Talk:List of Atlantic hurricane records

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as High-importance).

Merge

That article is better, more appropriately named, and contains much the same information. Jdorje 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is opposed? Jdorje 16:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge. The two articles should remain seperate. Although there are overlapping data, not all notable hurricanes have records, so that article needs to stay. The records also needs to stay, because it is more precise as to what it contains, so it is easier to find records. Jamie|C

15:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then half or more of the List of notable Atlantic hurricanes needs to be moved over to this article. — jdorje (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the information remain in both articles? It seems releveant in both. Some things, like the list of hurricanes by intensity, belong better here IMO, some, like the list of category 5 hurricanes, belong in the other article. But some things, like the list of most easterly hurricanes/storms belong in both. Jamie|C

19:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of reasoning is why the articles should be merged. We should not have exact duplicates of information in separate articles. — jdorje (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of named storm occurrences by Month

What on earth is the 'Next' column for? TimL 21:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes for this table:

1) When it comes to counting storm occurrences in any given month, the rule of thumb is to use the month in which the storm originated. So any storm occurring at the end of a month and crossing over into the next month counts towards the previous month's total. (Ex. ALEX of 2004 formed on July 31, and lasted until August 6. Alex counts as a July storm, not August. FRANCES of 2004 formed on August 25, and lasted until September 8. Frances is an August storm, not September.)

2) The monthly records should read as follows: JUNE = 3 in 1886, 1909, 1936, and 1968; JULY = 5 in 2005; AUGUST = 7 in 1933, 1995, and 2004; SEPTEMBER = 8 in 2002; OCTOBER = 7 in 2005; NOVEMBER = 3 in 2005

In addition, the records for months outside of the regular hurricane season read as follows: DECEMBER = 2 in 1887 and 2003; JANUARY = 1 in 1978; FEBRUARY = 1 in 1952; MARCH = 1 in 1908; APRIL = 1 in 1992 and 2003; MAY = 2 in 1887

If the purpose of this table is to show the record number of storms TRACKED during a given month, then the title needs to reflect that.

And I agree with Tim above. Why is there a "Next" column? It makes no sense and should be removed. Thanx!!! Raffy85 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Records

There are a few storms that seem to be missing, partially from the alphabet soup that was the end of the 2005 hurricane season. I recall storms developing straight through December (the shear just didn't develop over the Carribean that usually does). Therefore, I think some of the records are at least partially obsolete. Misread/misunderstood some of the text of the article. Stupid me.

Earliest storms

Shouldn't 1978's Subtropical Storm One be the earliest-forming tropical storm (or the latest, I guess?), or is this some quirk of how seasons are defined? It's included in the list in the section on earliest-forming first storms of the season, but the Groundhog Day storm is still first on the earliest tropical storm list. --98.218.195.90 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Igor

I am not sure how to edit the page but now the size of Igor has grown to 500 NM which is 575 miles up from the 518 listed below...I can not figure out where the edit is for the table that is there Cwachal (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Alex 2010

Alex is tied with whichever is listed as most intense for june, with a pressure of 946 mbar.--Peanut.pookie (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Humberto

This is from the Wikipedia article about Humberto: "Hurricane Humberto was a minimal hurricane that formed and intensified faster than any other North Atlantic tropical cyclone on record before landfall." Based on this information, I believe that it should be listed as the fastest intensification of a storm. At minimum, it should be listed on the records page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.195.84 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Hurricanes

I think that we should definitely revise this subject as many individual Hurricane pages (for example Ike|, Carla, and Greta) claim that their subject is the largest — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootyStavros (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Nadine

Are we going to add Hurricane Nadine when it's gonna reach the 19 days point in the longest hurricane section? It's gonna be soon I think, during the course of next week.

Fabzzz (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V I dont think it should be acdded without an official source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rule for adding a storm if it is not consistently a tropical storm? Afterall, there was a period of about a day where Nadine was considered post-tropical. Should it still be added here? If we do keep it in the list, perhaps a note should be added. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it should be recognized since it was issued as a potential tropical wave. Even though it was a post-tropical wave, it was still what led to what it is right now. Fabzzz (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, the time that Nadine was post-tropical does not count... I've updated Nadine's total to reflect this. I've also added some hidden text next to Nadine's place on the table explaining how to update the total. Heelsrule1988 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Significant amounts of convection formed in the next few hours, between late on September 11 and early on September 12. As a result, the depression was reclassified as Tropical Storm Nadine at 0300 UTC" The time it became a Tropical Storm was 0300 UTC on September 12, 2012 right now it is October 2, 2012 21:00+ UTC that makes it 20 days now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest way to do this is take the advisory number and divide it by 4. For the latest advisory that would give 20.25 days. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ That's a useful formula which works most of the time. However... it doesn't work if the tropical cyclone's life was uninterrupted, and Nadine's obviously was. You have to subtract .25 because advisory 44 doesn't count towards the total... that's the point when Nadine was reclassified as a tropical cyclone, so you can't add time there. It's also no good if any special advisories are issued. And knowledgekid... a tropical cyclone's life is only defined by when advisories are being issued for it. That's how the numbers for the other cyclones in this list were compiled. Heelsrule1988 (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I wonder if I'm the only one who has considered renaming this article? Strictly speaking these are not hurricane records, but tropical cyclone records; there are numerous storms in various lists here that never achieved hurricane status. Calling this a list of hurricane records may be potentially misleading. The distinction may be somewhat technical, but wouldn't List of Atlantic tropical cyclone records be a more accurate name? Shereth 15:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's for consistency, based off "List of Atlantic hurricane seasons", and so on. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the current name is more accurate since they are called hurricanes in this basin. United States Man (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if they reach hurricane status; but there are also numerous tropical storms listed on this page :) Shereth 19:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, the official agaency (NHC) calls them hurricanes, not tropical cyclones. The current name is best, it is sort of hard to explain it any more. United States Man (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanes is the general term for tropical cyclones in the Atlantic. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shereth is correct, the name of the article should be modified to be technically accurate. Otherwise this is a misleading reference. The term ″tropical cyclone″ is a meteorological term used to describe rotating circulating weather systems which form over tropical waters. This would include tropical depressions as well as tropical storms. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ″A hurricane is a type of tropical cyclone - the general term for all circulating weather systems (counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere) over tropical waters.″ This definition is cited from NOAA's hurricane preparedness guide from 1998, published by the US Department of Commerce. It further describes a hurricane as, ″An intense tropical weather system with a well-defined circulation and maximum sustained winds of 74 mph (64 knots) or higher. In the western Pacific, hurricanes are called typhoons, and similar storms in the Indian Ocean are called cyclones.″ An updated source for this guide can be found at this site for the US Department of Homeland Security Digital Library - https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=778095. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LLovejoy (talk • contribs) 16:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Longest duration

An explicit definition of "lifetime" and of "what" (hurricanes, tropical storms, tropical depressions, post-tropical depression, extra-tropical depression, subtropical depression, pre(sub)tropical depression, etc. or any combination of these) seems helpful both to contributors and readers of the table entitled "Longest duration". We could do with clarity on e.g.:

   * whether only (at least) tropical-storm hours are counted;
   * whether all time a structure is deemed to be an entity (of whatever kind) is counted.

For example, Ginger (1971) may have existed for 27.75 days, but - according to what I understand from the text on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ginger - cannot have been a tropical storm for more than 21 days.

Thanks!Redav (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it the definition being used is essentially "This table is a list of systems that have spent the longest amount of time as a tropical or subtropical cyclone. Time spent as an extra- or post-tropical system is not included in the total." A similar sort of statement should probably be included in the following section (Farthest Travels) to indicate that the distance doesn't include distance covered while non-tropical. As a bit of an aside, I noticed that the table is not consistent with the given citation; the list being linked to does not include Storm 4 of 1926. Shereth 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Costliest Atlantic hurricanes

I changed Hurricane Sandy's number to ≥65.6 (billion) to match the amount on other articles mentioning it. User:Magneto10 (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see INFLATION ADJUSTED damage estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.217.80 (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HSI category title

Shouldn't the title "Most intense landfalling Atlantic hurricanes in the United States (HSI)" have the "intense" replaced with "severe". The Hurricane Severity Index is supposed to measure severity, not intensity, right. In any case, intensity is incorporated as a category in the index, along with size, so that is clearly not the same as intensity alone. 99.141.240.120 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete?

Given this article is slowly being pruned away (it's the rump article of List of notable tropical cyclones), I don't care too much whether there is a section on Bermuda landfalls, which is currently being discussed. I think it's time that we take whatever is useful here and merge it to Atlantic hurricane. I have that done that so far with Earliest/latest formations for each category (but only the relevant information on intensity and time of year) and Intensity. I think everything else is fairly trivial and extraneous, and if there is agreement, I think it should be merged to Atlantic hurricane (which should be the true parent article, anyway). I don't think this article can ever become featured or good, given the weird shape it's in, and so I think merger is the best option. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this article serves as a more comprehensive one specifically for records, whereas List of notable tropical cyclones and Atlantic hurricane are much more vague in that area. I don't really see the purpose of merging it as it might be more difficult to find records for Atlantic hurricanes under a page where "records" is not in the title. Certainly some of the information is trivial and extraneous, particularly the Latitude/Longitude records section which seems fairly long and in-definite, and is under-sourced. Undescribed (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But not many are true records. The location ones are trivial (we have specific articles on easternmost and southernmost storms, but those are pretty tame in comprising to storms in the Pacific (Vamei and Pali both around 2° N). And most of the landfall locations already have articles for the truly rare landfall locations (Delta 05 in Morocco, Vince, and don't forget we have broader location articles like List of Bermuda hurricanes and Effects of tropical cyclones in Europe). For intensity, we have a bunch of tables, with the exception of the one by month, which I think is pretty trivial (few are backed up by a source saying they were strongest in a given month, and most are based on our interpretation of HURDAT, which we don't do anymore. Fastest intensification is largely about two different storms, which have articles (and would be better described in prose in an article on Atlantic hurricanes). I'm not convinced we need this article. Most of it is either redundant or trivial, and the bits that are interesting and sourced would do better being in other articles, like the vastly under-utilized Atlantic hurricane. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a merger or deletion in favor of cleanup. You are right, thing like "furtherest southeast" ect... don't need to be included the list should be in a format like List of tropical cyclone records is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual landfall locations

I don't see anything wrong with having a Bermuda section on the page. Regardless of the reason as to why landfalls in Bermuda are unusual, I don't see why one section should be kept rather than another. Even though Bermuda gets a lot of direct hits, landfalls are fairly unusual. The last landfall before Fay of 2014 was Emily of 1987, which constitutes a lower landfall frequency than both the Azores and Cape Verde, despite the steering currents. --Undescribed (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections then I will be reinstating the Bermuda section to the article as per WP:SILENCE.Undescribed (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said above I don't think we should have Bermuda. Having too many "unusual" locations makes the section useless. And honestly, Fabian 03 wasn't a technical landfall, but that's arguably the most important Bermuda hurricane, and that also makes it useless. No need for that section here when we already have an article for Bermuda TC's. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest / Latest formation: anti-pivot at 1 April seems more logical than at 1 January

Whereas for January, February and March the table list records for the earliest, considering that the lowest activity between two consecutive climatologically averaged seasons' peaks seems to occur in / or between March and April (based on what I read in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_off-season_Atlantic_hurricanes), it seems more logical to list the latest formation dates for January, February and March. So that is what I propose as a change.

The rationale behind this is that the closer a storm is to the climatological centre of levity of the lull between two seasons (or the more eloignated a storm is from the climatological centre of gravity of the preceding or the following season, which seems to be near 10 September according to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/ based on numbers of storms), the more atypical, outlying, extraordinary and record-breaking it may be deemed. Even better might be a comparison to a climatology which takes into account the climatologically averaged power (i.e. in megawatts) generated by (sub)tropical storms as a function of the days of the year.

From visual inspection of a graph of the storm data (category, peak velocity, duration, minimum pressure) vs the date, the lull between two seasons seems to be approximately (as well as - for administrative reasons - conveniently) centred around midnight between 31 March and 1 April, in part since the longest time gap between dates with storms appears from 10 March to 13 April in the list in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_off-season_Atlantic_hurricanes (after sorting with respect to dates active).

An extra reason for taking midnight of 1 April as the anti-pivot is that the climatological average in the decay of activity seems to be slower in the months before 1 April than the climatological average in the increase of activity after 31 March. Hence a (couple of) longer gap(s) before the anti-pivot (e.g. the empty 22-day interval from 10 to 31 March inclusive, and the empty 12.25-day interval from 22 February to 5 March inclusive) and a (couple of) shorter gap(s) (e.g. the empty 13-day interval 1 to 13 April inclusive, and the empty 1-day interval on 17 April) seem(s) understandable. From the data in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_off-season_Atlantic_hurricanes the climatological onset (of the next season) after 31 March seems sharper that the decay (of the previous season) before 1 April.

From this perspective, not so much the 1938 Storm 1 - which was a category 1 hurricane on 4-5 January - is the most outlying category 1 hurricane in January, but the 2016 Alex - which was a category 1 hurricane on 14-15 January - is!Redav (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the important thing to consider is how reliable sources treat this topic. As far as I know, I don't recall any such sources discussing earliest/latest-forming storms of the year. However, my understanding is that the practice of delineating records by the calendar year has been practiced on Wikipedia for years, at least since 2010. (Of course, mere precedent is no reason why we should continue this practice.) What is the general consensus on this issue? Can any experienced Tropical Cyclone editors give their thoughts? TSBonnie2010 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of Atlantic hurricane records. 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) 05:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irma's term at Cat 5

Philip Klotzbach (leader of the CSU tropical predictions team) is saying on Twitter that Irma has already tied the 1932 Cuba hurricane for time as a Cat 5...but the table in this article lists Irma at 3rd place well behind.Who's counting wrong?LE (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think we will know for sure whether or not Irmas time as a Category 5 tied or surpassed the 1932 Cuba hurricane until its best track data comes out. Based on the current operational advisories given by NHC, Irma spent 75 hours as a Category 5, wheres 1932 Cuba spent 78 hours, or 3 days, 6 hours as a 5.--Undescribed (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research issue

!!!PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE OR TAG UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED!!! (Thank you)

There are parts of this article that imply that x hurricane fits x record because of x. In other words I want editors to draw their eyes to...

"Extreme latitudes and longitudes" - There are a lot of unsourced entries here, is this a collection of names or what?
"Unusual landfall locations" - How are these considered records?
Seasonal activity - What is the cutoff for the min/max activity for the tables?

Those are just some examples of what needs work done here. The main issue though is with the tables themselves, at one point does x hurricane become a "record"? Are we doing the tables by the top 5, top 10, top 20? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely bring up several good points here. In regards to the "Seasonal activity" section, it appears that the "cutoff" is the top 9 seasons. In addition, it seems that the "Extreme latitudes and longitudes" section lists not only storms that set a specific record, but also a wider spectrum of systems that were notable for forming at unusual latitude/longitudes. I think we could lessen the ambiguity if each entry explained why a storm forming at a given location is unusual. As for the "Unusual landfall locations" section, while these entries don't seem to qualify as records per se, they certainly seem to meet the overall notability criteria. Another page, List of Pacific hurricanes, also contains a similar section. Perhaps a title change could be in order here? I would suggest something along the lines of List of notable Atlantic hurricanes. --Undescribed (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The seasonal activity can be cited to HURDAT but extreme latitudes and longitudes can probably go and unusual landfall location is even worse on the grounds of WP:LOOSELY. I'm also somewhat weary about including ranks in stuff like costliest Atlantic hurricanes, largely because we don't quite have a source to prove it was the Xth costliest storm. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Undescribed: If you want to make an article called List of notable Atlantic hurricanes then go ahead. If you guys feel otherwise though I will remove the "Extreme latitudes and longitudes" section as well. I do think it is interesting, but too many things are being placed in this article to try and pass them off as new records. We go by the sources and not what we think might be a cool new record to invent for the list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainty in Hurricane Season Data

Per NOAA, the data prior to 1965 is not really accurate; prior to the advent of satellite tracking, many tropical storms and hurricanes went unnoticed at sea. I added in NOAA's own chart which shows this, but it is kind of an ugly thing. I'm not too familiar with the bar graph stuff on Wikipedia, but is there any way to add uncertainty bars to them? The other possibility might be just graphing the data post-1965, as we are reasonably certain that the data after that point is accurate. Thoughts? Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table listing cyclones of each strength?

I think that this can be in the main article even if it doesn't only contain record-breaking seasons. First one thing, there is another section that don't only contain record-breaking seasons, 3.3. Also, the table is sortable, so it is easy to display the record-high or record-low seasons for each category in order. I have included the table for reference.

Season	Tropical Depressions	Named Storms	Hurricanes	Category ≥2	Major hurricanes (Category ≥3)	Category≥4	Category 5
1967	29	8	6	2	1	1	1
1968	14	8^{[nb 1]}	5^{[nb 2]}	0	0	0	0
1969	20	18^{[nb 3]}	12	7	5	1	1
1970	19	10^{[nb 4]}	5	3	2	0	0
1971	22	13	6	2	1	1	1
1972	19	7	3	1	0	0	0
1973	24	8	4	1	1	0	0
1974	21	11^{[nb 5]}	4	3	2	1	0
1975	23	9^{[nb 6]}	6	5	3	1	0
1976	23	10^{[nb 7]}	6	4	2	0	0
1977	16	6	5	1	1	1	1
1978	24	12^{[nb 8]}	5	3	2	2	0
1979	26	9^{[nb 9]}	5^{[nb 10]}	3	2	2	1
1980	15	11	9	5	2	1	1
1981	22	12^{[nb 11]}	7	4	3	1	0
1982	9	6^{[nb 12]}	2	1	1	1	0
1983	7	4	3	1	1	0	0
1984	20	13^{[nb 13]}	5	2	1	1	0
1985	14	11	7	3	3	1	0
1986	10	6	4	1	0	0	0
1987	14	7	3	1	1	0	0
1988	19	12	5	3	3	3	1
1989	15	11	7	4	2	2	1
1990	16	14	8	2	1	0	0
1991	12	8^{[nb 14]}	4^{[nb 15]}	3	2	1	0
1992	10	7^{[nb 16]}	4	3	1	1	1
1993	10	8	4	2	1	0	0
1994	12	7^{[nb 17]}	3	1	0	0	0
1995	21	19	11	8	5	3	0
1996	13^{[nb 18]}	13^{[nb 19]}	9^{[nb 20]}	6	6	2	0
1997	9	8^{[nb 21]}	3	1	1	0	0
1998	14	14	10	7	3	2	1
1999	16	12	8	8	5	5	0
2000	19	15^{[nb 22]}	8	4	3	2	0
2001	17	15	9	5	4	2	0
2002	14	12	4	3	2	1	0
2003	21	16	7	4	3	2	1
2004	16	15	9	7	6	4	1
2005	31	28^{[nb 23]}	15	8	7	5	4
2006	10	10^{[nb 24]}	5	2	2	0	0
2007	17	15	6	2	2	2	2
2008	17	16	8	6	5	4	0
2009	11	9	3	3	2	1	0
2010	21	19	12	9	5	4	0
2011	20	19	7	4	4	2	0
2012	19	19	10	5	2	0	0
2013	15	14^{[nb 25]}	2	0	0	0	0
2014	9	8	6	3	2	1	0
2015	12	11	4	2	2	1	0
2016	16	15^{[nb 26]}	7	4	4	2	1
2017	18^{[nb 27]}	17^{[nb 28]}	10	8	6	4	2

Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 22:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bigger question would be, what is this article trying to be? I it meant to be an article for record breaking cyclones or a collection of statistics? The table you are trying to include is basically the same as the ones on Atlantic hurricane season. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will put the table in that article. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 00:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most and fewest storms in a season

There is a problem regarding what storms are going into these charts. The thing that throws this off right now is the inclusion of the 1887 season in the "Most storms" table, while excluding all of the seasons that have allegedly had the "fewest storms". There were for example.... a lot of 7 or below total storms in the early 20th century which are not included. Here are my proposals to remedy this situation:

A. Limit the tables to storms starting with the satellite data in the mid-1960s (1965 or 1966 forward). This would limit table inclusion to the 1965 or 1966 Atlantic Hurricane seasons onward.

B. Limit the tables to storms from the 1901 Atlantic hurricane season onward. (Inclusion criteria would be 20th century onward).

C. Full inclusion of all of the Atlantic Hurricane seasons since 1850 on the lists. (This would likely push newer entries off the "fewest" list).

Comments? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest formation records by storm number

Could someone update the List of Atlantic hurricane records#Earliest formation records by storm number table? According to the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season page, most of the storms have so far set records for the earliest formation by storm number. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're there, what are you talking about?--Pokelova (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I must have glanced at the second column of the table. I feel dumb. Sorry. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The No-Name Storm of 1993 is omitted from this list. It affected 22 states, had winds over 100+ mph and came in near Tampa Bay at high tide with a 9 ft storm surge in Hudson, FL. It traveled up the eastern seaboard with seas that were 65 ft in the Atlantic. Most people were not notified more than 2 hours in advance.

https://www.weather.gov/tbw/93storm Cfbuck220 (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding ACE records

I think it would be useful to add a section on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) records to this article. These records are already addressed in the article for Accumulated cyclone energy, but it might be helpful to add at least a link to the page and maybe also a table for both seasonal and individual storm ACE records. Ikkisno1 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am hoping to trim back the tables in that page to just the top 10 highest/lowest seasons on record since ACE is used around the world by the relevant agencies. Adding the top 10 in here as well as list of Atlantic hurricane seasons wouldn't be a bad shout. Jason Rees (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

‎Earliest formation records by storm number #15

This edit argued with my inserting Hurricane Nate (2011) in the runner up spot for 15th, claiming Nate was the 16th in the season. On 2011_Atlantic_hurricane_season, Nate is section 3.16, because section 3.10 is a tropical depression, which doesn't count, so it is 15th.

According to the old version of the page:

 #14 Nate	September 5, 2005	and Maria	September 7, 2011
 #15 Ophelia	September 7, 2005 (06z) and Unnamed	September 19, 1936
 #16 Philippe	September 17, 2005	and Ophelia	September 21, 2011

if Nate, September 7, 2011 (18z) is the 16th storm in its season, then it needs to take Philippe's spot, and Maria either needs to be moved to the #15 spot (as tie or runner-up, I'm not sure), or the nonexistent unnamed storm between Maria and Nate needs to take the #15 spot.

Lastly, this stood out because it said "September 7, 2005 (06z)", which makes no sense if the runner-up is 1936 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Fifteen on September 19, 1936.

Please do not simply revert this; I may be wrong but there's no chance the version that's being reverting to is right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page for Nate says it is the sixteenth named storm of that season, that is the reason for the revert. So if there is an incongruity there, that is to blame.--Pokelova (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Great Hurricane of 1780 be on 1-Minute Windspeed Records?

It was a really strong category 5 that a lot of people think was at least 180 miles per hour... Shift674 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Shift674[reply]

@Shift674: There is no official assessment of its intensity by the National Hurricane Center so we have no valid reason to include it. Given a lack of station observations, any intensity estimates would be speculative anyway. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That's good to know. Shift674 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Shift674[reply]

Changes I made to the earliest formed by storm number table

This is too much to trim down and summarize, so I'm placing it here. Below is the table before my edits. Below that is a list of what I changed and why.

Indicates date of formation tie

Earliest formation of north Atlantic tropical cyclones by storm number
Storm number	Earliest		Second earliest
Storm number	Name	Date of formation	Name	Date of formation
1	Unnamed	January 3, 1938	Unnamed	January 4, 1951
2	Unnamed	May 17, 1887	Unnamed	May 26, 1908
2	Unnamed	May 17, 1887	Beryl	May 26, 2012
3	Cristobal	June 2, 2020	Colin	June 5, 2016
4	Danielle	June 20, 2016	Debby	June 23, 2012 (12z)
5	Edouard	July 6, 2020	Emily	July 11, 2005
6	Fay	July 9, 2020	Franklin	July 21, 2005
7	Gonzalo	July 22, 2020	Gert	July 24, 2005
8	Hanna	July 24, 2020	Harvey	August 3, 2005
9	Isaias	July 30, 2020	Irene	August 7, 2005
10	Josephine	August 13, 2020	Jose	August 22, 2005
11	Kyle	August 14, 2020	Katrina	August 24, 2005
12	Laura	August 21, 2020	Luis	August 29, 1995
13	Marco	August 22, 2020	Maria	September 2, 2005
13	Marco	August 22, 2020	Lee	September 2, 2011
14	Nate	September 5, 2005	Maria	September 7, 2011
15	Ophelia	September 7, 2005	Unnamed	September 19, 1936
15	Nate	September 7, 2011	Unnamed	September 19, 1936
16	Philippe	September 17, 2005	Ophelia	September 21, 2011
17	Rita	September 18, 2005	Philippe	September 24, 2011
18	Stan	October 2, 2005	Sebastien	October 21, 1995
19	Unnamed	October 4, 2005	Tony	October 24, 2012
20	Tammy	October 5, 2005	Unnamed	November 15, 1933
21	Vince	October 9, 2005	—
22	Wilma	October 17, 2005	—
23	Alpha	October 22, 2005	—
24	Beta	October 27, 2005	—
25	Gamma	November 18, 2005	—
26	Delta	November 23, 2005	—
27	Epsilon	November 29, 2005	—
28	Zeta	December 30, 2005	—
Based on data from: U.S. NOAA Coastal Service Center - Historical Hurricane Tracks Tool

1. Lee is, for some reason, tied with Maria as the second-earliest 13th named storm. That doesn't make any sense because the L storm is number 12. So I've removed it entirely because its formation date is not earlier than the dates of the two L storms up above it.

2. 2011 Maria for some reason has the old earliest record for the N (14th) storm row. Same situation as above, removed it.

3. Now it gets weirder. Ophelia and 2011 Nate are tied as the earliest 15th named storms. Same situation as above, except with the deletion of Maria there's now an empty space in the slot for second earliest N storm. So instead of deleting it I've moved it up into the previous record slot to occupy the empty space.

4. Unnamed hurricane fifteen is listed as the old record for the O storm, coming in after 2005 Ophelia. Below it, occupying the old record for the P storm for whatever reason, is 2011 Ophelia. Since the unnamed storm was a category 2 hurricane, the 15th tropical cyclone, and formed earlier than 2011 Ophelia, I've removed 2011 Ophelia and kept the unnamed storm in its place.

5. The removal of 2011 Ophelia leaves an open space for Philippe, which is currently listed as the second-earliest 17th, or R, storm. Obviously it isn't either, so it's been moved upward to occupy the empty space generated by the removal of 2011 Ophelia.

6. The same pattern does not continue. This leaves the second-earliest R, or 17th, storm blank. That needs to be figured out and populated.

7. The storm listed as the earliest 20th storm has a T name, which belongs at number 19. This means there are now three. The NHC didn't notice the unnamed subtropical storm 19 until post-season analysis, which creates two T storms for the year 2005. If they noticed it they'd have named it. Therefore Tammy is the 20th storm of the season but is named with the letter T, which screws everything up because T is reserved for storm number 19. I'm leaving it as-is because chronologically it's correct. But I feel notes need to be added to clarify why it's there, and why the T storm (Tammy) below it is listed as number 20 instead of 19 (which I explained above). Otherwise, if we want to go strictly by named storms we can just remove subtropical storm 19 and shift Tammy and everything below it upward one row. Obviously we wouldn't exclude the storms that formed before naming them was a thing. But that's just an idea. It's fine to leave it as it is too and just add notes.

And that's all. Feel free to leave feedback if you want to. WiggleCat (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee is tied with Maria because there was a tropical storm added before it in the post season. All your changes for 2011 are wrong because of that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which was larger by gale-force (tropical storm-force winds) diameter - Olga or Sandy?

The numbers shown here, here, and here all contradict each other. From what I understand, it seems Sandy was the largest hurricane, but Olga might have been larger as a tropical storm. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy in seasonal records tables

The columns for "total storms" and "tropical storms" are the same, since only tropical storms count towards the total. One of them should be removed. Benshim333 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benshim333: I See your point, though I have a better solution – change the 1st column to "Rank". The table needs a column denoting 1st-place, 2nd-place, etc., and renaming the column in this manner plus modifying the numbers accordingly does so without the redundancy you noted. I have gone ahead and implemented this change; hope this addresses your concern. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this works as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Storms On One Day

In Tropical cyclogenesis, a subsection noting when more than 2 named storms have formed in a single day (2020 & 1893)? 67.215.144.179 (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most tropical cyclones formed per month

I think this section should be changed back to only include tropical storms since there are many tropical depressions in the pre-satellite era which may or may not allow those seasons to end up on this chart in months like February, April, and June. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and changed it back. Not sure who changed it in the first place. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think "month of naming" would fit best, then. Omar is included in the count; it formed on August 31 but was named on September 1.TornadoLGS (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy

Isn’t teddy the biggest storm now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGotYourToastNow (talk • contribs) 05:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This advisory lists the gale diameter at 740 nautical miles (850 mi; 1,370 km), which, according to the source given in this article's table, falls short of Igor, Sandy, and Olga. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues

We have to eventually address the elephant in the room and figure out what information is officially classified as a record, versus excess information that has no value other than a statistic. Here is an example:

Source A gives a list of the 5 most destructive hurricanes in History.

Because we like to make the list consistent with other lists the list is expanded to include 10.

This creates a problem as it falls under WP:SYNTH, there are also additional lists on this article that take information directly from raw sources rather than having them cite a record as official. Kane Tanaka is the 3rd verified oldest person in the world... it is tied down to WP:RS calling her such. Its okay to have "records" tables as long as they are considered to actually BE noteworthy records. Where do sources normally cut off lists to include the most relevant information? Just something to think about... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formation Extremes

Hey guys I was wondering what some formation extremes were in the Atlantic. Specifically the most SW forming TS in the Atlantic — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldGamer32 (talk • contribs)

Fiona most northern category 4 Atlantic Hurricane?

According to Hurricane Fiona article, it was the most intense category 4 Atlantic Hurricane on record. This should be added here. 115.96.137.237 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Atlantic

I feel like this article is forgetting about the South Atlantic. While I doubt it would shake the entire article up, there would be some changes. I'm not entirely sure how we would do orders though (maybe separate by hemisphere?). ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 21:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is for the North Atlantic only. It can be seen via the article title, showing "List of Atlantic hurricane records" and not "List of Atlantic tropical cyclone records. North Atlantic tropical cyclones with winds greater than 74 mph are hurricanes whereas South Atlantic tropical cyclones with winds greater than 74 mph are cyclones, like much of the Southern Hemisphere. Thehurricaneman (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only example, Hurricane Catarina, is referred to as a hurricane. Even then, your reasoning is flawed as that would exclude tropical storms and depressions from the list. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely forgot about that, my bad. Probably just got a bit confused as I see Cyclone Catarina more than Hurricane Catarina. Thehurricaneman (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 being most active June

Are you sure 2024 should be part of the most active June party? Tropical Storm Chris got its name on June 30 at 11 PM AST, but that's actually July 1 at 0300 UTC, which is the term that we use. Iseriously (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iseriously: Agree with this concern. I actually self-reverted my initial edit including 2024 as the most active season for this exact reason, but I see that it was added again by another editor who may not be aware of these concerns. Courtesy ping @TyphoonSeason2024:. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha

Isnt alpha 2020 the most easternformed tropical cyclone? 122.104.179.52 (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha formed at 18.1ºW and Christine formed at 14.0ºW, therefore Christine is still the easternmost tropical cyclone to form. Thehurricaneman (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change source showing Beryl as the earliest Category 5

Rather than using public advisory 14 for Beryl, I think discussion 14 would be better as it explicitly states that Beryl is the earliest Category 5, as well as the second recorded in July. Thehurricaneman (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).

[nb 1]

[nb 2]

[nb 3]

[nb 4]

[nb 5]

[nb 6]

[nb 7]

[nb 8]

[nb 9]

[nb 10]

[nb 11]

[nb 12]

[nb 13]

[nb 14]

[nb 15]

[nb 16]

[nb 17]

[nb 18]

[nb 19]

[nb 20]

[nb 21]

[nb 22]

[nb 23]

[nb 24]

[nb 25]

[nb 26]

[nb 27]

[nb 28]