Talk:List of New Jersey hurricanes

List of New Jersey hurricanes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 5, 2006	Featured list candidate	Promoted

Weather: Tropical Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).

New Jersey High‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pics

If anyone is here, how should the pics system go? Does Gloria make sense as the opening pic? What about Floyd? Which pic would be better, Floyd near NC or Floyd over New England? Hurricanehink 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format

If we are going to make an article for each region/state, they need to have consistent formatting. Currently the Florida and Texas lists follow a very different format than this article... — jdorje (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Florida and Texas aren't the same type of list. They only list particularly damaging hurricanes, while this, which I based off of the List of California hurricanes, lists every NJ hurricane. Hurricanehink 03:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. We should not have two different list formats. What if I wanted to make a Catastrophic New Jersey hurricanes article - would this be a new article? — jdorje (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there's not really catastrophic New Jersey hurricanes. There were a few important ones or damaging ones, but very few get up here. I suppose the catastrophic would be a new article, but I don't see the point for it. The catastrophic ones are only (I guess) for areas that have so many hurricanes that they only pick the most important. Instead, NJ falls in the same category as New England, Arizona, and California. The only reason for two different list formats is, basically, not enough information for a catastrophic ones, so instead they list every storm. Hurricanehink 12:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class

This article is obviously higher than Stub class. What is it? Hurricanehink 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet that if you just add a few more sentences on something other than the list of storms, it could be a start class. Icelandic Hurricane #12 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see it going higher than start-class with the current format. What about a format more like List of retired Atlantic hurricanes? — jdorje (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this sort of article is that there can't be tables of all of them. However, should there be tables on deadliest storms, number of storms by month, or strongest upon entering the state, something like that? Hurricanehink 00:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Strongest upon entering the state is a bit tough though, since such things aren't recorded. I would like to make an NC article with similar records, but I wouldn't know how to find the strength of Hugo or Donna. — jdorje (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strength could be based on peak winds while in the state, with Hurdat as a source. Storms before 1850 would be omitted due to lack of information. I'll work on the others. Hurricanehink 14:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Strength" should be based on pressure. The problem is the best track only gives 6-hourly entries so they don't always list what strength a storm was when entering a particular state. (They do list how strong each storm is at landfall, but most storms don't make landfall in NJ.) One thing the best track does give is the wind strength category in each state. Search the hurdat-formatted best track data for "NJ" and you will find entries like "NJ1" for storm 11 of 1878; this means that storm caused category-1 winds in New Jersey. Interestingly there has never been an NJ2 storm and the most recent NJ1 one was in 1903 (yes, 103 years ago). I wonder if the data is incomplete after 1914... — ;jdorje (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only 3 storms have actually made landfall, at landfall would be hard. I could just use the best track position from when it was over the state. I'll work on this later tonight or tomorrow (going out soon). Yea, that's weird there has never been above an NJ1 here, yet New England has seen 3's on multiple occassions. Hurricanehink 15:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is in present tense. Is that fine, or should past tense be used? Hurricanehink 00:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The past events (i.e., the list section) should definitely be in past tense. — jdorje (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydoke. Hurricanehink 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

Here goes nothing. I put it up for FLC. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines

I have added some meta:EasyTimelines to the article - not sure if they belong where they are at the moment or should be under their own section heading at the end, since they go through more than one decade? Please feel free to take your pick :) TheGrappler 01:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the whole thing could go at the very end, after the storms but before listed by month. Also, good work with it, though I'm not convinced of its usefulness. A smaller version would be nice, with only deadly or notable storms being listed. Every storm is a bit overkill, and including damage or deaths in it is a bit redundant. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller is hard, unfortunately, due to years being crammed close to each other. It might be possible to slice it into smaller segments, but then context is lost. I agree it would be better to cut it down until it just has the fundamental key points, which is something I am thinking about how to do. Is it useful? I think so - I reckon the article was missing something like this. I find that something strongly visual like this gives a better idea of the timescale of events; the text of the article is very dense, as was noted as WP:FLC. I originally put them in at the end, I'll move them back there. The alternative would be to move them towards the front and have them as a "drop-down outline" for the text that follows (which was pretty much the reason I moved them to under the section headings, but the periods covered don't match). TheGrappler 04:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed back (possibly not enough, but considerably). How about the space to the right of the TOC? If the timelines serve as a brief "introductory summary" this might be the best place for them - when hidden they do not taking up critical room, when expanded they lead into the more complete list. TheGrappler 06:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions

I noticed that there was an unpleasant contradiction between the main text and the "deadliest storms" table. Hurricane Doria killed three people in 1967 (this is mentioned in the table) but Tropical Storm Doria apparently also killed three in 1971 - and isn't mentioned in the table. Is this due to a mix-up between names? Was Tropical Storm Doria non-lethal? Or was it simply missed out of the table? If both should be in the table, can they be disambiguated in some way? Hurricane Edouard is missing from the table but is listed as causing two deaths. It ought to be noted (for Isabel and Donna, each having one indirect death) that only directly caused deaths are counted. The 1933 storm is listed as causing "many casualties" so ought to be one of the higher ones in the list (presumably), but the exact number isn't given and it isn't placed in the table. It's clearly not explained by the table excluding deaths offshore, since many of the casualties given for other storms were drownings. This all needs getting sorted out, preferably by someone with access to Buchholz and Savadore. This is probably my last remaining quibble but I can't see that this should be FL'd until it gets sorted... after that this will be an absolutely brilliant list! TheGrappler 03:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm only human, and I tried looking through the list to get all of them, but I see I missed those few you mentioned. I put them in, except for the 1933 storm. I put a note on top about it. Deaths offshore are included. Otherwise it would be confusing (Edouard has 2 NJ drownings in the ocean). Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, shame it's not possible just to copy and cite somebody else's table! :-) Are we sure that the other storms were all non-lethal? The difficulty with the "list of deadliest storms" is that while sources may be found for NJ casualty numbers for individual storms, there may not be a source that says "and you don't have to worry about any of the other storms, none of them have known deaths in this state". This is complicated by the fact that a lot of sources aren't specific about where storm deaths occurred, just giving a total for the entire United States. If there's no way of telling whether this table is accurate, should this be mentioned in some way? Or another way found to present this information (for example, converting the table to text and writing in a way that suggests this isn't meant to be taken as a definitive list)? TheGrappler 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered that problem during the making of the page. I had suspicions on some storms that they caused deaths in NJ, like Gabrielle (1989), but had to do some digging to find out how many. The note you put in is perfect. There could and likely were other storms that caused deaths, direct or indirect, in the state, but due to lack of sources we simply don't know. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding hurricane names

The decision to bold hurricane names may be a little controversial so I thought I should justify my choice to do so here. Firstly, it is in line with the Manual of Style: the current advice on bolding text is to "make judicious use of [such] devices" in order to increase legibility. In particular, this is a list of hurricanes, and simply having a Wikilink wasn't making them stand out from the text enough for the hurricanes themselves to be easily identified. Secondly, one of the hurricane names was already bolded, so I thought rather than revert that for consistency it made more sense for the others to follow suit. Thirdly, while most featured lists do not bold the items they are listing, this is generally because their information is in a table and the appropriate names could simply be read from the appropriate column, or because the ordering was alphabetical and therefore the list looked something like:

Listed thing one (1823): definition of listed thing one
Listed thing two (1723): definition of listed thing two

...and so on, with the listed items standing out easiy from their wikilinking and their position in the bullet point. This list is very textual, with the hurricane names occupying various positions in the sentence or paragraph, so they do not stand out so well. There are other featured lists which currently bold the listed items, so it does not appear to be generally considered as bad practice. TheGrappler 11:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, and I wouldn't have thought of that. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Track map

List of South America tropical cyclones is currently on FLC with a cumulative track map. Would it be worthwhile to create a similar map for this article?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sure. In fact, I was thinking about something like that, and I think there should be two images. One for a wide range covering the far-away storms, and a smaller image of storms that actually crossed New Jersey. The smaller one could be a subset of the bigger one, maybe. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that makes sense. I'll leave it to you to make the lists up, you know where to put them. You know the geography of NJ better than me :P--Nilfanion (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. :) I'm working on another List of page, so I'll put the two at the same time. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Bonnie? What about Charley?

I recall Hurricanes Bonnie and Charley hitting Florida within a day of each other, and both of them passing off the Jersey Shore a few days later. It was the remnants of Charley, not Bonnie, which brought the heaviest rain to the Jersey Shore on August 15th, 2004. Bonnie might have spread some light rain a day or two earlier, I don't specifically remember, but Charley passed off our coast as a 40 mile per hour tropical storm. I remember this clearly because the most intense wind and rain were far ahead of Charley's center, and when the center was closest, there was no rain or wind to speak of onshore, mostly offshore. Earlier that day, Charley had been a Category One hurricane off of South Carolina, and a day or two before that, a monster Category 4, hitting Punta Gorda, Florida. Later that season, New Jersey got rains from the remnants of Frances, Gaston, Ivan & Jeanne. Jeanne was the strongest, and brought the most intense winds of that season, although Charley was far wetter. I will try to find sources to back this up, but I have followed every New Jersey tropical storm & hurricane since 1976, and work in the Office of Emergency Management. Some of the worst conditions I've ever experienced were during the passage of Tropical Storm Ernesto in 2006, because the wind and rain lasted a long, long time: about two days, with frequent gusts near hurricane force, even over that threshold just south of here. Floyd, Bertha, Gloria and Belle were stronger, but they moved faster. My community, Seaside Heights, was in the direct center of 70 mph Tropical Storm Floyd in 1999, with a dead calm lasting about an hour, sandwiched between periods very, very windy conditions. Of all the listed storms I've experienced, Hanna in '08 was the biggest wimp of all: a bit of rain and wind, but mostly hype.

I looked up the history of Bonnie and Charley from the National Hurricane Center.

Bonnie, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004bonnie.shtml? passed east of the Jersey Shore, and probably did bring light rain, but it was not memorable

Two days later, on the 15th, Charley, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004charley.shtml? did the same, but in a much more dramatic way.

I want to add this to the page, but I'm not certain how it is done, especially adding the reference. Can a more experienced editor take on this task? I prefer to stick to the discussion pages. Thanks.

Charley sure impacted the Jersey Coast financially. Its rains fell during a Saturday in August: poison to the all-important tourism trade, of which I make my living. Thanks for making the addition! :)Popartpete 23:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

I agree with George Profulis, a respected local meterologist. New Jersey is hit by a Category 1 or 2 storm directly (landfall) about once every 100 years (last in 1903, putting us 6 years overdue), and by a Category 3 or 4 landfalling storm every 200 years (last 1821, 188 years ago, coming due soon). Major storms passing within 50 miles off our coast ('38, '44, Donna, Belle, Gloria) causing a "direct hit" are far more common, and can be just as damaging and deadly. I would say that a repeat of '44 today, would cause Katrina-like damage in the Northeast. New Jersey might be small, but it is also the most densely populated state in the nation. Many of the homes, especially those along the shore, are only a few feet apart. A good storm surge like seen in '44 would devastate 100 miles of prime real estate that is far more valuable per square mile then that along the Gulf Coast. Also, strong storms passing to our west (Gale of 1878, Tropical Storm David in 1979) can put N.J. in a storm's right front quadrant, the most vicious part of the cyclone.

Popartpete 00:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Charley didn't do too much, which is why it was missed at first, but I added its impact. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of New Jersey hurricanes. 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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5h6q3fJ5B to http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0434/5/2/pdf/i1520-0434-5-2-185.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on List of New Jersey hurricanes. 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) 22:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of New Jersey hurricanes. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914073015/http://www.thereporteronline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19849163&BRD=2275&PAG=461&dept_id=466404&rfi=6 to http://www.thereporteronline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19849163&BRD=2275&PAG=461&dept_id=466404&rfi=6

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) 13:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of New Jersey hurricanes. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902114705/http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=3353400 to http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=3353400

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) 20:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paulette and Teddy

They both killed one person due to rip currents off the shore. Since they count for Fay, we should add Paulette and Teddy. WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

should we add Debby 2024?

I live in NJ and I think we should add Debby because it did inpact us. Hurricane Louie (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry,impact Hurricane Louie (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, please add Debby and be sure to include a reference. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]