Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Gustav

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

Untitled

[edit]

Archive of topics into September 1: Talk:Hurricane Gustav/Archive_1

Should the accident be included in the US deaths?

[edit]

CNN and other news stations aren't including the accidents of the evacuees in Georgia in their US deaths counts. Should the accident really be included in the wikipedia count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daanver (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as indirect deaths. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well - would these for unfortunate souls be in Georgia, if it wasn't for Gustav? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They would not have died if it weren't for Gustav. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-calculating the death toll

[edit]

Different sources have different numbers, but here is the complete list I have found (US only; the total of 95 in the Caribbean is accurate):

Direct deaths

Indirect deaths

CrazyC83 (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil

[edit]

02-Sep-2008: When I began adding text into the article, I did not realize that article "Hurricane Gustav" was being intensely edited according to severe attitudes about content: instead, I had imagined various text was being deleted (often) to shorten the article for more recent events. Now I understand that many contributions were being deliberated axed, with no consensus (mutual agreement) and certainly no prior, polite discussion. I'm not saying it is "wrong" to be rude or ruthless, but typically, articles are debated by ongoing discussions, over a period of days, to reach some common understanding of content. Sometimes, a rude or ruthless action could be used in times of emergency to correct a dire, severe crisis; however, Wikipedia ain't it. There is never a time in Wikipedia to be ruthless: the game isn't about facts, it's about how people treat each other in sharing information for general readers, not in dictating facts to the peasants. There isn't a wiki captive audience, forced to read whatever crap is mandated. Being rude or ruthless in Wikipedia is the ultimate failure, and people should probably go on break for 3 months, to contemplate why they acted so severe about a project that is a cultural-joke in America: a collection of half-baked articles with all kinds of wacko comments and vandalism that persists for months. You're not fooling people in America that being ruthless will make Wikipedia articles better and accurate. Numerous people have already left Wikipedia, in disgust about the treatment of people, terrified to see "You have messages" and fearing more judgmental wiki-puke vomited at them. However, I, for one, can handle the hate, ready for the stern behavior, but the long-term plan is WP:Civility, not severe attitudes. Thank you to everyone who can help restore civility among the few left in Wikipedia. Peace to you. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits aren't being axed without comment. In fact, there are three topics on this talk page about your contributions (1,2,3), all of which show a consensus that they were "axed" appropriately. Nor are your edits being singled out—two of the aforementioned sections start with "I don't know who added this but...". There is no hate for you to handle; this is just how busy articles work. Also, take heed of the warning displayed on wikipedia's edit-screen: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Plasticup T/C 12:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 04-Sep-2008: To User:Plasticup: Thank you for taking time to consider this issue. Please don't think I am blaming anyone about the situation: it is a systemic problem that affects everyone. I realize you are trying to be diplomatic, carefully considering the 3 issues above; however, I had downplayed the impact by not mentioning that I had made over 40 edits to "Hurricane Gustav" without complaint, because I realize hundreds of edits are often reverted: professional photographers have even reported some of their photos being incrementally deleted (elsewhere) in a similar, undiscussed manner. Quiet axing of content has been rampant across WP. After years of life in the "wiki-pit" I had begun to think of axed content as typical, but the issue of "WP:Civility" is a formal topic now. Thanks also for noting the old Wikipedia slogan of "edited mercilessly": I had not realized how out-of-date that wording compares to the newer policy of WP:CIVIL (in warning people to expect results "mercilessly" which does not quite fit with "civility"). Hence, the conflicting behaviors are a systemic problem across all contradictory aspects of Wikipedia, and that explains the "business as usual" attitude of merciless behavior: merciless is how Wikipedia began with a few, and now the horde expects "wikis behaving badly" as SOP, and thus many people quit WP in disgust. No one individual should be blamed for the hollow content and lack of articles about key subjects: for example, where is article "cogan grass" or "string grammar" or "GFDL hurricane model" or "systemic problem"? -Wikid77 (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing changes to the article Hurricane Gustav. If you want to address a systemic problem at the very root of all wikipedia perhaps you should try WP:RfC. Plasticup T/C 13:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple preliminary rainfall totals added

[edit]

There is an internal debate at HPC about whether to add once a day reports to the advisory or not, so the HPC advisory currently does not contain the maximum from Gustav. To work around this, I have added amounts directly from CoCoRaHS and the CPC daily rainfall collective that would otherwise have been the source of rainfall information in the HPC rainfall summaries, and my storm total worksheets. Hopefully, this issue will be resolved soon. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav refugees

[edit]

I'm OK but still in a shelter in Shreveport, Louisiana with 3000 or so others. We're awaiting a way back to New Orleans, Louisiana. The people running the shelter are doing a great job, imo. I'ld like to see where the other shelters are and see how people are returning to their homes in NOLA and other cities that were evacuated. • Q^#o • 17:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good that you're ok man. I had a friend who only goes by Firetears who is from NO and I haven't heard if he is alright or not74.196.134.34 (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 04-Sep-2008: NOLA re-opened to residents at midnight, zero hour on 4-Sep-2008 (Thursday). Many were staying in nearby towns, such as Mobile (Alabama), which recovered from the downtown flooding faster. Widespread flooding and many trees were down all across the central Gulf Coast (but no source for that). Other readers have commented that they are reading "Hurricane Gustav" for all these details that would take hours of TV watching, or are not indexed by search engines (Google, Yahoo or MSN Search can find almost nothing about Gustav damage and evacuees returning: indexing current information is hampered by corrupt SEO spamming that hides ads as "news" data, so delaying news protects the search engines from predators). As writers, the details cannot be added into the article without mainstream sources (not blog references). Perhaps some Gustav blogs have the ability to search for "evacuees returning" to get timely info: meanwhile Wikipedia is struggling with policies to become a timely source, much faster or better focused than search-engines (but many people don't even want current films or singers detailed, due to severe opinions of notability). Every statement in the article might represent hours of edit-warring to include current info needed by actual readers, but thanks for letting us know that evacuee travels are a concern. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"2008" or not?

[edit]

Why is everyone arguing about whether or not Gustav should have "2008" with it or not? I think it should for now. Is there anyone else who wants to talk about this disagreement?

You already know that there is a discussion on this page. You contributed to it immediately before creating this section. Plasticup T/C 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was on retirement. Why can't Gustav have the "2008" with it? It doesn't make a big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.155.43 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locked

[edit]

I vote that editing of this article be locked for now. Am I alone74.196.134.34 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i would dissagree there as this is no longer a major event & is most probbably within the next advisory goign to be downgraded to a low which would mean we can get rid of the Current tags and boxes and replace it with the normal infobox Jason Rees (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gustav might be around as a TD for a while longer. But even still, there is no need to lock this page. Plasticup T/C 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The old NHC track is at least a day too slow already. Gustav, according to HPC, should become extratropical within 24 hours. Then again, until the low dissipates or moves out of North America, shouldn't we keep the status current? The flooding in portions of Louisiana and Arkansas is bound to last up to a week, regardless. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reached WP:3RR on this article trying to keep it listed as current, and many others have too. There are hordes of IPs, new users, and even old users who think that when the NHC stops monitoring a system it is automatically dead. Plasticup T/C 04:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help with the HPC advisories generally don't get read by the media...though I did notice they get read on XM radio on the Emergency Channel (247). You know, we changed these from storm summaries to public advisories just so they would get greater dissemination. I think they do, but the situation is only slightly better than it was in 2001. I don't think I've used any reverts as of yet (I changed the status once and no one changed it back.) Thegreatdr (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav is still a TD

[edit]

As of 11pm EDT, September 3, Gustav is still active. Just because the NHC has stopped monitoring the system does not mean it has dissipated! The Hydrometeorological Prediction Center is still tracking the tropical depression. Plasticup T/C 03:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, at least as of 4 am. It will be deemed "inactive" (although the effects will continue to be monitored) when the header changes from "Tropical Depression Gustav" to "Remnants of Gustav", at which point it either is extratropical or a remnant low. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As of 1500 UTC the heading has been changed to Former Tropical Depression Gustav so we can now removed all the current storm info and add the infoboxes Jason Rees (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. It's not even an option for the header. It is safest to wait. So the rule here is that if it becomes extratropical, even if there are still impact from the system across the Midwest, that it's no longer current? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep it as a current event and under Current-class until the impact dies down. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably stay as current for a couple more days while damage assements start coming in and the remaints start becoming less identifiable as Gustav. Jon (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav's extratropical phase

[edit]

Who is tracking it and where can I find information on it? HPC said

THIS IS THE LAST ADVISORY ISSUED FOR THE REMNANTS OF GUSTAV.

PLEASE REFER TO YOUR LOCAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFFICE FOR

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THIS SYSTEM.

...so where can I find its continued effects? Plasticup T/C 14:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the TCR, I guess. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TCRs aren't very good with that sort of thing. They usually just end with "Gustav was absorbed by a cold front and lived happily ever after". No gritty details. Plasticup T/C 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
try the Hurricane Local Statements issued by the relevant National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices Jason Rees (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do the locations of the remnants get put up on the storm track graphic or does that end when the NHC stops monitoring it?63.252.66.251 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The graphic shows positions of the system as long as Gustav is a separate entity (tropical cyclone, subtropical cyclone, extratropical cyclone, remnant low or tropical wave). Right now, it is part of a separate cold front and no longer a distinct system - in other words, dead. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the graphic should show it moving all the way up to St. Louis, where the HPC said that it merged with a frontal boundary. Plasticup T/C 15:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane_Gustav#Vessels_in_the_Industrial_Canal

[edit]

95% of this is irrelevant. It could all be summed up with "two ships broke loose in the storm and crashed into a bridge". How is the ships long, boring, un-cited, and unconfirmed ownership history relevant to the storm? Plasticup T/C 19:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Plasti -- strongly suggest you check your facts and add some citations/references... also you might want to check your global tv and print media for pictures of pileups of barges and vessels along with damaged new flood facilities.

"how is this relevant" to your financial interests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the information is incorrect, I am saying that it is not cited. Your first priority should be to cite the facts with reliable sources. Furthermore the transaction history of "Southern Scrap Recycling" has nothing to do with Hurricane Gustav. It does not even belong in this article. Plasticup T/C 19:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
continued

Incidents and tracking should be separate... as soon as someone seeds something like gustavindustrialcanal or gustavneworleans we'll go with that? Id prefer to keep this seed document to the maritime/environmental/fema/dhs issues. gustav incidents? I'll build that now.

agreed, however the canal needs to emphasize both the major problems (like katrina) and the economic and continuity of operation equally...

There is very little information about the canal's operation in general, this should be added

is there a standard form template for mass incidents like this which can be coppied for a gustav section ?

i expect the court cases and the rest of the issues to be very public this coming week and historically relevant as they will be reorganizing environmental and uscg/fema enforcement next week...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a lot of trouble understanding you. I am going to cut down this section to include only the parts relevant to Hurricane Gustav. For instance, the parts about FEMA's lawsuit and/or "the economic viability of ship recycling" have nothing to do with Hurricane Gustav and do not belong in this article. Plasticup T/C 19:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Plasticup: Agreed. Concentrate on the Meterological, I will continue with the Gustav Incidents section and expect it to be a framework category for the other storms and long-term issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The meteorological is here: Meteorological history of Hurricane Gustav. The main article (Hurricane Gustav) is supposed to provide an overview of everything to do with Hurricane Gustav. Your article (Gustav Incidents) so far contains nothing related to the hurricane that is not already included in this main article. And in the future please do not delete comments from the talk page. Plasticup T/C 20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The solution would be to dump all the gory details into the incidents article, so that portion of the Gustav main article can be shortened to a more reasonable length. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plasticup, bluenorway distortions are even worse than that. The vessels didn't even crash into a bridge. Once the surge broke the moorings, they floated till stopped by the dolphins at the flordia avenue bridge and the vessel at the railway bridge was stopped by barges that got there long before the vessel. Those barges were also stopped by dolphins which did their job. My question is why is bluenorway on this jihad against a company? All over the internet, he has been linking the Wikipedia pages to blog comment entries where he attacks the salavage company. Plus on his website he is devoting a whole section to a complete fabrication and attack on the company. He appears to be a propagandist and disinformation specialist. Visavixen (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. We tried to stop him and clean up his point-of-view pushing, but I guess we missed some. If you want to clean up some of his propaganda I would be very grateful. Plasticup T/C 15:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damage figure

[edit]

Could somebody please tell me whose ass "$20 billion" came out of? I'm close to saying somebody flat out made it up. The highest I've heard is $10 billion and I think that was taking into account lost revenue. I'm very tempted to remove it and put "unknown", and unless someone can provide some factual basis for the $20 billion figure, that's what I'll do. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 04:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - Time.com, first link in a Google news search for "Hurricane Gustav $20 billion". ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 08-Sep-2008: Please realize that, for the area, Hurricane Gustav was a "real hurricane" (not just a flood event), including for the New Orleans area: Gustav combined strong winds (tornadoes) with rain and surge for many hours, so the damage was extensive. It ain't a real hurricane unless a "ship comes ashore and oak trees are down" as appears to be the case in NOLA this time: when news reports had revealed large limbs broken from the oak-tree canopy over St. Charles Avenue, then I realized, "Okay, now, downtown New Orleans had a real hurricane" which finally included intense winds. Some parts of NOLA will be without electricity for a month. As the news article from Time.com (above) indicated, because New Orleans was not totally obliterated (like the Mississippi coastline in Katrina, see: Waveland, MS), the impact of Hurricane Gustav was considered "non-news" but actually caused extensive damage. So yes, the $20 billion figure is being published. Beware the news-driven myths: "Katrina was the storm of New Orleans" (that actually flooded the entire Mississippi/Alabama coast much deeper [90%+] at 20-35 feet deep), and "Hurricane Gustav was a minor storm that didn't flood the Superdome" (but actually caused massive damage). The news-media spin on storms greatly affects perceptions, but in reality, Gustav was massive, and in reality, with Katrina, New Orleans got flooded but Mississippi got flattened. I hope that viewpoint reduces the shock at seeing "$20 billion" about Gustav. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I should note that Hurricane Gustav also flooded the entire Mississippi/Alabama coast at 5-15 ft deep (but not the 20-35 feet deep of Katrina), and a 5-foot flood might ruin some cars or low-lying buildings. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The flood wasn't just any type of flood, it was storm surge, much more powerful than a flood. Although the damage is likely in the billions, $20 billion seems like an absurd over estimate IMO. But from what I've been reading, at least $3 billion was due to oil and what not...I don't know if that really counts towards storm damage. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The $20 billion is the same VERY preliminary estimate from EQECAT that we removed before. Plasticup T/C 04:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

38.112.181.109 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Since we know the $20B is too high, we need to remove it from the website. It says in the opening paragraph that the damge is $7B. I think that's a reasonable estimate, but even that may still be too high. The $20B is blatantly incorrect and should be removed.[reply]

Retirement?

[edit]

With Hurricane Gustav, it should be left as Hurricane Gustav (2008) in the main article because, like Hurricane Ike, Gustav's name hasn't been retired yet. Also there are other Atlantic Hurricanes it can be confused with, which include the 1984, 1990, 1996, and 2002 storms, unlike Hurricane Ike (Ike can still be confused with 2 typhoons in 1981 and 1984, but Some people disagree with it being Hurricane Ike (2008) because there are no other hurricanes named Ike, but there are other storms in be confused with!) There is some dispute about Gustav being left as Hurricane Gustav because they are too certain that the name will be retired, but it can not be retired for unknown reasons, despite it's damage.

No, this storm is currently the most notable storm named Gustav, and based on other storms that were retired, it appears this one will be retired as well. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some would argue that this is an obvious retirement case. There was already a discussion on this, but it was archived. You can view it here. Plasticup T/C 03:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume it's name will be retired now; the name might not be retired after this season for unknown reasons. The name Emily, for example, should have been retired after 2005, but it wasn't, and 1985's Hurricane Juan should have been retired after it's season, but it wasn't. Don't assume the name Gustav will be retired until it is announced by the WMO, okay? There are other Atlantic Hurricanes named Gustav that it can be confused with as well, so until the name is retired, leave "(2008)' with it, okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.174.138 (talk • contribs)

No, Gustav caused more deaths and damage than both of those storms. Gustav is the most notable storm with its name, and so until we get the official word or not, this should have the main page. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get what I am saying; the name Gustav might not be retired and, although it was the most notable "Hurricane Gustav" there ever was, the name might not be retired after this year and it can be confused with other hurricanes of the same name in the Atlantic, so, until the name is retired, if it will be, just leave this one with (2008). It isn't the same as Hurricane Ike, because there are no other hurricanes that Ike can be confused with, but there are with Gustav, so leave Gustav with "(2008)" until the name is retired next Spring, if it will be. If the name isn't retired after this year, it will be used again in 2014, so until word comes out, leave Gustav with "(2008)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.174.138 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We understand what you are saying. It's just that you should not be making the jump from "may not be retired" to "should have the (2008) appendage". I agree that it may not be retired, but there is no hard and fast rule that storms must be retired before they lose the year-identifier. This is by far the most interesting of the Gustavs, and it will probably be retired. Based on these two facts I think that it should be the "main" article. Plasticup T/C 17:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is there a hard and fast rule in the project (per the main project page) that retired storms must have the main article. If this is a rule our project lives by, the wording should be changed from MAY to WILL/SHALL. Semantics are very important. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I still think it should be with the "2008" for now. Gustav can be confused with other Atlantic hurricanes named Gustav, and the WMO has not officialy announced the name was retired yet - you sometimes put down the "main" article with the storm - but you only do this with obvious retirement canidates - and Gustav is not one of them. You are also trying to say it was the most notable Gustav there ever was, but that is just your opinion. True, it did cause a greater damage and death toll than all the other Gustavs' combined, but that is just what you think. The Hurricane Gustav in 2002, for example, destroyed dozens of homes in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Residents there would consider that storm to be the most notable Gustav. Therefore, it should be with the "2008" for now, until it's official retirement is announced next spring, if it will be. With the other storm this year, Hurricane Ike, that storm should not have the "2008" with it because, although the name hasn't been retired, it shouldn't have the "2008" not because it's unlikely Ike won't be retired, but there is no other Hurricane Ike in the Atlantic Basin. If you Googled Hurricane Ike, all of the sources disambiguate to the 2008 hurricane because there is no other Hurricane Ike it can be confused with, so that storm shouldn't have the 2008 with it whether or not it is retired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.204.64 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, with every storm in 2008 exept Ike, leave the "2008" next to all of the storms until the WMO makes their official announcement next spring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.204.64 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, with this Gustav, and all the other storms, wait until the WMO makes their announcement before taking off the "2008" on any storms neccesary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.204.64 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided months ago here, at Talk:2008 Atlantic hurricane season, at Talk:2007 Atlantic hurricane season, and at WT:WPTC that obvious retirement candidates will be given the main article. The members of the Tropical Cyclone project agree that this is such a storm. Plasticup T/C 01:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, about this, Gustav is not an obvious retirement canidate. It is never obvious for any hurricane name to be retired until you get word about it's official retirement by the WMO members. They decide whether or not it will be retired; you can't retire the name; it's the WMO's decision, not yours. Indeed it is likely, but not 100% certain until official word comes out. You should just wait until the WMO gives their speech, so don't be impatient about it, okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.155.43 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that Gustav will be retired. We are saying that Gustav deserves the main article. Plasticup T/C 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but if the name isn't retired after this year, will you add the "2008" then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.155.43 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I wouldn't want to, but there could be a discussion at that time. Plasticup T/C 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will just have to wait until the name is retired next Spring, if it will be, but the WMO might get e-mails about why it wasn't retired if this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.155.43 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, another reason why this storm should be left with (2008) is because other storms, like Fengshen in this year's Pacific typhoon season and Hagupit also in this season have the (2008) next to them, but they are obvious retirement canidates as well. So if this storm has the (2008) taken off of it, why can't the (2008) be taken off in storms like Fengshen and Hagupit? Fengshen killed 1,356 people and did half a billion in damage in the Phillipines. That's an obvious retirement canidate right off the bat. Same with Hagupit; 1 billion in damage and 89 deaths; it's instantly an obvious retirement canidate, so you should do this with other storms as well as Gustav. Until then, I will not agree with Gustav having the (2008) taken off it. It's the same in this year's Atlantic season. Storms like Dolly and Hanna could have the (2008) taken off them. It's been 3 months since Dolly came in, and the damage tolls remain at 1.5 billion, so it was probrably accurate. Hanna's 537 deaths are probrably enough to warrant retirement of that name - even though they were from Haiti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.88 (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have all stated our cases, and unfortunately your view is in the minority. I would try to convince you, but I have already explained myself. This decision will probably not be revisited until the WMO announcement, and even then Gustav may retain the main article. In short, this discussion has reached its conclusion. Plasticup T/C 02:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Gustav has looked as obvious as it was now. The 18 billion in damage was now knocked down to 8.3 billion, with only 4.3 billion in the U.S. I'm not sure if it should still get the MA, because the overall damage is much less than I anticipated. However you have spoken, and have spoken clearly; Gustav will have the main article, and nothing's gonna change it. 76.236.181.2 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that Baton Rouge is barely mentioned?

[edit]

Why is it that Baton Rouge is barely mentioned in this article,even though it substained far more damage than many other Louisiana cities including New Orleans? Why is it that New Orleans gets so much attention for not getting destroyed, and then blowing it up to make it seem as though it did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanPlanet BR (talk • contribs) 02:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find some sources, and fill out the Baton Rouge related information within the article. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is 2008 right on top of the picture

[edit]

I really don't understand why is 2008 right on top of the picture of hurricane gustav Is it because of the controversial retirement case of the name or it must be there because it look bad. And I want to remove it and BE BOLD but it would probably be replaced back on. The luigi kart assasions 5:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I removed it. Even if the storm isn't retired, and even if the article were at Hurricane Gustav (2008), the storm's name is still "Hurricane Gustav" and the infobox should reflect that. The "(2008)" appendage is only included in the name of the wikipedia page, nowhere else. Plasticup T/C 00:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put that there before I made the Retirement? paragraph above. I forgot to remove that afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.88 (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it is a separate argument. The name of the article is something that we decide here, but the name of the storm is "Hurricane Gustav", no matter what. Plasticup T/C 23:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lets stop talking about Gustav's retirement

[edit]

Okay I think we should all stop talking about this ok. Gustav will have the main article. I know you questioned about Dolly and Hanna not having the main article but it not an obvious retirement case and we all had our own opinion so 76 lets all stop talking about Gustav not having the (2008) right by it. The luigi kart assasions 6:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I won't talk about Gustav's retirement, considreing how much you explained about it having it's main article. I have other questions about this storm, however, like the one shown below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.179.230 (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most destructive U.S. hurricanes?

[edit]
Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes[1][2][nb 1]
Rank Hurricane Season Damage
1  3  Katrina 2005 $125 billion
 4  Harvey 2017
3  4  Ian 2022 $113 billion
4  4  Maria 2017 $90 billion
5  4  Helene 2024 $87.9 billion
6  3  Milton 2024 $85 billion
7  4  Ida 2021 $75 billion
8  ET  Sandy 2012 $65 billion
9  4  Irma 2017 $52.1 billion
10  2  Ike 2008 $30 billion

Why isn't Hurricane Gustav on the top 5 most destructive U.S. hurricanes list? It caused 18 billion in damage, so wouldn't that make it go to 5th place on this chart shown below? 76.236.179.230 (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It only caused $15 billion of damage in the United States. Plasticup T/C 04:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plasticup is right. The reason why it's 18 billion is because it's 3 billion from cuba. The luigi kart assasions 9:33, 25 October 2008 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"


Then Hurricane Ike's damage toll is 27 billion on this list, not 31.5 billion, right? After all, 4.5 billion of that was to Cuba. I just thought that it refered to total cost under this condition. I really don't see why the damage is inflated on this list; I think it should be cost at the time. Do you agree? 76.236.179.230 (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, shouldn't Hurricane Katrina's damage toll be 89.6 billion on this list? It says that 81.2 billion was it's damage at the time. Shouldn't 89.6 billion be it's damage inflated for 2008 USD? It says in the main article. 76.236.179.230 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well? Do you agree with the above comment about Katrina's damage? 76.236.187.191 (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question; can you put Hurricane Katrina's damage at 89.6 billion on this list? Well? 99.52.154.156 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could gustav become a Cat 5

[edit]

To me it looks like Gustav became a Cat 5 before making landfall in cuba but we'll update when the post-storm analysis comes in. The luigi kart assasions 6:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Looks like" based on what? Plasticup T/C 04:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plasticup is right in a way. It was only a strong cat. 4 at landfall. Do you have possible evidence to support this? Well? Where did you get that fact? I myself think it's possible it could have been a minimal major hurricane by the time of it's Louisiana landfall, considering that it's pressure was 952 milibars unlike the typical 960 - and because it produced sustained major hurricane force winds at landfall. 76.236.179.230 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC discussions explicitly explained that its low pressure was not causing Cat 3 force winds because the storm's size gave it a weak pressure gradient. Plasticup T/C 22:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying post-storm analysis could upgrade it to one. It's the same thing with Hurricane Ike as well, but i'm not sure if either hurricane will be upgraded in post-storm analysis. I guess you are right though, Gustav had been a 2 at it's landfall, and there is no evidence that Ike could have been a 3 at it's landfall either. 76.235.166.14 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Record

[edit]

The 212 mph wind gusts in Cuba is also quite possibly a world record for observed windspeed. Someone needs to keep an eye out for a source. Potapych (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NHC forecast contradiction

[edit]

Apologies if I'm reading this wrong, or have missed something. Were there two NHC reports on August the 31st maybe? The first quote is in the Introduction. The second quote is in the Louisiana section.

"On August 31, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) predicted with 81% probability that Gustav would remain at Category 3 or above on September 1"

"On August 31, the NHC predicted with 45% probability that Gustav would remain at Category 3 or above on September 1"


Many thanks on the hurricane pages. They are a great help for my hazards A level work.

Heavy wind damage in Louisiana

[edit]

this article states that south-central and central Louisiana had extensive wind damage from hurricane gustav.this contradicts everything i have read about gustav's impact on louisiana.most of what i have read on gustav says that Louisiana sustained only minor damage from gustav because gustav weakened to a catogory 2 storm prior to landfall.Immunize (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy wind damage in Louisiana

[edit]

this article states that south-central and central Louisiana had extensive wind damage from hurricane gustav.this contradicts everything i have read about gustav's impact on louisiana.most of what i have read on gustav says that Louisiana sustained only minor damage from gustav because gustav weakened to a catogory 2 storm prior to landfall.anyone have any thoughts on this?Immunize (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Hurricane Gustav. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hurricane Gustav. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hurricane Gustav. 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) 23:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hurricane Gustav. 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) 13:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Hurricane Gustav. 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) 01:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables update (PDF) (Report). United States National Hurricane Center. January 12, 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 27, 2018. Retrieved January 12, 2018.
  2. ^ "Assessing the U.S. Climate in 2018". National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). 2019-02-06. Retrieved 2019-02-09.


Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Gustav&oldid=1210995664"