to say that another storm will form or not form but it is a fact that the last system dissipated on October 20th. I feel leaving this date is a good compromise as it does not have to mean for the whole year. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: Yeah I know it's WP:Crystal (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I know). Though just to note that even if "Otto" is not to form, the season would end on October 18, not October 20. Typhoon2013 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at 0900 UTC (when it emerges into the Pacific), all Otto current information should move to a new section at 2016 Pacific hurricane season#Tropical Storm Otto. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otto article

[edit]

Since there is a storm now, and there will inevitably be calls to make an article, I went ahead and made a sandbox:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Otto

If anyone wants to add to it, go ahead, but hold off on publishing the article for now, at least until it starts to get picked up in the media. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]

If there are early predictions, then in my opinion work can begin on this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: All goods here. I did not publish it yet, but I got the article set-up. I'll just wait for TSR's first forecast (pre-season) which is probably somewhere in the middle of this month. I'll keep an eye in their website. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Typhoon2013: Please see the discussion I started at Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season#Premature?. Dustin (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Should We Do About "Last Storm Dissipated"?

[edit]

There seems to be an edit war ongoing in the mainspace about whether or not the season is still ongoing, so I've decided to take it to the talk page. Jdcomix (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again this whole thing is crazy, if there isn't going to be another storm at the end of the season there is no use trying to pretend that there will be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know for sure though. At least wait till the season is officially over after today. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do know for sure though, per the reliable sources. NOAA, the NHC, NASA, nobody is saying another storm is even remotely going to form. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Knowledgekid here, there isn't a single AoI on the NHC's website. Jdcomix (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand the need for caution but we aren't talking about a week until December 1st nor are we talking about a 1991 Perfect Storm setup. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean one, in theory, can't form though. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the event there isn't another storm, we need to figure out what the "Last Storm Dissipated" entry should be. There is a bit of an edit war going on. Both November 25 and 26 are viable for the date for "last storm dissipated". November 25 is when Otto crossed into the eastern Pacific, and thus was no longer an Atlantic tropical cyclone. November 26th is when Otto dissipated. Either way will require some explanation to the readers, but as Otto – the last storm of the season – dissipated on the 26th, I think we should put that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have always stated within the other regions that the dissipation date is when a storm leaves the basin, this includes when the season has ended with that system. I personally feel that we should change that just because Otto dissipated in the EPAC during November 26, unless we wanna add something like 20 days on to the 1997 Pacific hurricane season to accoubt for the time Paka spent in the WPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I believe the date for "Last Storm Dissipated" should be November 25, as it was the day Otto officially departed the Atlantic basin. Yes, it dissipated the subsequent day, but that was in an entirely separate basin. I think it would be confusing to readers if they saw "November 26" in the season overview infobox while "November 25" remained in Otto's infobox. I believe that, since Otto dissipated in the Eastern Pacific, the November 26 date should be not be considered a viable one for "Last Storm Dissipated", and instead remain "November 25" to symbolize that Otto left the basin that day. -Vedanara2 (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say this very often, but I totally agree with every word that JR said here. Otto was not a tropical cyclone in the Atlantic basin after November 25, so from the Atlantic's eyes, it was gone by November 25. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for late response, but I agree with the previous three comments especially JR. Otto did dissipate on the 26th, though it crossed the basin on the 25th. EPac and Atlantic are separate basins, and during the 26th there are no TCs active within the Atlantic. Therefore, as usual, we place in the crossover date, which wasthe 25th. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistency of the storms - i would call eight a storm as well

[edit]

so the number of storms should be 16 to be consistent with the content session — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleho song (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, Eight was a tropical depression. If it gets upgraded in post-analysis, it will be added. For right now, no. Jdcomix (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the wiki page listed the tropic depression as a storm, that is inconsistent, because eight is listed under storm names. IMHO Littleho song (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Acctully @Littleho song: you raise an interesting point and one that I think warrents a closer look from outside the box. Basically you think that we should be listing Tropical Depression 8 as a storm in the infobox, as the section header says storms and the infobox says storms. However, overall per the National Hurricane Centre it was a tropical depression. As a result I think we need to take a closer look at what we call the section header and possibly change it to systems rather than storms.Jason Rees (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bay of Biscay subtropical storm

[edit]

I noticed that there have been some user(s) which have been trying to add the Bay of Biscay subtropical cyclone to the article in its own section, and I can understand why we wouldn't want to do this as an encyclopedia. But, with many season articles having "Other storms/systems" sections, I don't see why it shouldn't merit the addition of such a section. It was tracked by Meteo-France, which while not an official warning center, is definitely a reputable source as an agency. Especially considering the National Hurricane Center may not even warn on a system that far east in the Atlantic, it is really the only semi-"official" source we have for such a system, like in the Pacific typhoon season articles where we take into account other unofficial, governmental meteorological agencies (CMA, HKO, JTWC, etc.,). atomic7732 00:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atomic7732: Provided there is sufficient documentation from Meteo-France it can be placed in an "Other storms" section. Deghop provided none in his edits so I have nothing to base quality of potential sources on either. It looks borderline at best to me, more of an occluded low than subtropical as it's still attached to frontal features, but I'll ask around at the NHC to see if there's any plans of looking into it for addition. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Gaston

[edit]

Seems that we have different opinions on the image of Gaston use in infobox. Here are the three photos

  • 14:15 UTC, August 29
    14:15 UTC, August 29
  • 16:25 UTC, August 30
    16:25 UTC, August 30
  • 19:50 UTC, August 31
    19:50 UTC, August 31

The one on August 29 are at 95 knots and the one on August 30 are at 85 knots according to the tropical cyclone report. I would prefer the one on August 29 as it closer at peak intensity. I think that eye is much more distinct is not a reason to remove the peak image. e.g. Hurricane Wilma, its eye is more distinct at its landfall over Florida, but it is not at prak intensity. --219.79.127.96 (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to split hairs, but while you're correct Gaston is technically 85kt at the time of the picture on the right (16:25z), the TCR lists that it intensified to 95kt by 18z. 16:25z is a lot closer to 18z (95kt) than 12z (85kt). So I don't think the intensity reasoning works. With similar intensities, but one showing an eye much more distinct, always go with the one that looks distinct over the one that doesn't. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 07:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@deghop I think the photo on August 31 should be used because the eye is more distinct than the other two photos. Plus it is more organized in the photo on August 31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deghop (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fatalities

[edit]

Hello,

how is it possible that there are fatalities of 751 - 1,805? Matthew's fatalities are about 1,600 alone. Where did you take the 751 deaths from? I ask because there is a change in introduction too, where 2016 season is called the deadliest since 2008, but i think 2005 is the the correct answer to this question bc of metthew.

Thanks for your help /Pearli (talk) from german Wikipedia 21:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pearli: The range is due to the Haitian Government stating 546 deaths in the country (which places overall deaths from Matthew at 605) while relief agencies have estimated 1,600. The low end of the range would mean 2008 was deadlier than 2016. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cyclonebiskit:, do you have a yource for that? I want to update the german article with that. Best /Pearli (talk) from german Wikipedia 06:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pearli: Source for 546 deaths: [1] ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2016 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Given I'm about to nominate a bunch of GAN's and we have some sort of backlog going, I'll knock this one out, given how shitty the 2016 WW is. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The presence of deeper convection and an eye on conventional satellite showcased the storm's transition into a fully tropical cyclone and intensification into a hurricane by 06:00 UTC on January 14." link to eye (cyclone). Also ET storms have an eye and deep convection sometimes, so for starters, at least clarify the convection was near the center, a key feature for tropical cyclones. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " However, a strong burst of convection increased the winds to 50 mph (85 km/h). " a strong burst of convection doesn't automatically increase the winds. I'd re-word to " However, the NHC increased increased the winds to 50 mph (85 km/h) following a strong burst in Colin's convection. " YE Pacific Hurricane 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On September 15, Météo-France began monitoring a cyclone in the Bay of Biscay that they claimed was subtropical, having apparently possessing an asymmetric wind field of tropical-storm force winds and a warm thermal core.[123][122]" order the refs numerically. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are conflicting views on the classification of this storm. Météo-France, which is the official French national meteorology service, released a statement on September 15 claiming that the system was a subtropical cyclone – meaning it had characteristics of a tropical and extratropical cyclone.[127][128][129]" you alreay mention this above so it's redundant. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as proven by surface analysis data from NOAA, which showed that the cyclone still had an occluded front connected to it – signs that usually indicate an extratropical cyclone.[130]" we can't source images. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it's good. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana system

[edit]

Should it be included in the Other systems section? Looked like a TD according to WPC (not official of course), and I think @Cyclonebiskit: said it was some example of a potential tropical cyclone. It's damages also add on to that, so it seems (IMO) rationale to include it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like!=it was one, and CB's comment this was related to something else. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By your words, your saying that the BoB cyclone shouldn't be there either. I disagree, why leave out something that had some sort of characteristics of a TC? The Louisiana flood system was regarded by some to have some sort of tropical characteristics. Also to top it off, it caused the worst flooding in Louisiana since Katrina, and was the worst US natural disaster since Sandy. I don't get how a system of that magnitude, although not classified (though it was monitored by the NHC), shouldn't get a section of its own here. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because MF indicates that the BoB system was an actual tropical cyclone, even though the NHC suggests otherwise. We don't have such confirmation of the Louisiana system ;the fact that it was the worse US natural disaster since Sandy is not relevant. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: Per WP:BRD please open a discussion before re-reverting someone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This system doesn't warrant mention. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Does anyone know how much wind did cyclone Stephanie sustained(1 minute)? Thanks --SaiTheCyclone (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SaiTheCyclone: around 40 kt ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --SaiTheCyclone (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1231191677"