Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Paloma

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

Expand page

[edit]

This article really needs to be expanded, especially the impact and MH sections. I've used a blank test page of min to determine the size of the Records section and it is just short of being a full fifth of the article (in terms of bytes). If no one is up to it, I'll expand the MH in a few days or so though... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you expand this? I'm not sure what to do about this issue. What can you do to expand it? It appears to be descriptive enough. 76.235.222.163 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely short for a category four hurricane. The lead should be 2-4 paragraphs long, the Meteorological history section is not nearly comprehensive enough, there's nothing on its movement, no idea of where the storm is until the end of the paragraph, no reason as to why it intensified, or why it weakened, all that is there is the changes in category, when it hit the Caymans, it's peak intensity, hitting Cuba, then dissipating, very poor section. The impact is not complete since they're still assessing the damage in the Caymans. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how we can expand it in the near future though. 76.235.222.163 (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just stated everything that is needed for the MH and lead. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the MH and lead sections a bit; does it look better now? 76.235.166.14 (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's almost no references to back up the section. The last sentence is incorrect also, the remnant low dissipated in the GOM on the 13th. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, you can change it a bit. The lead is gotten better, though, with the records put there. I don't know how we can back those up. 76.235.166.14 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use the advisories (public and discussion) in the Paloma advisory archive on the NHC's website. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to put in references; if you know how to put in refs, then you could find some and put them in. Besides, I don't know exactly when and which advisory had Paloma at peak strength or just as it dissipated or when it just became a depression, ect. Also, i'm not sure if all of the advisories have records set by Paloma at that time, if any. For example, on one advisory, when Paloma reached it's peak, for instance, it might not mention the fact that it was the second strongest November storm on record, or when it made landfall on the 8 PM advisory on November 8, it might not mention the fact it was the third major hurricane to hit Cuba that year, a record set by Paloma. The NHC advisories might not mention every record set by it, so there still could be some citation. 76.235.166.14 (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand it now? Do you know any refs to back up the MH and Impact sections, now that it's damage on the Caymans was found? 76.236.191.27 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to wait until the Tropical Cyclone Report has been released. I've already planned to expand the Omar article (and several others) so my plate is full. I think another editor is planning to expand this article once the TCR is out. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 2 billion is accurate because on the Caymans and Cuba, it said damage totaled to, not damage was estimated at, so it was accurate, or at least i'm sure of it. Paloma had no signifigant effects in the Bahamas or Central America, so I think that's it, I guess. I'm saying that I don't think the TCR has to be released to be expanded Because, this storm had big impacts, but over small areas. But if you want to wait for the TCR, that's fine as well. 76.235.210.51 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all truthfulness, the TCR is not the best source for damages, it's usually a tertiary source, official damage reports are a primary source, followed by news articles. The TCR is mainly for the Meteorological History, with a storm like Paloma, it's very important in verifying what happened. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so your'e saying that, for the impact section, for example, it is important to know exactly how much damage it caused in Cuba and the Caymans? Paloma was only active for 5 days, and other than Cuba and the Caymans, it had no impact whatsoever. This storm only caused it's damage on those 2 areas, neither catastrophically affected, so I think the impact section is fine, but the MH section isn't comprehensive enough. In other words, with storms like Paloma, are you saying that the damage and death toll need to be accurate? 76.235.210.51 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that there was some impact in Nicaragua, Honduras, and Jamaica while Paloma was a Tropical Depression/Storm. So there are other areas that were impacted. Could you also explain what you just said, I'm a bit confused, sorry. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What i'm trying to say is other than Cuba and the Caymans, it caused little impact. True, it did impact other areas, but not greatly. I'm saying the impact section is fine; but the MH section needs to be expanded, if you get my point. The 2.09 billion is probrably accurate because the impact in CA and Jamacia was not signifigant. 76.235.221.80 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to expand it (I think) could be to make an aftermath section for the Caymans and Cuba, but that will take some time to get to. Do you understand what I'm saying now, Cyclonebiskit? I think it caused no more than 2.09 billion, but the MH section needs expansion. 76.253.127.25 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Cyclonebiskit? Do you understand what i'm saying now? If you don't get my point, I can explain myself further. Or did you forget to check here? 76.235.163.187 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do, you're saying add more sections right? Also, since the TCR is out, I've started to work on the MH rewrite, I should have it done by this coming Saturday at the latest. Cyclonebiskit 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the impact section doesn't need any more; it's fine. Central america suffered very little off Paloma, which you wanted to put there. But I did say an Aftermath section could also be made to help expand it, and the MH needs expansion. But, as I said, the aftermath section will take some time to get to, probrably not until it is retired, around that. I wasn't saying to put anything more in the impact section; I said a completely new aftermath section should be made. 76.235.163.187 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get my point now, biskit? I said the Impact section is fine, but Ike, Gustav, Dolly, and even Omar have aftermath sections, and Paloma doesn't. So one needs to be added. Could you possibly find sources to make up an aftermath section? 76.235.187.223 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean, I'll look into impact later as I'm rather busy ATM. I probably wont have the MH update done by Saturday also. Cyclonebiskit 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said the impact section doesn't need expansion, as it can not really be expanded whatsoever. 76.235.187.223 (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article needs expansion. Until somebody else gets to it, feel free to write an aftermath section yourself. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'm not sure how the impact section can be expanded, Julian. I'm also not sure where I can find reliable sources to make up an aftermath section. 76.235.187.223 (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ReliefWeb usually has some good stuff. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The only other problem is I don't know how to put in references; I just know that an aftermath section needs to be made. 76.235.187.223 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITE and WP:FOOT. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I know how to put in refs now, it's like <ref...ref/>, sort of, right? But I can't insert them unless i'm logged in, or have a username. Also, I don't know why it's been done in particular, but the other sections in this article mentioned earlier above here were deleted. 76.235.202.41 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Paloma" means "dove" in Spanish

[edit]

Hi. Should we mention this? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 14:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a source for it, sure. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go. Personally I don't think this is necessary, though. A most we could probably just link the Wiktionary article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation of the name isn't needed for common names, but for somewhat unusual names like Paloma, it might be good to have. It's not a big deal, though. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is any need for this either... this isn't like the WPac when we put the names in their language and ours. Julio, a name that has been used in the East Pacific before, including this year, means "July" in Spanish, for example. A weird feature, though a bit off topic, is that Marco is on the 5th Atlantic hurricane season list, and Polo is on that same Pacific hurricane season list. 76.235.165.167 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is good enough to be placed there.... User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions - Its good to be back! 22:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affected Honduras and Nicaragua

[edit]

Hurricane Paloma (2008) did gave rain to Honduras and Nicaragua. Did it? HurricaneSpin (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the impacts were insignifigant there, so they aren't mentioned in the main article. 76.253.127.25 (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tagged for expansion

[edit]

I have tagged this article as requiring expansion, as it is much to short, in particular the impact section. Immunize (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it still need to be tagged? Considering it has been substantially expanded since then. CycloneYoris (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Paloma. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Paloma&oldid=1211229317"