Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Ophelia (2005)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHurricane Ophelia (2005) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 24, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 19, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 21, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Seperate Article

[edit]

Shouldn't this be a seperate article. The storm seems to be another big one. Information about this could be very informative.--Ali Karbassi 02:26, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

We are waiting to see how much information we get. That being said, it appears unlikely that the name Ophelia will be retired unless it strengthens or stays on land for a long time, but there is no point to add (2005) to the title when it is the only Ophelia recorded (so far)... CrazyC83 01:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see little reason for this to be an article; we don't have enough info to fill one yet. Ophelia will pass on and this article will be obsolete. I'll redirect it back to the season article when the storm has passed. --Golbez 21:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it here because information is starting to come in and the main page is filling up too fast - although since it is not at all certain that the name will be retired, based on precedent from previous first-time notable unretired storms, if the name is not retired, it should be renamed Hurricane Ophelia (2005) (permanent name) with Hurricane Ophelia redirecting until a disambiguation is necessary. CrazyC83 21:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's enough data for a separate article (though I think it should be Hurricane Ophelia (2005), but that can be resolved later). See [1] for other Ophelia tropical cyclones. There should be a disambiguation. Jdorje 22:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of them were in the Atlantic or Eastern Pacific, so they wouldn't be "Hurricane Ophelia", which means there shouldn't be a disambiguation (Hurricane Ophelia should ultimately redirect to Hurricane Ophelia (2005) until a second Ophelia in the Atlantic forms - unless the name is surprisingly retired). Those would disambiguate to Typhoon Ophelia once that link is done. CrazyC83 22:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to a page move. While Ophelia is certainly not as important as Emily or Katrina, it has never been used before to name a hurricane and thus there is no point in moving it to Hurricane Ophelia (2005) because no hurricane other than this one is taking the spot of Hurricane Ophelia. Yes the name will likely be used again in 2011, but that is so far away in time we shouldn't worry about it now, and we don't even know if the Ophelia in 2011 would deserve its own article. --Revolución (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damage estimates coming in: estimate on insured damage in North Carolina is about $800 million, so total damage (usually almost equal to insured damage) will likely come in around $1.5 billion. CrazyC83 01:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

State of Emergency

[edit]

Within this article is a reference to an external source stating that a State of Emergency was declared by President Bush. President Bush does not declare States of Emergency within the individual states. The Governor declares the state of emergency while the President declares the disaster zone. Can someone confirm this for me before I change it? Thanks..Rob110178

From what I understand, you are correct. However, the link in the article is a press source that says Bush did indeed declare a state of emergency for the affected areas. Did North Carolina's governor declare a state of emergency?
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes re: Canadian Hurricane Centre's warnings

[edit]

The warnings are done a bit differently in Canada. The actual hurricane or tropical storm watch or warning will be issued for ALL forecast areas expected to be affected by the storm. For example - the current TS Watch includes all of Nova Scotia west of a line from Truro to Ecum Secum (Halifax County eastern boundary). However, to differentiate coastal and inland warnings, they should be separate as if it was an NHC warning - with the coastal areas mentioned directly on the list alongside the NHC coastal warnings and with the inland areas separately with the title (Inland) in parentheses - i.e. (Inland) hurricane warning - since it is not officially mentioned but should be differentiated. This becomes especially notable if a storm comes up the eastern seaboard and affects, say, southern Ontario - which is not a coastal area at all - as a tropical storm (or in a rare case, a hurricane). CrazyC83 19:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page switch

[edit]

Should we move this to Hurricane Ophelia (2005) (a redirect I created) with Hurricane Ophelia redirecting until a disambiguation might be needed (since there is nowhere else to logically redirect the Ophelia page with no disambiguation)? After all, I can't see the name being retired... CrazyC83 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, if Ophelia does get retired it would be due to the monetary factor - although the NHC report said damage was only $50M (which is not worthy of retirement at all), but most insurers say $800M which would mean a total damage more like $1.5B, which would create an "iffy" case. Of those mentioned, Carmen and Celia were major hurricanes at landfall and quite obvious choices; the others were more locally destructive but still retired anyway. This is definitely one tough call to make...after all, there is still an outside chance. CrazyC83 03:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep it as is until another storm named Ophelia occurs, it won't be until at least 6 years from now, and even then, the average season usually doesn't make it to the "O" storm. --Holderca1 18:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of that 800 million figure is crop damage, and should not be included. Economic impact is never included when the total costs are tallied up, for a variety of reasons. The main one being that economic impact is too circumstantial. It depends more on the times than the storm. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's officially $1.6 billion now. [2] CrazyC83 16:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has been moved. IMO that was the right decision and it should stay that way for now, although if it is retired by some surprise, it should be moved back to Hurricane Ophelia... CrazyC83 23:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unmanned Flight

[edit]

[3] is a source about the unmanned flight into Hurricane Ophelia. I don't know whether most of the information should be put into this article or some other article like a page connected to Aerosonde. AySz88^-^ 04:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Aerosonde was first used in a flight into the eye of Hurricane Emily back in July, so the Ophelia flight isn't notable. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Erm...are you certain about that? The source seems to directly contradict what you assert... ("NOAA AND PARTNERS CONDUCT FIRST SUCCESSFUL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT HURRICANE OBSERVATION BY FLYING THROUGH OPHELIA") AySz88^-^ 06:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an Emily flight was done but it was unsuccessful? Jdorje 09:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's amazing. Two huge breakthroughs in hurricane-research technology in 10 years...I wonder if someday the 2005 season will be remembered not for Hurricanes Katrina and Stan but for the maiden flight of the Aerosonde (whenever it was). (On a related note, when were dropsondes used for the very first time?) Yes, information about this should definitely go into an article, but I don't know what it should be called...maybe Aerosonde (tropical cyclones). Jdorje 05:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

[edit]

$1.6 billion in damages is far greater than Hurricane Alex and (more notably) Hurricane Emily. Ophelia has a surprisingly good shot at being retired; unless Emily is upgraded to Cat 5, I would put the odds at about even for either being retired. - Cuivienen 05:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting it at 50% for Ophelia. Emily I think has a better shot...75-90%. Jdorje 06:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but Bonnie (1998), Irene (1999), Bertha (1996) and Erin (1995) did only slightly less damage and were at similar strength - and none were retired. I'd keep it around 30%. Personally, I would not retire the name, but I wouldn't be shocked if it is retired. CrazyC83 04:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ophelia caused $1.6 in damage, and killed a total of three. I think it might be retired this year.Lionheart Omega 22:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Less than 1/20 of that estimate was actually reported, so retirement is HIGHLY unlikely now. CrazyC83 19:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... caused almost 5 times the damage of Ophelia ($320 million for Cindy vs. $70 million for Ophelia). Looks like Ophelia will definitely not be retired... Cindy has a better chance now, and it's highly unlikely to be retired. PenguinCDF 20:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]

Good, focused article. Needs some impact pictures. Jdorje 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd move it up from Start-Class to at least B-Class (pending the TCR). This could be a potential FA for a mid-level storm after the TCR is released. I remember seeing some good impact pictures from the Outer Banks on television, but can't recall any on the Internet. CrazyC83 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone slightly over the top on the warnings/watches... it needs trimming. Apart from that {{cite web}} formatting (which I'm going to do soon).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damage photo

[edit]

Why did you remove the damage photo?, I followed the rules when uploading it even stated where the photo came from. Storm05 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as the edit said, it is copyrighted by the AP, and the AP is very protective of their copyrights. I don't think it can count as fair use, either. --Golbez 19:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

[edit]

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Fail
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass


Additional comments :

  • lead section is too short.
  • In subsection New England and Canada it is written One storm-related fatality was reported in which contradicts earlier statements saying that there was only one fatality and it had occured in Florida.

Lincher 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

[edit]

The requested comments were taken care of and a rewording of the lead section brought the article into the GA status. Cheers, Lincher 20:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

author of this page

[edit]

i need to know who the author of the article was for a school assignment.

can anyone tell me the the author and when it was written? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.86.32 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

NWS reports

[edit]

If not done so already, these should be included in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Ophelia (2005). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane Ophelia (2005). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
Journals
Other

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Ophelia_(2005)&oldid=1211229127"