Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Irene/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Rainfall info/graphics coming soon for Puerto Rico

I'll be able to add rainfall totals for Puerto Rico later today, once the Southeast RFC rainfall information is placed online by CPC. Looks like some spots, not even counting yesterday, received 10-12 inches of rain there. Referencing will be messy, but necessarily so, until tomorrow. I can throw the corresponding rainfall graphic online tomorrow afternoon after I get to work during the early to mid afternoon. A similar rainfall graphic could be available for the Northeast in 6-7 days. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Track on Map

Irene achieved Category 2 strength on the August 22 before weakening back to a category 1 the next day. The map in this article, however, does not seem to dpict this. Is there a reason behind this? TornadoLGS (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The data in the running best track file has been updated to slightly downgrade Irene during the period in which advisories said it was Category 2. The track map generator uses the latest ATCF RBT file, so those changes are reflected on the map. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene (2011) → Hurricane Irene – This storm will be the indisputable Primary topic by the time this move is closed. None of the other Hurricane Irenes are particularly interesting and Hurricane Irene currently redirects here. Marcus Qwertyus 02:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - I support this move and have been calling for it for a couple of days now, only to be told that because Irene 99 did a bill in damage we shouldnt move it.Jason Rees (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose it becomes the primary topic when it becomes a very obvious retirement candidate or when it gets retired itself. Hurricane Irene (1999) was a billion dollar storm, so yes the other Irene's are interesting. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC) :Weak oppose - There is still a chance that Irene could track eastward and miss most land. Once the cone zeroes in on severe land impacts then move. If it makes major landfall then it is an obvious retirement case, but that is not 100% certain at this point. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Suggest withdrawal. I understand where you're coming from with this, Marcus, but my suggestion would be to withdraw this and renominate in a few days when we can more accurately assess the severity. Jenks24 (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is premature. While it is likely that this storm will become the primary topic, it would be prudent to wait until its final landfall to see the extent of damage from the storm. Remember that Irene '99 was a storm with a rather large impact itself. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Titoxd. BTW, that page shouldn't redirect to this Irene until it is retired. Instead, it should redirect to Tropical Storm Irene, which is the disambiguation page.--12george1 (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. We've made this request way too soon. There is absolutely no gurantee Irene will be anything severe for the east coast as of yet, and it is completely unclear as to whether this Irene will or will not be retired. Also, we need to remember last year we moved Hurricane Karl's article because we thought it was the primary topic amongst the other Karls and it wasn't really that interesting after all, and in the end, it wasn't retired despite causing 5.6 BILLION in damage. We had to move Karl's article back after it wasn't retired, because the average reader on Wikipedia apparently didn't see Karl as so bad after he wasn't retired. Furthermore, the Irene of 1999 did cause a billion dollars in damage. The 1999 Irene was costlier and deadlier than this Irene as of now, so this Irene can't be the primary topic when it isn't even the costliest or deadliest Irene. The 1999 Irene is still the most notable Irene. And it always violates WP:CRYSTAL to move the article out of it being "an obvious retirement candidate", so don't get started on that. Rye998 (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Wait until after Monday, to see if the storm makes landfall and the amount of damage done. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 16:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose till Monday, when we have gotten a scope of the damage on the East Coast. (also per Titoxd) HurricaneFan25 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rationale seems purely based on unverified speculation and recentism. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I'm with Coaterlover1994. I expect this to become a major event, but it's best to wait until after the event.--DeknMike (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Lets give this a little stronger voice, shall we? There is absolutely no reason to do this, to say "THIS WILL BE THE DEFINITIVE IRENE" .. how in the world could you or anybody possibly know that? Maybe people would be better informed if they spent more time on the NOAA website. The only problem is the website is not user friendly at all. People think this is going to be a storm to end all storms, based on sources using incredibly weak backing and history of hurricanes to predict their paths. The NOAA sources are well backed by powerful, definitive data, but if that's not enough to satisfy, they consider their historical error in the calculations(wow). I suggest a new section to the talk page to discuss how we can all get better access to better data. --Azadismind (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
How can criticism of an entire news service be a personal attack? HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It is an attack to the people that work for the news services IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that the damage has rosen to 3.1 billion, it now appears to be the most notable Irene, but unless this hurricane turns out to be catastrophic for the eastern seaboard, I would be on the safe side and leave it with the (2011). As I mentioned earlier, Hurricane Karl of last year caused more damage than this storm has now and we decided to move his article because we thought he was the primary topic but after the RA IV committee it didn't become retired. Therefore it apparently didn't cause enough damage to become retired by Mexico's POV and for that reason, Karl wasn't notable enough to be retired. That's why he's not at the main article anymore. IMO, unless a hurricane turns out to be catastrophic(I mean Katrina, Andrew, Ike, or Wilma catastrophic), or it is the only storm of it's name (Hurricane King), then it shouldn't be at the base name. That keeps in line with WPTC policy, but the big question is, will that also keep in line with Wikipedia policy? This discussion is already getting way out of hand anyways and it would be best to wait until after it affects the eastern seaboard because although it won't violate WP policy to move it out of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, all we're doing here is we're speculating it will cause massive damage on the eastern seaboard. It already did do a lot to the Caribbean but that alone isn't enough. So I suggest this topic stop right now and we wait until after it hits, then we may resume it if necessary. Rye998 (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is a large category 1 hurricane which has impacted most places as a category 1 hurricane (the Bahamas being the main exception). I'm not sure the name will be retired. Its rainfall impact in Puerto Rico was average for a tropical cyclone. Bertha wasn't retired, and it was stronger during its U.S. landfall in 1996. The Irene in 1999 killed around 50 people as a category 1 hurricane in Florida, and the name wasn't retired then. Therefore, let's leave the name alone until we know whether or not it is retired during the spring. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. At this point in time, the primary topic for "Hurricane Irene" is the current storm, as almost everyone searching for "Hurricane Irene" on wikipedia at the present time will be searching for the 2011 storm. If, after the storm is over and the 2011 storm is no longer the primary topic, then the move can be undone. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

*Comment - As I mentioned above, we should not move this article unless it becomes a retired name, or if it really is the primary topic, because just because this article may be viewed a lot of times in the next few weeks doesn't mean it will be for the next few months, even next year, it's often how many readers are on Wikipedia. They read an article, want to know everything about the storm, and a few months later, they get bored and go on to some other topic. If Irene does become retired it will be the primary topic indefinitely, but there is no word about it being retired, it is not clear at all Irene will be retired, and it is not clear it will be the primary topic before that. There are other notable Irene's, particularly the 1999 Irene which killed tons of people and did a billion dollars in damage to Florida. We can't be 100% sure that this Irene is the most commonly known one. How do you know that readers typing in "Hurricane Irene" must be looking for this storm? Are you certain the 1999 Irene isn't being looked up on accident? The 1999 Irene does, to some extent, challenge the notability status of this storm. That's why i'm opposing this move. There were no other notable Karl's in last year's discussion, but apparently he wasn't notable enough to be retired(which pretty much means everything in notability in the end), and accordingly Karl wasn't notable enough to be the primary topic. Think if the other Irene's are notable to some extent before you say "this is unaminously the most notable Irene and it will forever be the primary topic". That will only happen when a name is retired. I will wait to see what the closing admin thinks, and although I won't try to move it back if it is at the base name by then, I will try to advise against it, because it's not entirely clear Irene will be the primary topic before it (may) be retired next spring. Rye998 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Per Wikipedia:Primary Topic: A topic is primary for an ambiguous term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. The great thing about a constantly updated website like Wikipedia is that it can constantly be updated and changed as time goes on. Right now, there is no doubt that the 2011 storm is the primary topic, and thus "Hurricane Irene" should at least redirect to the 2011 storm, independent of whether or not the name is ultimately retired. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This is clearly the primary topic compared to the other Hurricane Irenes, with the evacuations already far more extensive and wide-ranging than for any previous Irene. —Lowellian (reply) 18:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of moving this article now and having to move it back later when it isn't viewed more than any other Irene 2-3 months down the road. Furthermore, if it isn't retired(which seems somewhat unlikely at this point), we'll have to move it back later like we did with Karl last year. It's a waste of our time to have to care so much about the name of the article; if we could get more information with this article and get it to a GA or FA(like Irene 1999), then it would be viewed more than the other Irene's indefinitely. And Rregan007, as I mentioned earlier, the 2011 Irene is NOT "clearly" the primary topic because the 1999 Irene was also a destructive storm and it is also very well-known, to be honest. You can't truly know the 2011 Irene is the most well-known one. The 1999 Irene has also been viewed a lot of times rescently and it does challenge the notability status of Irene 2011, but it is also possible the average reader looking up "Hurricane Irene" may have accidentaly looked up the 1999 Irene when they were really looking for the 2011 storm, or vise versa. The point is, this Irene isn't clearly the primary topic since there are other interesting Irene's and chances are, 1-2 months from now, this page won't be viewed any more often than the other Irene's, at which time we'll have to move it back because it won't be any more "popular" than the other Irene's. Rye998 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition to recentism, I'm also starting to notice some arguing that arbitrary criteria, like most damage or most casualties, should be used to determine which one should be the primary topic. I don't think that there has ever been such consensus for that per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Article guidelines and the other related WikiProjects. Thus, unless these Wikiprojects change their guidelines, moving this page will ultimately be reverted back when cleaning up the recentism later. IMO, such recentism and arbitrary criteria should not overrule the guidelines of a long-established WikiProject. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Most damage or most casualties are not arbitrary. They are a measure of impact on humans, and thus the most sensible criteria to determine primary topic. —Lowellian (reply) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless the hurricane is retired by the WMO, I am fully opposed. --Marcusmax(speak) 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Retirement plays just about everything in notability though... If a storm name isn't retired, readers on Wikipedia get the impression the storm wasn't notable(destructive or deadly) enough for the group of people affected to be retired and accordingly, that storm, regardless of how destructive or deadly it was, isn't notable enough to be the primary topic here on Wikipedia either. That is exactly what happened with Hurricane Karl last year. It would be best to keep this article with it's (2011) disambiguator as of now because it's not entirely clear this storm is the primary topic and it is not clear at all that this name will be retired. I may have said too much... Rye998 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Let's not pull a Karl again. If the storm get's not retired (referrring to Rye's arguments) then probably it wasn't notable enough to warrant a retirement. Only storms and 'canes with notably devastating effects are getting retired. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned above, it is not clear it will be the primary topic until it is retired per project policy. And there is confusion between this Irene and the 1999 storm which caused a billion dollars of damage and ~18 deaths in the U.S. itself(BTW Matthiasb, I changed the redirect you made to the talk page of the 2010 Karl). There is no guarantee this Irene will forever be the most well-known one since there are other interesting Irene's and it is not clear at all this storm will become retired. Until there (may) be word of it next spring we should be on the safe side and keep it with it's (2011) disambiguator. The bottom line is, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that something is the primary topic only if it will be forever more likely to be searched up than the other topics. There is confusion with this Irene and the 1999 Irene and both have been sarched up a lot of times, and to a lesser extent the 1981 and 2005 storms. Because this Irene isn't undoubtedly the most well-known Irene, we should leave it with it's (2011) until there is word of it's retirement because as of now, it isn't clear this is the primary topic. Rye998 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - Striking my previous comments, I've changed my mind now. Damages are now 10.1 billion. That's enough for me to see her as the clear primary topic; I didn't think she would be this bad, so now I'm supporting the move to the main article. Rye998 (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally do believe this storm is the primary topic, but it is not clear this name will be retired, and although I support this move, Karl of last year was also moved before we got word from the WMO and he wasn't retired, so we had to move him back. If we move this article now and it isn't retired next Spring, we will have to move Irene back again because it by then won't be any more special than the other Irene's and it won't get any more page views either. If recentism is taken into account, this Irene has been viewed many more times than the other Irene's resently, but that doesn't mean it will 3-4 months down the road. For now though, I do support the primary topic status of this hurricane. Rye998 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Public Transportation "shutdown" section

Since Transportation agencies such as Greyhound, Amtrak, including the Northeast Corridor, New Jersey Transit bus and rail service, MTA in New York, including the New York City Subway being shut down all weekend, there needs to be a separate section in this article regarding all service disruptions throughout the Northeast as this hurricane will hit. Mfs1013 (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Link? Be bold and add it yourself. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

http://mta.info/ --Trulystand700 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Connecticut

Does anyone have time to add CT? It seems to be right in the track, governor issued emergency order, no mention yet of CT anywhere in article. I may have time to help tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I could add some stuff later today. I have to get supplies and get stuff at the house ready for now though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur, the impact on CT was extraordinary. I think it would be fair to include any state that delcared a state of emergency. User:Nikkywikky321 —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

The First Selectman of Fairfield also declared a state of emergency on the 26th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.226.170 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Satellite Photo

For unexplained reason(s), someone keeps re-adding old and irrelevant versions of Irene to the Satellite Photo area of the infobox. Doing so is neither helpful nor does it keep the article up to date. To whomever is doing it, can you shed some light on why? Lhb1239 (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Current Storm Information

Does the section titled Current Storm Information fit in as encyclopedic content? It seems more like a news article then an encyclopedia article... Should it be removed? Dusty777 (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally wouldnt mind getting rid of it, but i know other project members will disagree with me.Jason Rees (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
All current event articles blur the line between encyclopedic information and news. However, this section is useful because it forwards readers who come seeking for that information (which is a rather large portion of the readership) with reliably-sourced current updates. Most importantly, it forwards readers to the official sources of data. If we remove the section, somebody else will complain about it not being there, so I don't see how it would help the encyclopedia to remove it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it is encyclopedic to tell people the latest information about Irene. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
We should be encouraging people to both read and contribute to our sister project, Wikinews. I think it helps to have a section entitled "Current storm information"... but the section should just say "For the latest information and updates on the Hurricane, please visit our sister project: Wikinews" (with perhaps a more specific link). Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
What we certainly don't want, IMO, is an opening sentence that reads, "Hurricane Irene is an active 2011 North Atlantic tropical cyclone that will pass along the East Coast of the United States, including the New York metropolitan area, and Atlantic Canada." This is US-centric, speculative, WP:notnews-ish etc etc, and downplays the effect the hurricane has had elsewhere. I changed it once, and have changed a similar version that cropped up just now ("Hurricane Irene is an active 2011 North Atlantic tropical cyclone that currently poses a major threat to the United States East Coast and Atlantic Canada. "). I feel that "Hurricane Irene is an active 2011 North Atlantic tropical cyclone, the ninth named storm, first hurricane, and first major hurricane of the 2011 season." makes a much better first sentence, for the time being at least. Ericoides (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
But such a laundry list of statistics makes everyone unhappy: it doesn't explain the reason for the current interest in the storm, nor the historical damage that the storm produced already. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Er, that sentence is not the entire article. What you want can come, oh I don't know, in the second, third, fourth etc sentence. But, as an encyclopedic entity, the storm has first to be defined (cf. our Tree article, which begins "A tree is a perennial woody plant.") something my version does quite satisfactorily without recourse to speculation. And to your desire for a description of "the historical damage that the storm produced already", in my comment above I stated that to open with a focus on the US "downplays the effect the hurricane has had elsewhere". As for your claim that this would "make everyone unhappy", have you any evidence to back that up? Ericoides (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article is the most important part of the lede, though, and it needs to establish notability for the rest of the article. In fact, something like Hurricane Irene is an active Atlantic hurricane that has significantly affected multiple areas in the Caribbean Sea, and is currently threatening the East Coast of the United States and Atlantic Canada. would accomplish both purposes while satisfying all of your concerns. The laundry list of meteorological statistics is not recommended due to multiple complaints over the years, particularly in content review areas such as WP:FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much better. Re the laundry list, I appreciate that info. I had no idea it was such a bone of contention. Ericoides (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. The first sentence is critical, more so, if this is going to be a reliable source it needs to be grounded in fact, not speculation. Designations that give as CLEAR a picture as possible (such as "the NINTH irene..") rather than something that leads you to "THE DEFINITIVE IRENE THAT WILL RAVAGE THE EAST COAST". see the difference?

d we want wiki to be responsible for people's lives themselves? or just some? Herp Derp (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a developing section helps us edit during the event and capture information as it happens. We can worry about the encyclopedic integrity in the weeks after it's over.--DeknMike (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how the discussion is kinda heating up some, i thought for a while about it and cam up with a kind of middle of the road idea. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says that: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources." Seeing as Irene is a breaking news story, maybe we can move all the current event information to Wikinews? Would this be an easy alternative, rather then just deleting the section from the article? Dusty777 (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Reuse of name "Irene"

Given that the 1999 version of Hurricane Irene caused $800M worth of damage, why was this name not retired? Maybe that should be mentioned in this article since many remember this name from the previous incident. 216.64.156.5 (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is trivia. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No one knows either as it isnt the sorta stuff NHC/WMO give out.Jason Rees (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
This is WP:FORUM. Please keep any further discussion to Hurricane Wiki. Thank you. Rye998 (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
...or any other dedicated hurricane/weather forums and pages. Darren23Edits|Mail 05:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
For goodness sake, relax will you. It's a reasonable question. Deterence Talk 06:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree it was a reasonable question that was somewhat related to WP. However, we did not know why it was not reitred. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
If you're asking that, you might as well ask why Irene is used in the first place; Irene means peace… Besdomny (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No more off-topic discusson, please. If you have any further comments, put them on hurricane Wiki, ect. Rye998 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I love it when people say "please" at the end of telling editors to STFU. Just kidding - it's pathetic. Why did you feel the need to make that comment? Deterence Talk 06:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Effects on sports?

Does this really bear mentioning? This is notable only to people who give a rodent's hindquarters about sports. We may as well mention all the picnics, mime juggling events and games of pat-a-cake the hurricane has interrupted. Is this remotely noteworthy? 71.79.254.86 (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this also gives a scope of Hurricane Irene's effects, IMO. HurricaneFan25 14:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm in between you two, I think it's worth mentioning but not worthy of it's own section/heading(I'm not really a wiki editor so I don't no the proper terminology). Same goes for the 'Effects on chruch services' section, if we(you guys I should say) are gonna give those two topics there own sections you might as well make sections for effects on: Businesses, Hospitals, Community Centers etc., then of course you'd just be clogging the article up. My opinion is that these things are relevant enough to be mentioned but not enough to have there own sections, and instead should be put into the article where they are warranted. 24.102.139.203 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving "Current Storm Information" section to near the top of the article as a public service due to extremely deadly nature of storm

This information should be more readily accessible to the public in such an article, not buried so deeply-- at least during the active phase of the storm.

This information could literally save lives while the storm is still active, which is why it should be near the top of the article (just below the opening section) until the storm is no longer a current event. This is a common practice in Wikipedia for active (or immediately pending) natural disasters.

69.171.160.28 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Also regarding newly added section on why "Category One" status, or wind speed, is NOT the reason why the storm is dangerous--

This is lifesaving information-- since windspeed, or Category One status, is not why this storm is deadly, but rather it's the large area of the storm, which will drive more water onshore and also create more rain and sustained winds over time-- SO PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE.

69.171.160.28 (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, the info you want to draw attention to is in a section named Current storm information, and it's only two paragraphs long. It really doesn't need it's own header. OptimumPx (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source! The header you use is also way too long. You have been warned by a user on your talk page about edit warring. Please read that page! Thanks! 13:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes you can work within Wikipedias rules to make the article more lifesaving-- Please stop being so nit-picky. It's just a section title, which you could have fixed (shortened and simply made more clear) rather than reverting & playing Wikipedia like a chess-game. YES YOU CAN HAVE A SECTION HEADER THERE AND STILL FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA RULES-- AND THEREBY SAVE MORE LIVES.

Yes you can do both (make the article more lifesaving and follow Wikipedia rules) instead of being narrowly nit-picky when someones life might be saved by a more effective title.

69.171.160.28 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, just listen! You are edit warring, which means you may be blocked soon. The section title is too long, and that is why we are reverting you. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style, the current section title is okay. Saving lives, yes, is important, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news source, and so get your news from a "real" news source like CNN! HurricaneFan25 14:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the title could save lives (if it was shorter and more clear). Then why don't you IMPROVE & SHORTEN THE TITLE rather than remove it.

69.171.160.28 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You said:

Saving lives, yes, is important, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news source...

Consider: Someone who thinks it's only a Category One storm will read a good title on that section and LIVE. It doesn't matter if it's only Wikipedia.

Also consider (again)--

Yes you can work within Wikipedias rules to make the article more lifesaving--

So do it! It's just a title that needs to be shortened and made more clear AND IT WILL SAVE LIVES TOO. So don't worry if we are CNN or Wikipedia. ANYTIME YOU CAN FOLLOW THE RULES AND SAVE LIVES, DO IT.

69.171.160.28 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is important to many people, it's not and has never been a primary news source. For a rapidly changing and life threatening event like a hurricane people should not be relying on this article to save their lives. They should be turning to sources like CNN, The Weather Channel, or their local authorities.
Besides, like I said before, the section the info is currently in is two paragraphs long. It's not hard to find in the slightest, title or no title. OptimumPx (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
True - one way is to make the mandatory evacuations in this article more clear. Currently they're nested in between bits of the preparations. But still, the Manual of Style should still be followed, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper might be something you want to read. HurricaneFan25 14:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No, WP is an encyclopedia not a public service announcement. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Consensus hasn't been reached...it seems to be leading towards the idea that not only is the title too long (new version included), but that it isn't even necessary for for there to be a separate title aside from the current section. OptimumPx (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I really doubt Wikipedia could save lives; many people would probably check a weather or local/national news websites to get the latest on Irene, and not Wikipedia. However, I am fine with the "Current storm information" section being near the top of the page, but I don't like the idea of that section being split.--12george1 (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Single US fatality

Is this the man reported to have died on in North Carolina on the 25th preparing for the storm? If so, I question whether a man probably killed in some sort of accident well before the storm actually arrived should really be included in the death toll.--24.147.62.26 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It will likely be counted as indirect. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Death caused by heart attack by the way.--24.147.62.26 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On the link for deaths, one of them was "A motorist was killed when he lost control of his car on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Carbon County, skidded over an enbankment and hit a tree. State officials attributed the accident to the storm." I thought that was indirect, am I right or should it be changed? 69.116.35.243 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing hurricane warning info for Quebec

I removed the hurricane warning for locations in Quebec in the Current storm information section because it is simply not in the current Canadian forecast (issued at 8:50 AM ADT; 7:50 EDT). Right now, the only public warning talk about heavy winds (50-100 km/h) and rainfall (up to 100 mm). Bouchecl (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Trivia cleanup

Some trivia cleanup is needed-- I've removed mention of concerts and street fair cancellations, and now we see church service and sports cancellations-- this info is so d'oh and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. Info here should endure past the event, and this kind of info is recentism and won't endure in an encyclopedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Effects on sports

Many sports teams were forced to re-schedule their games. The Boston Red Sox and Philadelphia Phillies rescheduled their Sunday, August 28 games against the Oakland Athletics and the Florida Marlins, respectively, for day-night doubleheaders on August 27.[1] The Philadelphia Phillies subsequently rescheduled their switched night game to September 15. The Saturday and Sunday games between the New York Mets and Atlanta Braves were postponed. The Baltimore Orioles postponed their scheduled Saturday, August 27 day-night doubleheader against the New York Yankees.[2] The New York Giants postponed their August 27 preseason game against the New York Jets to August 29.[3] The Barclays tournament will be shortened to 54 holes.[4] Three Major League Soccer (MLS) games were postponed.[5] The New Haven Open at Yale has been postponed for four hours.[6]

It needs to condensed, I personally think it is useful information. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I moved this portion here because it probably could be condensed to something useful, but as it stands, it's just too much d'oh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I see, I think it should mention the number of games cancelled, but not mention the teams that were scheduled to play.YE Pacific Hurricane 15:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
That sort of thing (widespread cancellations of church services, concerts, sports events, etc) is probably best added after the fact, when it can all be placed in context, avoiding NOTNEWS, and consolidating to something encyclopedic rather than recentism and newsy-ness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Similar problem here:

By late August 25, there were 677 flight cancellations and 3,691 delays in North America, according to FlightStats.com. Numerous airlines established special change fee waiver policies for the hurricane.[7]

The external jump to flightstats.com needs to be removed, and this kind of info is news, not encyclopedic-- we need a general statement about widespread interruption of services, not specific numbers that are recentism and NOTNEWS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I condensed the sports section. Is it more encyclopedic? YE Pacific Hurricane 15:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

External links in body of article

I've removed external links from the body of the article. While they were links to official sites, they were in entirely the wrong place, and should be placed in the External Links section at the bottom of the article. WP:ELPOINTS is pretty clear on this. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELPOINTS states that external links are not "normally" used within an article, it doesn't completely prohibit external links from being used within an article. Just saying..... Lhb1239 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It says that some exceptions should be made from time-to-time, but those exceptions are copyright-based and hardly ever come up in articles. This one in particular just contains external links that can easily be included in the EL section at the bottom, without the reader losing any information. At present, they interrupt the reader's flow. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Current storm info section

I've also moved the large colourful banner to the bottom of the article, out of the way. It's useful but we don't need it as a banner - again, it interrupts the flow of the article. We're not a newspaper or a public information site, so we should be sticking to the manual of style here, I think. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored this section to where it has been for a considerable amount of time. I don't agree that it should be at the bottom of the article, nor do I agree that it interrupts the flow of the article. If this were not a constantly changing article due to the nature of the storm itself, I would agree. As it is, it is highly informative and completely relevant. This storm has sizeable, inherent danger attached to it and while the encyclopedia arm of Wikimedia is not a news service, having the current information where it is could save lives. I vote for keeping it where it is until Irene is no longer a threat. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Wikipedia is not a news service. We didn't do this for Libya, or the 7/7 bombings, or any of the other myriad storms and emergencies that happen worldwide every day. It sets a dangerous precedent. I appreciate that you want to save lives, but we're not here to act as a news service, and people are much better getting their information from the meteorological services or their respective governments, rather than having it given to them third- or second- hand on a website written by amateurs, where the information can be vandalised or be out of date - and potentially harm more people than it helps. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No, "we" didn't do this in the other situations you mentioned, however, Hurricane Irene has the potential to create major havoc as well a cause loss of life. That alone, in my opinion, makes this a completely different situation. Wikipedia is not a news service but it is one of the first things to come up when doing a search for just about anything searchable via various internet search engines. That being said, I think it's reasonable that people wanting information quickly on Irene may very well choose Wikipedia - with that in mind, shouldn't an exception be made and "policy" be put aside in this case? The circumstances surrounding this storm are unique and unprecendented to say the least -- why shouldn't Wikipedia want to choose to do the right thing here rather than stick to the Manual of Style and policy? Lhb1239 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, would you mind fixing the article - you've just duplicated the section, rather than moving it. It now appears at the top and the bottom of the article, with identical content. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if you'd stop the battleground mentality and the edit-warring behavior long enough to allow me to fix it, I might be able to take care of that before you've already changed it back to your preferred version (without discussing here first, I might add). I recognize that you are an administrator, however, I think that in this particular situation, your judgement and assessment of the situation is incorrect. Let's allow other editors (who have been working on this article for a while) to comment, okay? Consensus on this would probably be a good idea. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologise, I didn't see your edit - I just saw that the text had been duplicated, so I removed it. I also didn't see this topic until after I'd fixed the page - I didn't intend to edit war. My being an administrator doesn't impact on the article either, thankfully - your opinion is as important as mine, and I don't want you to think there's any sort of 'rank' system or anything similar. Your idea re:consensus is a good one, however, rather than just get input from folks here - who are going to tend to be biased towards keeping it, seeing as they're likely to be in the affected areas, I've asked a few people from the manual of style to come and give their input. I'm positive that we had a discussion on this around the time of Hurricane Katrina, and again near the Asian tsunami and the earthquake in Bam. I'll see if I can dig up those discussions too, they might give some insight. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Impact article needed?

With Obama getting involved and millions of people being affected by this hurricane I feel that an article about Irene's impact is needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit, Knowledgekid87. This storm will get lots of new information in the coming days about the extent of destruction, and if we get too much info, then we can split it. As of now, I actually think it's a stub... --Rye998 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, let it build then split it. We may need a dozen or more regional sub-articles called Effects of Hurricane Irene in the following:
  • Lesser Antilles
  • Greater Antilles
  • The Bahamas
  • Florida (debatable?)
  • South Carolina (debatable?)
  • North Carolina
  • Virginia
  • Maryland and Washington, D.C.
  • Delaware
  • Pennsylvania
  • New Jersey
  • New York (perhaps Upstate New York and New York City area)
  • Connecticut
  • Rhode Island
  • Massachusetts
  • Northern New England (ME, NH and VT, probably too little coverage for independent articles)
  • Canada
  • Elsewhere later? (i.e. Iceland, Greenland, even Europe itself if it sustains itself)
CrazyC83 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
That seems like far too many, and I'm annoyed you didn't include New Jersey! :P We should split when a section gets too long. North Carolina should probably be first. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot that, also forgot Delaware! Florida and South Carolina, if warranted, would be more preps than anything, impact was quite minor in those two states. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We only really need to reference Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, Hispaniola, and almost every east coast state from North Carolina upward. Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina didn't get anything from Irene except some rainfall from her outer rainbands. Rye998 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It really only needs to be split up if the section gets too long to the point that it would stand alone as a full article. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
This is Hurricane Isabel all over again. But wait till it dies before creating sub-articles. 22:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
There is absolutely no justification for creating two dozen different articles to describe the effects of one storm. This question can be re-examined if the worst-case apocalyptic scenarios play-out, (in which case, a split along the lines of those used for the Hurricane Katrina article would be more appropriate rather than a split based on political geography), but, until then, this suggestion is just ridiculous. Deterence Talk 00:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that there isn't any justification. Why does a storm have to be as you said, "apocalyptic" to have subarticles. If the main article is too big or is better off being split, then it should be split. There's no rules saying an article has to be apocalyptic or "Katrinalike" to have subarticles. Can we not focus on damage here but on the amount of content? Darren23Edits|Mail 00:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thus far, Irene is almost entirely unremarkable except to the OTT extent that public officials have jumped onto the cover-their-own-arses bandwagon by ordering mandatory evacuations. Does that REALLY need two dozen articles? Deterence Talk 01:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
We do not need dozens of sub articles for Irene, there is really no precedent for such an undertaking (and for a category 1 storm none the less). If there were to be sub articles it could be like, 1 for the Bahamas, 1 for Puerto Rico and 1 for North America. but seriously, a sub article for every state...wow that is just plain overkill. --Marcusmax(speak) 01:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
A dozen articles is unmanageable. We tried that for Katrina, and what ended up happening is that some of the articles were never updated. I oppose such a proposal. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A) I never suggested 1 for every state. But, if there is a lot of data from the states, some will eventually get split. B) Stop caring about the Category of the storm. It is only about how much damage and how much data we're gonna have. C) So what if it's unremarkable. It is necessary to split a large article into subarticles. D) It is not unremarkable by any means. It caused lots of damage in the Bahamas and Caribbean. We should stop our bias on decisions and think about the problem of having too much data, and the Wikipedia solution is Splitting. Darren23Edits|Mail 01:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I truly can't believe I'm reading comments like "unremarkable" and "a category 1 storm none the less". (1) It hasn't been a cat one for the entire hurricane cycle of the storm, (2) a cat 1 hurricane impacting such densely populated areas as WA DC, Philadelphia, and NYC hasn't been seen in forever, (3) a cat 1 hurricane in the above listed densely populated areas is likely to be extremely significant once it's all over, and (4) the storm's not over yet so let's not discount it so early on. Very short-sighted comments, if you ask me (which no one did, but since I've been monitoring the storm since it left the West African coast as well as this article since it was begun, I think I have a enough of a buy-in to comment). Lhb1239 (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't take my words out of context, I already suggested a separate article for the Bahamas which would mean I know full well the damage done there. --Marcusmax(speak) 01:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't take your words out of context, I kept them in context. You were diminishing the impact of this storm with what you said. If that isn't what you meant, fine -- say that. But what you wrote certainly indicates you were dismissing this as just a cat 1 storm that doesn't deserve much attention or extra effort. And -- no need to get huffy (that's what you last post here indicates). I wasn't picking on you specifically, but the attitude(s) I'm seeing. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
A category 1 storm does deserve some attention. A category 1 storm does not deserve two dozen Wikipedia articles with a State-by-State account of every dustbin that was blown over. Deterence Talk 02:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Tell me 1 good reason why a large Category 1 landfalling hurricane doesn't deserve subarticles, if necessary? Tell me 1 good reason why. Or is it this narrow-mindedness plaguing people? Seriously. Don't judge a storm by its category, as Tropical Storm Allison proved otherwise. Darren23Edits|Mail 03:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake. The D-day landings at Normandy doesn't have two dozen sub-articles, and that was an unparalleled event. In stark contrast, dozens of hurricanes occur every year. Deterence Talk 03:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me point out some more things:
  • I'm not advocating for dozens of subarticles. I'm only advocating for the three or five which might eventually be needed.
  • Dozens of hurricanes occur every year. Not every year experiences a US hurricane landfall. Not every year experiences a wide-impact hurricane.
  • There's no difference between a Category 1 and a Category 3 doing the same amount of damage
  • This should explain everything else: WP:SPLIT.
Now, if you want to argue against splitting a large article, then that's just craziness. Now, I understand if it was a weak and small landfalling storm with little data on impact, like Hurricane Hanna (2008), but doing the same standard for this storm is stupid. Darren23Edits|Mail 03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Splitting this article is most definietely necessary, but like CrazyC83 said, after building it up. It's going on 90KB now, so eventually the information will need to be split into its own respective sections. Also, would it be a little premature to add a {{Very long|date=August 2011}} to the top? - Bkid Talk/Contribs 05:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Once the storm is over there will be scope for a lot of editing, much of it tidying up, which should reduce the size of the article. That's no criticism of what's there now, it's just that it's all happening very rapidly without much thought of overall structure. I wouldn't worry about size now. Let's see what we have in a weeks time. No need to rush. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I agree once this is over, we should make a gem out of them all. But not now. A meteorological history article will be warranted too probably. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi Locking

--Trulystand700 (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you make the request? I'm not seeing it on the request page, and nothing is shown in the request log... Inks.LWC (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are asking for with this {{Edit semi-protected}} request.[1] The page was in fact semi-protected a few minutes later.[2]Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hysteria Regarding the Hurricane

There is a lot of fear from this category 1 hurricane. Should that we covered in the topic.[8] DrSultan85 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We won't write any fears or rumors that Irene will be catastrophic for the east coast. We will try our best to update this article as frequently as possible, but let's not get off-topic here. --Rye998 (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you make a good point here. Although no natural phenomenon should be taken lightly I think it would be an interesting addition (if any external sources exist) about the reaction to hurricane Irene vs other hurricanes. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I guess I'll wait on this, until the after the hurricane is over and there are relevant resources. DrSultan85 (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There was an article in the Christian Science Monitor earlier on this very topic if you need a source, I can't find the link now though. --Marcusmax(speak) 00:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe you're referring to this article? -96.228.121.71 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that article, I'm going to look for a couple of more articles and and a subsection probably sometime next week, unless someones goes ahead and creates it CapMan07008 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Remember this was a Cat 3, trending toward a 4 when it targeted NC Outer Banks, but then fell apart and turned out to sea. If it had kept on Thursday's path, this would have created widespread destruction, being a cat 2+ over Hampton Roads and DC, a cat 1 or 2 over NYC and a Cat 1 in Boston. That scenario would have crippled the US economy for months. We were fortunate.--DeknMike (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I Agree I think this was a higher cat hurricane. Even as a cat 1 hurricane it did a lot of damage. I think we can drop this discussion now. CapMan07008 (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

See also...

Do we really need to reference all those precedent hurricanes in the see also section? I personally think it's unnecessary. Rye998 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

See also is meant for relevant articles, which all of those are. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Isabel is really not even similar to Irene, not sure that is necessary. --Marcusmax(speak) 00:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add them after the hurricane? GregX4 (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to previous post

Response to previous post by Special:Contributions/97.87.29.188 regarding hurricane intensity and the effects of global warming / climate change ... A Guide to Hurricanes Fay, Gustav, Hanna, Ike: What's next for the U.S.? What causes nature's destructive storms? How do scientists study and predict them? How are they linked to global warming? (from September 5, 2008); per ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Irene_(2011)&diff=447029264&oldid=447027290 previous posting today ... 99.181.128.109 (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another pointless example of if we blame global warming often enough, people will have to believe in it. Deterence Talk 00:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Deterence, Irene has nothing to do with global warming. There is nothing unusual about a hurricane striking North Carolina and heading northward into the Mid-Atlantic or New England.--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, please take this discussion to some dedicated forum or discussion. Wikipedia is not a forum! Darren23Edits|Mail 00:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
It is a Scientific American citation on hurricanes. 99.119.130.16 (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
This was the previous section titled "Resource" from internal wp link above ...
In this age of fear in the scientific community, WP:RSs claiming that Global Warming is responsible for just about anything won't be in short supply. Regardless, blaming the existence of Hurricane Irene on Global Warming is a stretch, even for the zealots. Deterence Talk 09:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add http://wiki.crisiscommons.org/wiki/Hurricane_Irene and http://crisislanding.appspot.com/ and http://irenerecoverymap.com/ Also just in case http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/tracking/at201109.html isn't already in there somewhere. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)  Done 76.254.20.205 (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Was there a hurricane in New York City?

Swath of Hurricane Irene

The National Hurricane Center "swath" shows hurricane force winds in New York City, but Weather Underground's cumulative wind map does not. Is the former based on gusts and the latter based on sustained winds? 76.254.20.205 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That is just based on estimates through wind dimensions, not statistics. I don't think NYC had hurricane conditions. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ten old nuclear reactors in path of storm?

Given the recent difficulties the Japanese nuclear reactors had with a tsunami, I'm wondering whether we should try to link to reports from some of them shown on http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html 76.254.20.205 (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't speculate in the article, but it's worth watching for news about them, and reporting if anything bad happens. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
[3] is in sort-by-date order. It looks like there's been at least one "unusual event"[4] and the oldest nuclear reactor was shut down as a precaution.[5]. I don't know how fast http://nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/ is updated. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Movie

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/27/landfall/ is a good animation. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

NC landfall

Why does this just link to Outer Banks, which is an article about a 200-mile stretch. Can't we pinpoint the landfall a little better.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean in this article or in the 2011 AHS#Season effects section? Darren23Edits|Mail 13:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I mean Outer Banks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The nearest major feature nearest the landfall was Cape Lookout. Given the inherent fuzziness in pinpointing the landfall "near Cape Lookout" may be the closest we should get; it would certainly be a smaller area than the entire Outer Banks. --Jayron32 04:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Swath of Hurricane Irene

The image has been updated by the NHC to show Tropical storm winds in central and northern Maine now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job! It is necessary because the way Irene brushed USA is kinda rare. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fatalities

I am going to look them all up and the circumstances and post them here. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC). Here is the source for every death. It is not original research, BTW. 69.116.35.243 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

CrazyC83 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC) + 69.116.35.243 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourced article has only 44 deaths - Please correct list. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles will vary. The best number is a combination of totals. CrazyC83 (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Sourced article has every death on here except two, the one in Canada, and the death while putting up plywood. For some reason the article has every country except Canada. The plywood death is not counted on the source because the death was before Irene made landfall in the US, and they did not count it.69.116.35.243 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a conflict with the source used and what is displayed in the article. (44 vs. 45). If 45 is the correct death total, then we need the source for verifiability (WP:V). A tag has been placed on the source. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Direct vs. Indirect Resolution

The absence of clear guidelines on what delineates direct vs indirect — or why this distinction is even important to mention — is exactly my point here. So the "indirect" attribution is specifically what I referred to as original research here. Causal relationship (as opposed to mere coincidental connection) between some of the deaths mentioned in press and Hurricane Irene is already stretched enough, so let's not make it worse here by adding an extra level of fantasy. So I suggest to stop doing the "indirect" counting, and just stick to the cited sources (which don't make a direct/indirect attribution). cherkash (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree to doing away with the word indirect. It should be up to the reader, not the author to decide direct vs indirect. 69.116.35.243 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The TCR, or earlier NHC estimates, will clearly delineate it. Sometimes it is black and white, sometimes there is a grey area. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing

I also want to keep track of those that are missing

There are 7 missing in the Dominican Republic Now, the ABC source is providing the stories behind the deaths for DR and Haiti. So if the 7 missing are found dead, I will know without having to use Google Translate.

Also, the citation for the fatalities in the USA also says one missing in Vermont 69.116.35.243 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Too many images in too small area

Ossining station after the storm.
Storm surge from Hurricane Irene in Greenwich, Connecticut

OK, I think I have a solution to this problem. Is the suggestion to the right workable? It can take the parameter "height" and "width" to change the size of the area. There is no limit to how many thumbs can be put in the list. -- とある白い猫 chi? 02:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Storm track image

Is there a reason that the image does not include the point at which the storm formed? It's cropped to the west of the formation point, and I'm unaware of any other storm track image being like that. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Residual floods

There are currently 143 flooded gauge locations[6] down from 148 a few hours ago. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Hurricane Irene buoy and radar data.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hurricane Irene buoy and radar data.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Old Blenheim Bridge destruction ... iffy sourcing?

The report that the Old Blenheim Bridge was swept away by the floodwaters of Schoharie Creek seems a little iffy to me. CNN or whoever reported that some woman tweeted that she had read about that happening ... I cannot find any other media coverage confirming that this actually happened. I think we should at least say that it was reported destroyed.

Interestingly enough, I am heading up into the Catskills tomorrow ... hopefully I can take some pictures (I doubt they will be pretty ones).Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Take plenty of pictures though. There might by many many articles on rivers, communities, buildings, streets etc etc which were affected by the storm and perhaps deserve some images later on if that will warrant any mentioning in their respective articles. Have a good travel and stay safe. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I have put that trip off till tomorrow. In the meantime I got a nice pic of the tracks of the Port Jervis Line all twisted up. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't able to get into the severely afflicted areas (surprise!) but I did get some pics from the southern Catskills, which are in the appropriate Commons category. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why the NHC predicted a stronger storm and why it didn't came

James Franklin in The New York Times. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The NHC is the official source for the intensity of tropical cyclones and we follow it, no matter what other news agencies say. Also, please do not start discussions not meant to improve or maintain the article. If you have speculations about anything with Hurricane Irene, they may be placed on Hurricane Wiki. Rye998 (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it off topic, it is a source that could be potentially utilized in the article. This source uses quotes and information from the NHC to reach an independent conclusion, there is nothing wrong with that. Especially since some people are probably working on a media response section. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I was saying it was a little off-topic because we don't need to speculate why it didn't become 125-135 mph earlier. However, the impact section isn't quite long enough to stand as it's own article. After we get further information on what happened, we can split it into it's own section. Will we name the article "effects of Hurricane Irene in New Jersey/NC" or just "effects of Hurricane Irene across the eastern United States?" I think the latter is a better title for a sub-article on this storm, in addition to something like "effects of Hurricane Irene in the Caribbean", ect. It struck only a few days ago, so getting all the pieces together will take quite some time. Rye998 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe mention some meteorological factors preventing strengthening (provided RS's): dry air and shear to the west, expansion of an already large storm undergoing incomplete EWRC, warmest waters at outer edges due to upwelling during slow forward speed, etc. ~AH1 (discuss!) 17:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
@Rye: Sorry to say this, but your bashing of people is getting annoying. Worse: it shows that you even didn't read what I have linked. Coincidently Mr. Franklin is the most senior hurricane expert at the NHC and and any statements by him, especially in a high-profile, world-wide respected newspaper like The New York Times, are absolutely on-topic. He explained what made the NHC fail with their intensity forecast though still not explaining why Irene did not complete the eyewall replacement cycle. That is on-topic, and it should be included in the article. Thanks for your input and now let people who are serious with this article get back to work. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Matthiasb any statements made in a newspaper by weather figures of the RSMC's like James Franklin explaining where the NHC went wrong should be included.Jason Rees (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is a source explaining why it didn't become a C4, then that would be mentioned in the MH section somewhere, but one thing that is notable about Irene is it has the third lowest pressure from any hurricane that didn't exceed C3(behind Ione with 938 and Isidore with 934). I just found that as I was searching the best track. Rye998 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Move protect?

Why is this article move protected? The requested move above hasn't reached consensus yet, so why is it protected from being moved(or kept) at the main article? Rye998 (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Because there was page move vandalism by September 1967 just after 22:00 UTC on August 28.
69.116.35.243 (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it; CB told me what happened earlier on IRC. Moving on... Rye998 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Irene may NOT be finished?

I'm looking at the OPC graphic and it remains a fairly intense system off of Labrador now. Since it appears it will not become something else and will remain a separate feature for a while, it is possible we may have to cover places like Iceland as well if it intensifies, and storms in that area are known to. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well seeing on how the sorm's pressure was so low the NHC had stated that they did not expect the storm to weaken into a renment low but maintain wind speeds of 45MPH to Greenland, from there lies the gray cloud and it should be mentioned in this article any after effects Post tropical Irene has. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tornado chart

Should we include a tornado chart in the article? We already have one in the Tornadoes of 2011 article. Not sure how I'd fit it in with all the picture, though. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but a reference to List of United States tornadoes from July to August 2011#August 26 event and List of United States tornadoes from July to August 2011#August 27 event could be provided. This was nowhere near warranting a separate article for the tornadoes. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I had just meant one of those small charts like this to be included here. I guess I was a bit unclear there.
EFU EF0 EF1 EF2 EF3 EF4 EF5
0 3 2 1 0 0 0

TornadoLGS (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Only textual notes of the tornadoes should be used here. No need to get fancy :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Irene was not a hurricane

What text (or renaming) should be included in the article to show that by all meteorological standards and evidence, Hurricane Irene was not strong enough to be classified as a hurricane? I refer to the evidence quoted in http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-did-irene-stop-being-hurricane.html where reliable records of sustained wind reached 59kt, lower than the 64kt required. rossnixon 03:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No official change has been made to the storm by the National Hurricane Center and all notions of it not being a hurricane by the time it got to New Jersey are speculative and don't really have a place within an encyclopedia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I note that the questioner comes from New Zealand, and may not be aware that the storms he would know as tropical cyclones are known as hurricanes in North America. Both names are accepted for use in their respective areas by the World Meteorological Organisation. (In NZ, Australia and surrounds the word hurricane only represents a wind speed.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe he's aware, the question is in regards to the storm's sustained winds. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
An important factor for hurricanes is the rain fall. Even if the winds weakened the rainfall still remains a significant problem. That is why wind speed isn't the only criteria. In any case we have verifiable sources such as NHC that marked it as a huricane despite the loss of average wind speeds. -- とある白い猫 chi? 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"That is why wind speed isn't the only criteria. " Yes, yes it is, hurricane status is denoted purely by windspeed and mechanism (tropical vs extratropical, etc.) --Golbez (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The definition of "hurricane" used by the USA's National Weather Service is, "a system with sustained winds of at least 33 metres per second (64 kn) or 74 miles per hour (119 km/h)." See here. Deterence Talk 01:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, parent agency of the National Weather Service, continues to call Irene a hurricane, and "Hurricane Irene" complies with WP:COMMONNAME policy. LovesMacs (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is easily solved by attribution. Quote NOAA and attribute to them their classification while quoting other reliable sources as saying, that, ground winds, howevere were only measured at such and such speeds. Indeed, NOAA credits the discrepancy with its own response to and explanation for it. Hurriquake (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Impact section

The impact section needs to be expanded.169.244.148.235 (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Me and the other editors here will try our hardest to get all the info we can find, but Irene struck only a short while back. It will take some time to get everything done. Sometimes, it may not be complete until next year... Rye998 (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It will take a while for sure and there is a lot to get through. Every state on the east coast, except for Georgia, was impacted at least by tropical storm winds on land. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no impact section for Maine and new Hampshire?
There's a short one for NH, but the short answer is that no one has bothered to or been able to look through all the news coverage and add one. If you'd like to, please feel free. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)\
Correction: see "other states". That's minimal but it's a start. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Massachusetts

Most of it isn't properly sourced. I tried to find some links concerning the statements how much Deerfield and Westfield Rivers rose within a few hours, but wasn't able to find anything supporting those statements. I won't say they're original research but it seems that the editor who included this heard or saw a report in radio or TV what cannot used as a source. Any thoughts what to do with this? However I could find this supporting that mostly the west of the Commonwealth was affected and some article like this about the closing of I-91 in that areas. What should be included. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect

This article has been move-protected for many days. Should it should be unprotected now? Rye998 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Calculating US Damage totals

GRAND TOTAL – $2,418,050,000
National Climatic Data Center - At least $7,000,000,000
South Carolina - $5,000,000
North Carolina – $422,050,000
Maryland - $87,000,000
Virginia - $116,600,000
New Jersey – $289,000,000
New York – $296,000,000
Connecticut - $20,000,000
Vermont - $1,346,200,000
Maine - $1,648,000
Massachusetts - $58,830,000
Other – $300,000,000


I'm still in the middle of compiling sources to obtain a solid damage total. There are tons of gaps within the above list so don't use it in the article yet for total damage. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added some information from Businessweek. HurricaneFan25 17:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to keep this list just to confirmed totals, I probably should have clarified that. I'm not a huge fan of the insurance estimates as they are notoriously blown out of proportion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Insured estimates need to be doubled. Other estimates should be seen as reasonable for that region. The final damage total shown on the infobox is for all areas affected, not just the US. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Added some of the NCDC totals...keeping all the previously listed sources for easy access to information should someone want to rework this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource

Vermont Rebounding Quickly From Hurricane Irene by JOHN SCHWARTZ published: December 5, 2011 141.218.36.43 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Added a graf based on it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Flooding Images

There are some images of the flooding in Canovanas, Puerto Rico that could be put in the "Impact and Aftermath" section. Link to the Photo gallery:Link--WeathernerdPR (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

potential WSJ resource

Assembly panel examines impact of Irene and Lee by the Associated Press from Albany, NY December 15, 2011, 3:02 A.M. ET, excerpt ...

State Agriculture Commissioner Darrel Aubertine, farm advocacy groups and farmers are testifying in Albany on the impacts of Tropical Storm Lee and Hurricane Irene on the state's agriculture industry. The Assembly is holding a public hearing Thursday morning on agricultural disaster relief and preparedness related to the storms that caused major flooding and devastation in eastern New York. The hearing will take testimony on the effectiveness of the state's response to the destruction and what actions may be necessary to improve future recovery and relief efforts. The storms caused severe flooding, soil erosion, structural damage, and crop and livestock losses.

99.19.45.160 (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Irene was tropical storm, not hurricane, over N.J.

Well after the fact this article notes the findings of what the wind speed was when Irene hit NJ in the south by Egg Harbour. It something which I thought should of been investigated because I was in Atlantic City just prior to evacuation and there definitely seemed very little damage because of the wind speed. Anyway here's the article Associated Press. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Give people chance - the TCR was only released yesterday.Jason Rees (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the TCR is brand new and Irene's article is huge. Its going to take a long time to get the whole article worked out, so just bare with us. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
That's why I'm not even going into the article to do this update. There have been massive changes to many impact levels compared to when I was updating the initial information back when Irene was alive and I'm not surprised. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jackson, Scott (2011-08-26). "Update: Irene forces Saturday Sox-A's doubleheader". Bleacher Bum Sports. Retrieved 2011-08-26.
  2. ^ "Clubs take precautions in advance of Irene". MLB.com. 2011-08-27. Retrieved 2011-08-27.
  3. ^ "Jets-Giants game moved to Saturday afternoon". The New York Post. 2011-08-25. Retrieved 2011-08-26.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference transithalt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Bell, Jack (2011-08-25). "Friday Update: M.L.S. Postpones 3 Games". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-08-26.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference cnnstatebystate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Martin, Timothy W. (2011-08-25). "Airlines Extend Change-Fee Waivers for Irene". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2011-08-26. Retrieved 2011-08-26.
  8. ^ http://gothamist.com/2011/08/27/hurricane_hysteria_13_hysterical_ir.php
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Irene/Archive_1&oldid=1089875136"