Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Irene

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Hurricane Irene (2011))

Splitting up

[edit]

I disagree with how the split was handled earlier, but I think so splitting is needed. In my opinion, the New York section should be split off immediately, since that has the most info. Perhaps New Jersey as well. Any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As more information is found, split it up. There were 13 states heavily affected from North Carolina to Maine (the southernmost impacts - fairly limited but some preps - can all be kept together, so 14) plus Bahamas, Canada, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico and the Lesser Antilles, so that is 19 subarticles for regions at ultimate build-out. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of info out there already, so it's not so much the information being found. It's whether anyone feels like doing the work. We should agree on what's highest priority, instead of saying there are 17 more we could do, hah. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but it should be done in order from greatest impact to least. Kinda like Isabel (the last important East Coast storm), except we have to cover the Caribbean as well. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what, IYO, should be next? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on order of damage and fatalities, here is my opinion:

  • New York
  • New Jersey
  • Vermont
  • Connecticut
  • North Carolina
  • Virginia
  • Maryland/DC
  • Massachusetts
  • Rhode Island
  • Delaware
  • Pennsylvania
  • New Hampshire
  • Maine
  • South Carolina, Georgia and Florida (might not be warranted, except on preparations, there was no real impact in Georgia and minor - but some - in FL and SC)

For non-US impacts, here is my opinion:

  • Bahamas
  • Puerto Rico
  • Hispaniola
  • Canada
  • Lesser Antilles

CrazyC83 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think all of those are needed though. Wouldn't one single sub-article for New England work? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think only a few more are really warranted...North Carolina, New England and Caribbean. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue Vermont deserves it's own article personally and leave the rest of New England in the main article. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 04:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would the article title be then? Or would Vermont be a sub-sub-sub-article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It'd have to be a sub-sub article Effects of Hurricane Irene in Vermont within Effects of Hurricane Irene in New England. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant. I mean NH, RI, ME and MA don't get articles at all (or a New England cover) and just stick as a subsection in Irene. Vermont and maybe Connecticut would get their own articles anyway. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 20:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like that a lot more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Hurricane Irene is a viable article, so I have restored that for the time being. It's an article that goes into detail on the effects of the hurricane, and would allow the Impact section in the main article to be trimmed to a summary. This is in line with WP:Article size and WP:Summary style. This would still allow Effects of Hurricane Irene in New England to be created, with links to that article from a summary in Effects of Hurricane Irene#New England and the reduced but still present sub-section in Hurricane Irene#New England.

Just out of curiosity Hurricanehink, why are the sections called Impact, while the articles are called Effects of? SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with such a split. To cut down on the size, the easiest way would be cutting down the sections on New Jersey and New York more, since they each have their own dedicated sub-article. Given that the generic "Effects of Hurricane Irene" has effects everywhere, and the main article would still have to cover the effects across Irene's entire path, it wouldn't be that helpful to have. I think your edit should be undone. Another easy way to shorten the article is create Meteorological history of Hurricane Irene, which we have done for several other significant hurricanes. BTW, in the seven years I have been editing Wikipedia, I have never once wondered about "Effects" as the article title versus "Impact" as the section of the article. We started doing that after Katrina, but I don't think much thought was put into it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm trimming down New Jersey and New York's sections (still hoping you change your mind about the "Effects of Hurricane Irene"). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the Effects vs. Impact thing, I have never thought about that either. Maybe we should take another round to the project talk page? YE Pacific Hurricane 14:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not that vital right now. The bigger thing is deciding what to do about Irene's article, whether we need that Effects of Hurricane Irene or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think the Impact/Effect difference is one to worry about - I just noticed it and was interested as to why there was different terminology. Sometimes these things just develop without anyone paying attention because there are more important/interesting things to do, then it gets to the point where it becomes accepted practise, and nobody - even if interested - wants to go through making so many changes!
I can understand some of your thinking regarding the nature of the Effects of Hurricane Irene article, and you certainty are an expert hurricane article writer so your views carry weight, though there are others who seem to feel it's a viable article. If you continue to feel that it is not a viable article then test out the consensus at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the Effects of Hurricane Irene talk page, I am opposed to the article being split like that. It should instead be split as CrazyC83 proposed, though give or take a few articles. It is highly redundant to simply copy and paste some impact, as much of it is either in the other sub-articles (such as Effects of Hurricane Irene in New Jersey and Effects of Hurricane Irene in New York) or in the main article. I mean seriously, we don't even have a main Effects article for Hurricane Katrina, which I would prefer to not create one. Bottom line is that it is partly the answer, but is too broad and would be too difficult to improve.--12george1 (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do actually, for Katrina, but that storm is different. Irene should be handled like Isabel was. It looks like North Carolina should be next, and perhaps bring back the article for effects in Caribbean. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, bring back the Caribbean article. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier this year, I split this article because I was under the impression that was what was being asked for. I knew I was not the perfect "splitter," but someone had to do it. I expected my efforts to be built on in a constructive manner, instead it was called retarded and reverted. I see that it has been resurected and is still proving unpopular. I have no wish to have my name on work that is proving to be so unpopular and a week today, I intend to ask for it to be speedily deleted (Effects of Hurricane Irene that is) and if that is declined, I will make every effort required to have said article deleted. Had I known that the split article was extant then I would have had it deleted earlier. If there is any material in the forked article that ought properly to be in this article then please recover it. After that, I trust that we can be friends and move on. I am sorry I was not able to be of more assistance in this matter. Op47 (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Effects of Hurricane Irene is no more. RIP. Op47 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retired

[edit]

Announcement here: [1]

Now we can move this to Hurricane Irene. No other names retired this year. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head's up. I moved it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not even Jose? =) Thegreatdr (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Details/ Blank Spaces

[edit]

Hi everyone,

I was scrolling through this article and I noticed that in the 'Impacts' section, there are multiple sub-headings that do not have any information linked to them. This includes the areas titled 'Southeast' and 'New England'.

Thanks, --Chrisa24 (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current title

[edit]

@Hurricanehink: I don't know why "(2011)" was removed other than one source per summary edit: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120413_irene.html. Also, the RM in 2011 resulted in "no consensus". Is this "Hurricane Irene" the primary topic? --George Ho (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... didn't see #Retired, which resulted in the informal move. George Ho (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article

[edit]

I added the following section under the Turks and Caicos and the Bahamas section (edit 792750243), but it was removed a month later by an anonymous mobile user who tagged their edit with "irrelevant" (edit 797951830).

One unusual impact of the storm on the Bahamas was the inspiration for the song "Irene" by Mike Oldfield on his 2014 album, Man on the Rocks. The musician is a resident of the islands and was present during the hurricane, which he described as terrifying. (along with two references)

Rather than get into an edit war, I thought it best to discuss here on the talk page, particularly given the recent news coverage of other famous people being affected by the 2017 hurricane season (e.g. Richard Branson on Necker Island, Hurricanes Irma and Maria). My question is not about whether such coverage is notable enough for Wikipedia - it clearly meets that standard if it's published in national media. Famous people generate news and discussion (just do an internet search for "Branson + Hurricane") and damage to Richard Branson's house is included in the Hurricane Irma article. So what should be the standard for relevance? Wikiwayman (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2022

[edit]

Under Hurricane Irene#Connecticut, please add {{see also|Effects of Hurricane Irene in Connecticut}} 69.118.235.133 (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Used Template:Main instead of Template:See also since other sections in this article use the former, but request complete. —Sirdog (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: English 1101 033

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2022 and 17 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elivela (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Elivela (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023

[edit]

Please add, under Hurricane Irene#Pennsylvania, that the Philadelphia Phillies had to postpone a MLB game against the Miami Marlins. https://whyy.org/articles/marlins-phillies-postponed-due-to-hurricane-irene/ 98.116.45.220 (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

[edit]

White mountain national forest closed, please add to preps: source: https://www.scenicnh.com/blog/2011/08/tropical-storm-irene/ 24.187.202.139 (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed on chapter preparation / Canada

[edit]

Please include the demanded citation on chapter Preparation / Canada as following:

http://capnkensblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/ Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

[edit]

Please add, at the end of the Vermont impacts sentence (either last or second to last sentence) that flooding from the storm caused the Green Mountain National Forest to close indefinitely. Source: https://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-76692.html 74.11.238.37 (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2024

[edit]

In the mid Atlantic preparations section, please add two Orioles games were postponed. Source: https://www.sbnation.com/2011/8/26/2387305/hurricane-irene-new-york-yankees-baltimore-orioles 71.190.46.122 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SB Nation is a blogging platform and is therefore not considered reliable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improving article

[edit]

Zzzs merged the Connecticut subarctic without any discussion. Now, the article is 8724 words, and with expansion needed too on the aftermath. I think either Connecticut or all of New England should be split out due to significant impacts and size. 50.234.120.14 (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the merge, as the information about New Jersey and New York could be cut down. However, I am worried that there may be an IP address out there with a vendetta against Zzzs (talk · contribs), so in the interest of having a fair and honest discussion, could the above IP address either log into their account or create a user name? I don't mind discussions being made by anonymous users, but I do mind when they appear to target a specific user. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no vendetta. This was a merge that should’ve, at the very least, be discussed. This is not the time for WP:BOLD, since a merge like this likely encounters opposition. Also; when in doubt, discuss.50.234.120.14 (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irene's article is over 13 years old. Why is this not the time for WP:BOLD? There is a whole cycle called bold, revert, discuss, which we are doing here. However, I just want to make sure that you don't get lost in the discussion by being an anonymous user, which is why I ask you to either log in or create a user name. The fact you know about WP:BOLD suggests you are familiar with Wikipedia. Why not join the tropical cyclone WikiProject and shed the anonymity? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believed that the merge would be reasonable for a tropical cyclone this deadly and costly. Per WP:SIZERULE (for an article that exceeds >9 000 words):

Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material

I believe this article meets that criteria. When it impacted the United States, it earned a lot of notoriety and was retired by WMO. A deadly or costly storm that has a lot of information about it should justify the large size. For example, Taylor Swift and Space Shuttle, both of whom are featured articles, are 9 596 and 9 488 words respectively. The article doesn't even exceed 9 000 words! New York and New Jersey were the most impacted states, which is why I kept those subarticles as is. I have more to write, but I need to leave soon. ZZZ'S 21:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I was saying, I believe it meets the criteria since the article is about a tropical cyclone which caused billions in damages and killed a notable amount of people as well as having lots of information worthy of inclusion. I do not believe New England should be split. The tropical cyclone's effects on the region is not as severe as New York and New Jersey and would only serve to gut the article of useful information. ZZZ'S 21:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention. I don't like it when people think "Oh, it’s over 6 000 words! It must be merged!" and propose that small sections of regions that didn't even get the brunt of the storm be split from the articles. Just because an article is over 6 000 words due not mean it should ALWAYS be split. Nevertheless, if an article would benefit by being split, the regions where it was the most impacted should be split first rather than the other, insignificant regions. Take Hurricane Dennis for example. It used to have many subarticles, one for each area that was affected, before being merged into is patent. The amount of information that was branched of was so excessive that the main article was reduced to a start class. ZZZ'S 22:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irene caused 58 deaths and $14.2 billion. That’s a lot but not on the tier of Sandy or Katrina which justify articles over 9,000 bytes. The article is 8724 and in need of expansion. And, looking at the fatalities, there were actually more deaths in New England (16) then New Jersey (7) or New York (10).Coster85 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address all of my reasons. However, I will only address the ones that you counter argued. $14.2 billion is considered a lot considering the time and location of where it happened. In fact, at the time, it not only became the costliest Atlantic hurricane in New Jersey, but was one of the top ten costliest tropical cyclones in the basin. Yes, it is in need of an expansion, especially with the aftermath section. In addition, I believe the article should be completely rewritten to the current tropical cyclone standards. However, I do not believe splitting more sections would benefit the article. I'm more concerned about the writing quality of the article rather than the section size because the latter can lead to the article being shorter, especially when extremely detailed information is streamlined and irrelevant, unnecessary, or duplicative information is removed. For the fatalities, that alone does not justify a subsection being split from its parent. Using your reason in my words, I do think it is a bit unfair for a region to be compared to a state since they're not the same administrative division. If it were fairer to combine the deaths for New Jersey and New York, it would surpass New England's death count, even if only by one. ZZZ'S 01:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With an expansion and streamlining the information, could it get to around 8,000? Yes, I am aware it was the 6th costliest, I believe, at the time. However, even if Harvey, Irma, Maria, Ida, Ian, Helene or Milton occurred in 2011, they’d be much costlier then Irene. And I don’t like justifying a long article due to the costliest event in one state. Milton isn’t even the costliest Floridian hurricane at $85b, and yet is certainly costlier than any hurricane in New England. Coster85 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there was another subarticle for New England, then Vermont would be much more useful than Connecticut, because the information from the Connecticut article barely expanded the main article. But even then, the article should be fine length-wise if New Jersey and New York were cut down and summarized more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Vermont should be split out then. It was one of the worst floods in state history and remember, cutting down NJ and NY will likely be cancelled out by expanding the aftermath section. I think Connecticut was made because Cyclonebiskit made a draft for Connecticut, but a Vermont sub article probably could be made given the impacts. Coster85 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe splitting would and should be the primary method of shortening the article. Again, there are other methods of shortening the article. I personally believe there's too much tropical cyclone effects articles for I-named storms and there should be an effort towards reducing the number of then. Previously, I couldn't see all of the articles that fit that description I said earlier in the text on mobile (the max is 15). I don't believe we should be working on splitting articles for now since that is not going to benefit the main article. ZZZ'S 23:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will benefit the main article by allowing the article size to a reasonable level. I suppose a split for North Carolina could be another option. But having 9,000 byte articles isn’t helpful, and it gets slow to load too. Especially because once the aftermath is expanded, it’s likely ~9500 words. Coster85 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not when you're making every region that was impacted their own subarticle. It reduces the comprehensiveness of the main article and makes it too short, which can significantly degrade the article's quality. Also, NO to North Carolina. It is barely even 10 000 bytes. For me, a 9 000 word article is fine as it is per my previous reasoning, but if you are really bothered by long articles, then find some information that can be justifiably streamlined, refactored, or omitted like shortening the New York and New Jersey sections. As I said earlier, we should not be focusing on splitting the information first when there is information that can be condensed. Splitting should be considered as a last resort unless the size issue is really significant, for example Hurricane Hugo, which is 11 233 words. An article that doesn't surpass the 9 000 word mark isn't significant and we should not put our time and energy into doing that. ZZZ'S 23:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIZERULE says at 9,000 bytes (which this article isn’t at yet but will be once expansion occurs), Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. I don’t know what the aftermath, when fully expanded, will look like. Trimming is an option as the NY and NJ sections are grossly long (although expansion for the Pennsylvania section is required.) But Irene is not a notable enough storm to justify an article over 9,000 bytes. Many residents of the region don’t know of Irene they do of Sandy and other notable storms. Coster85 (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is notable enough to justify 9 000 bytes, especially at the time. I am certain that there are some people still mentioning about it. Your argument is like saying that Hurricane Andrew isn't notable because nobody talks about it and people born after 1992 have no idea that it doesn't exist. In tropical cyclone standards, Irene is notable enough to justify having over 9 000 bytes. Anyway, I do believe we still should be focusing on rewriting the article using the examples listed above and not immediately suggest splitting material from the article and doing more harm than good. Unless you're going to be talking about how you will reduce the amount of words in the article in ways other than splitting, then I don't see why I should continue this discussion with you. ZZZ'S 01:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See here’s the thing. As you can see in my edit request below, I am requesting an expand section template to both Pennsylvania and Delaware, two states that suffered major impacts from Irene that have small sections. Therefore, even though the NY/NJ stuff can be streamlined, that will likely be cancelled out by expansion of those sections. Then the aftermath has to be expanded. Oh, and Hurricane Andrew is only 7345 words. Anyway, since I smell WP:SQS, I am posting this to WP:3O. Coster85 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the discussion would be better put toward actually expanding the article, instead of talking about expanding the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Procedural decline. There are more than two involved editors, and 3O is generally intended for requesting a literally third opinion. Editors are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donlago: I’d like to contest the procedural decline because the main dispute is between two users, even though a third is lightly involved, who is now refusing to discuss the matter entirely. In addition, this would likely fall under WP:RFCNOT since a split proposal is involved. Coster85 (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly involved is still involved, not to mention they did post their opinion of the merge above. I stopped discussing with you because the discussion is going nowhere. You're still insisting that every region that was impacted by Irene should be split into a new article, even after I told you why that is a pretty bad idea. I even said that we should try rewriting the entire article first, including trimming the sections that are too long and streamlining, refactoring, and omitting inappropriate information, before splitting important sections into a new article to avoid gutting the article and reducing it to its bare bones like the former case of Hurricane Dennis before all of those articles were merged. From now on, I'll see what I can do to rewrite the article to reduce the amount of words as well as propose some methods of achieving that feat if I have the courage to rather than argue about the terrible idea of splitting information from the article and how it can do more harm than good. ZZZ'S 16:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But yet again, you are deliberately ignoring the portion of where I said certain sections were lacking in information. Pennsylvania and Delaware are gonna need templates to expand those sections. Same for the aftermath. As of now, New York and New Jersey are the only sections that can be streamlined. Unless you’re going to cut out important information (which happened here and here and here with Hurricane Dennis.) Coster85 (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Coster85 (talk · contribs), expand the Pennsylvania and Delaware sections. Don't just add the templates, but add the information you think is missing. I'm not sure why you brought up various edits of mine adding information to Dennis, either. Endless talk page discussions arguing over who did what isn't going to help as much as adding the information you think is vital to the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t yet. The page is currently semi protected. I wanted the templates added so I can add it when I gain autoconfirm permission. Coster85 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about starting some edit requests with what information should be added with reliable, but preferably high-quality, sources to back it up? That's a good start. ZZZ'S 17:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You can work on it here if you want until you get autoconfirm permission. Here is the storm events database, which shows the statewide damage around $30 million. There probably is more info out there, I'm not disputing that. But if it's the same sort of impacts that occurred elsewhere (floods, fallen trees), that isn't interesting to read/write about every single time it happened, so it doesn't need to mention every flooded street or house in Delaware or Pennsylvania, but instead, the interesting impacts that happened there should get a mention. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

[edit]

I trimmed NY and tried to find info for PA/DE but it is surprisingly hard to find.Coster85 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that doesn't surprise me too much. The storm wasn't that bad in most areas, other than NJ, NY, and Vermont. Even NJ wasn't that bad - a billion isn't that much in such a populated state. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: This might be excessive section hierarchy. Should we maybe reduce the number of sections for now? --Coster85 (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I retitled this discussion, because it has evolved into a general discussion how to improve the article. @Coster85:, I agree there are a lot of sections, but there are also too many images, which is cluttering up the article. I got rid of a bunch of images, including a lot of the ones of fallen trees, and I combined a few of the sections. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I split the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic out because I think that at 3 paragraphs each, they can be left alone. I also added NCDC for North Carolina and Vermont. Given the many damages of exceptional levels, I couldn’t do individual accounts as that would risk bloating the article. I’m still trying to add more information to the article, but unfortunately a lot of information has been overshadowed by Tropical Storm Lee (2011) (another article that needs extensive work). I think we should wait until all the fixes are in and then discuss a potential split if still needed (I think the word count is down to 8200, but the aftermath still has next to nothing.) Coster85 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that works. I suspect a lot of the preparations can be trimmed down and streamlined. We mention the states of emergency in various different paragraphs, but there could just be one sentence saying "The respective governors of X states declared a state of emergency." And then go into state specific detail. But when the same type of information is repeated (city specific evacuations, quotes saying to prepare) it's just fluff. The preparations section is 2,399 words, so that would be an easy place to trim down. Thanks for your edits so far. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8,008 words following latest trimming. Of course, aftermath is in dire need of expansion. We’re probably at a point where we can’t exactly trim anymore. Coster85 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now at 8,185 words. @Hurricanehink and Zzzs: able to find any information on the aftermath in NC, MD or PA (or the Caribbean)?I’ve been looking for days to try to find information on it yet couldn’t. Coster85 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a little bit from FEMA - Maryland, DC, Delaware, and Pennsylvania were all FEMA disaster areas, but the FEMA website has little beyond that, which doesn't surprise me since Irene's effects (which would create the most aftermath) were worst in NJ, NY, and especially Vermont. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FEMA website isn't loading for me - would you be able to add them in? Coster85 (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2024

[edit]

Please add {{expand section}} to both Hurricane Irene#Pennsylvania and Hurricane Irene#Delaware as they only contain one paragraph and more information can be added to the article? Coster85 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn per above. Coster85 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2024

[edit]

In Hurricane Irene#Pennsylvania, please add that flash flooding in Forkston resulted in $23 million in damage, 25 road closures and 50,000 power outages. Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=345289 Coster85 (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by Hurricanehink ZZZ'S 18:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Irene&oldid=1258579183"