Talk:List of Pacific hurricanes

List of Pacific hurricanes is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 5, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2008	Featured list candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Former featured list candidate

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific High‑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
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).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as High-importance).

New article

Based on its length alone I split this off from the list of notable tropical cyclones. It needs a lot of work however (as does that article). — jdorje (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Costliest EPAC canes

The current template has Iniki on top, though the Hurricane Pauline article shows the storm caused $7.5 billion, making it costlier than Iniki. Should that be changed? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Man-yi (Japan 07/2007)

Sorry to be repeating myself on another page, but as this is the page dedicated to Pacific typhoons, I believe that Man-yi deserves mention here. It is, as I said on List of notable tropical cyclones, it hit Japan outside of its usual typhoon season (Sept/Oct). It is, according to 日本放送局 (Nihon-housou-kyoku (NHK)(Japan Broadcasting Network))'s weather report, the 'strongest typhoon to hit Japan in July since the end of World War 2'. After watching the news, and the results of the typhoon in Naha, Okinawa and the death toll in Kagoshima (although it is not very high at all), I feel it is a good candidate for this page.

Question: Would I add it to the 'Out of season' landfall (or whatever the title is - sorry)? Please give some advice.

Thank you.

lallous 20:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of Eastern and Central Pacific hurricanes, not Western Pacific typhoons. The addition at List of notable tropical cyclones is sufficient. Thanks, SpLo T // 10:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, though. There is no predefined season for the Western Pacific - the season runs year round. While more typhoons could strike Japan in certain months, to the best of my knowledge, the official agency (JMA) has not prescribed any such period. - SpLo T // 10:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size

This article now has 220 numbered inline cites and uses a total of 113 different sources. However, it has a new problem: size. It is 72 kilobytes in size, which is quite hefty for an incomplete list. Hence I think splitting it is a legitimate line of discussion.

When expanding this list I especially created analogous sections to those in the Atlantic list. Hence the existence of the naming, seasonal activity, and etc sections. The most reasonable sections to be split would be those about seasonal records, perhaps to list of Pacific hurricane seasons. A similar discussion was done ages ago about adding the records to the Atlantic seasons list. Also, since there's no real point in having both lists cover different things, so this probably applies to list of Atlantic hurricanes as well.

But does anyone have alternative sections to split, or should size not be a concern as this is a list? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for peer review input, this list is now finished in my view, and is even bigger. The same justification for a possible split still holds. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists do not have to worry about having too many sources. Excluding the references and the images, the article size is very reasonable, although certainly some articles could be made out of the sections (List of deadliest Pacific hurricanes, or perhaps just List of deadly Pacific hurricanes, come to mind). One concern I have of the article is the lack of a sufficient lede, but otherwise it looks good. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit more to the lead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, nice. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any thoughts on if we should do the same process we did to List of Atlantic hurricanes? It'd become a dab with the various EPAC-centric lists. The only subjects left would be deadliest, costliest, the season activity, duration records, most intense, and the worldwide records. The season activity could be put in List of Pacific hurricane seasons, and the worldwide records are (or should already be) on List of tropical cyclone records. I believe the duration records is a bit trivial, and we can mention the record and stuff those storms' articles (as John already has it). The most intense is also a bit trivial, IMO. The strongest in each month is per HURDAT, so perhaps should be deleted. That leaves just deadliest and costliest. I have a problem with both of them, since we don't have a good source to back up either of them. Not to mention, I believe both have templates. So, we should be good to go in converting this to the AHS page. All we'd have to do is move the season activity and worldwide records, and we should be good. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove all the stuff about the impact and either do one of two things. A) move to List of Pacific hurricane records or B) a merge into List of Pacific hurricane seasons. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's quite enough for List of Pacific hurricane records, so yea, I think any of the etc. stuff should go into List of Pacific hurricane seasons. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Class

In order to be upgraded to B class, I think some of the article below likely needs to be included in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article below. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Is there anything actually worth keeping in this article.Jason Rees (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the second section and parts of the 1st should be merged into the List of Pacific hurricane seasons article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're approaching 2014, should this be merged with Pacific hurricane? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any thoughts about merging this with Pacific hurricane? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline listed twice in costliest hurricanes section with two different total damage numbers

Hello. I think I have noticed a small issue in the "Known storms causing $100 million (2009 USD) or more in damages" section. 1997's Hurricane Pauline is listed twice in that table, and the damage totals are different for each listing, too. Does anyone know which one of the damage total is the correct one for Pauline? 68.113.150.172 (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the "Unnamed but historically significant" section

Anyone object to me eliminating this section? These issues arise:

What criteria do we use to add a storm to this section? It seems to boil down to "notable tropical cyclones that cannot be listed anywhere else"
They are elsewhere in the list, and therefore already qualify for inclusion in their own right

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest im not sure this article should exist. The structure of the article is not brilliant and contains information that is in other articles such as TC naming and Rainfall on Hawaii.Jason Rees (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, maybe you're right. IIRC there used to be a similar list for the Atlantic, and there was an "inverse merger". Perhaps this page requires the same treatment. Split out everyting into other lists (some already exist) and reduce this page to disambiguation. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with both of you. There are tons of historically important storms not even in the article, FYI. This article as a whole has honestly become a list of things that don't have anything else. Here, believe it or not, I'd split almost everything to Pacific hurricane. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just delete the article, tbh. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ana the longest lasting Central Pacific tropical cyclone?

In the article, it is stated that "no known tropical cyclone forming in the central north Pacific lasted for longer than 14 days without crossing into another basin; the tropical cyclone forming in the central Pacific that spent the most time there was 1988's Hurricane Uleki at 11.5 days from formation to crossing the dateline." However, Ana has surpassed Uleki by lasting for 12.5 days (Advisory #51 was issued an hour ago). Should this be added to the article? --Weatherlover819 (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to the CPHC's FAQ site, the longest lasting Central Pacific hurricane was Hurricane Tico of 1978, lasting 12.5 days (from July 18 0000 UTC to July 30 1200 UTC). Why is Uleki listed as the longest? --Weatherlover819 (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CPHC has just confirmed via the monthly summary, that Ana is the longest tropical cyclone in the basin for now.Jason Rees (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major hurricanes counted as minor hurricanes in table on highest seasonal activity, and hurricanes are customarily counted as tropical storms as well

I have changed the table accordingly, and brought one or two more numbers in accordance with the content of the articles on the various pacific hurricane seasons.Redav (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WPAC to CPAC

Im not sure its wise to include a list on WPAC to CPAC tropical cyclones, when we have ex-tropical cyclones regularly making the crossing. Even if it is kept though I would object to Omeka being on the list since it wasnt considered tropical until after it had crossed the dateline in BT.Jason Rees (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things in the article are questionable. I wouldn't mind if it was deleted/merged, with the useful info put in Pacific hurricane. IMO, the crossers wouldn't be one of the things I'd include, as it's fairly trivial. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the JMA considered Omeka to be a tropical depression while it was on WPAC, so I can say that Omeka was a legit basin crosser, at least more legit than the likes of Enrique and Jimena, whose status as TCs on WPAC is debatable since both weren't reported by JMA. ABC paulista (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Pacific 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wmo.int/web/www/TCP/MEETING/RA%20IV%20HC-XXIII/OP-TCP30-2000for%20DOC6.doc

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest storm each month

I know that we tend to use pressure to rank storms by strength, but both the CPHC and NHC use winds to rank storm strength, and I feel like we should respect that in this basin. In particular, this would cause John to be listed as the strongest in August rather than Ioke. --Jasper Deng (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only August would suffer changes, but other months as well. But, I feel that such change would be wrong since the World Meteorological Organization uses the minimum central pressure as a parameter for intensity, withe they being the maximum body for meteorological services, and NCH acknowledges that minimum central pressure is a parameter for intensity.

Still, nothing impede us to add a new table, listing the strongest TC per maximum sustained winds per month. ABC paulista (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest while a new table could be introduced for the strongest storm of each month etc, I am not sure that this article is needed. This is because while its great that we are aware of all these records, several are trivial and others are split off into their own articles.Jason Rees (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While recognizing that central pressure is a metric for storm intensity, the NHC uses winds in e.g. its TCR's. Note that the NHC didn't call Patricia the "strongest" EPAC storm until its winds exceeded Linda's, even when its pressure was already well below Linda's.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, NHC recognized Wilma as the most intense cyclone on Atlantic basin mostly based on it's central pressure. And since WMO favors minimum pressure, we should go along as well.

What, again, still don't impede us to add a new table listing the strongest TC per maximum sustained winds per month. ABC paulista (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is important. They said it had the lowest pressure. They did not say it was the strongest (in fact, that word does not show up at all in the TCR). For example, here they say Celia is tied for the strongest June hurricane even though its official pressure estimate is higher than Ava's.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think that it would be better to add a list instead of substitute the current one. ABC paulista (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that, though I still maintain that readers would be looking for wind rankings, not pressure.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how there are often no pressure readings given for Pacific hurricanes in previous years, solely using pressure as a basis to compare the storms' intensities would inaccurately portray that most of the strongest storms occurred in modern times. In fact, all 3 storms that made their way into the current list did so by virtue of being the only storm active in that month. Furthermore, it is stated explicitly in the section: "Intensity is measured solely by central pressure unless the pressure is not known, in which case intensity is measured by maximum sustained winds." I would interpret it as requiring a comparison of storms' wind speeds to rank their relative strengths if one of the storms did not have a pressure, instead of ignoring that storm. But sure, creating a separate list would be acceptable as well.Qscdefb99 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We simply cannot assume that "portraying that most of the strongest storms occurred in modern times" is innacurate because without the central pressure we cannot access it's official intensity, so we don't really know how much intense they were and that means that these are, intensity-wise, incomparable. We have to use the data that we have, and if a storm doesn't have a official pressure, we can't use highest sustained winds to suppose that a storm was more intense than the other that had its pressure estimated, otherwise this would constitute WP:OR. Maximum sustained winds are somewhat correlated with central lowest pressure, but they aren't totally proportional, as Hurricane Matthew showed us recently.

And, you interpreted that phrase incorrectly. Maybe it's a bit misleading the way it is now, but the phrase "Intensity is measured solely by central pressure unless the pressure is not known, in which case intensity is measured by maximum sustained winds." was indeed to make storms that have no pressure records ineligilble in favor of storms that have a official estimated and/or measured pressure in a given month. We should only use the winds as a secondary parameter, when all storms in a given month have no official pressure. Lowest pressure should be always above highest winds, since the World Meteorological Organization acknowledges it as a better intensity parameter. ABC paulista (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the least, the period for which all Pacific hurricanes are given a pressure estimate should be included, to remind readers that there exists a possibility that there are other storms prior to that period that are stronger than those listed. A separate list which uses wind speeds should also be created, as it has been done with the list of strongest storms.

Since hurricanes are categorized in the SSHWS scale by their wind speeds, instead of their pressures, the public perception of hurricanes' strengths are based on wind speeds. It would be very confusing to an average reader to discover that Winnie '83 is not found, even though it is a high-end category 1 hurricane while omeka is just a moderate tropical storm.

At the least, I would like the ambiguity to be removed, that storms without a given pressure would NEVER make the list unless all storms within that month do not have a pressure, and that storms were not necessarily given a pressure until ~20 years ago, while data for wind speeds are available for more than half a century. I consider this addition to be important, since most other records are given across the satellite era, but it is not apparent that this list constitutes an exception. I would also argue for creating another list using wind speeds as the parameter, since wind speed is a parameter for measuring storms' strengths after all, and it would be more consistent with the "strongest storms" section.Qscdefb99 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Saffir-Simpson Wind Scale is only used by NHC and CPHC and only applied in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. No other official RSMC or TCWC use it, with them having their own wind scale and their own way to measure it (10-min sustained, gusts, how many quadrants have the winds, etc), so the SSHWS is very, very far from being a unanimity. And WMO officialy states that central pressure is the official way to measuure a storm intensity, so the Lowest pressure is always more official and consistent with the "strongest storms" section than highest winds, since the World Meteorological Organization is above all the meteorological agencies, NHC and CPHC included.

I'm in favor of creating a second table though. ABC paulista (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan: I believe that EPAC's Best Track is enough reference for the inclusion of the strongest storms per month. After all, the Atlantic record's article also has one. ABC paulista (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, per this but I don't think finding NHC sources will be hard. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of Pacific 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) 01:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Pacific 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://www.webcitation.org/5wfdFHGPB?url=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=13951 to http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=13951

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) 20:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA RELATED GRIEVANCES

I'm not usually one to make this sort of post - trust me, look through my entire 8-year editing history and you will find nothing of the sort - and you may just find it a more worthwhile endeavor than the experience I just went through.

For the sake of my feeble ape mind not believing that this endeavor was a total waste, I shall relay to you poor wikipedians an incident which has taken place on this very article, not one hour ago as my time of writing.

I've been following these pacific hurricanes for a good while now, thinking "oh my! This season has been quite active of late! I wonder how this compares to other seasons in how soon new hurricanes formed" That, dear friends, was my very first mistake.

My second mistake immediately followed; rather than simply wondering aloud and never considering the thought again, or perhaps searching the answer up on google and giving up when I couldn't find the answer, I instead noticed that there was no documentation whatsoever on this, and endeavored to find it myself.

what followed was a frantic carpal-tunnel infused perusal through the ever-anal annals of wikipedia's pacific hurricanes portal, searching all hurricanes from the last SEVENTY (70) years for an answer. The first couple were easy: The earliest hurricane to form was Pali in 2016, followed closely by Winona in 1989, and the earliest second was Hali in 1992, followed likewise by Bud in 2012.

The rest were much more of a hodgepodge - there was one stalwart hurricane Four in 1956, a nearly unquantifiable amount from 1984, 1985, and 1992, and a 6th, 10th, and 13th from 1970 that I later had to rewrite once I realized I'd been counting a tropical depression as a "storm", oh woe is me!

But that was not the only woe I was to find. No, indeed, as I had finished compiling the odd storm from 2012, 2014, 2018 - the single E from 2021 that remained, all of the storms from 1974 and 1978, gone back around to make sure I got all the dates right, and properly linked up (with in-section links no less!) I had no idea what was in store for me. Indeed, as I was about to press the terrifying "show preview" button I am still afraid to even gaze upon now lest it enact its revenge once again, I simultaneously found myself hitting the backspace on my computer by mistake!

Thrown forwards and backwards in the textual space-time continuum at the same time, this page I had spent the last seven hours compiling full-time found itself immediately torn apart like some internet version of being tossed into black hole, thrown into in a place beyond time, beyond space entirely: where it ended up, I know not, nor does science as a whole. What I do know, however, is that it is no longer within this corporeal realm.

I frantically checked every version - I had saved gratuitously, of course. The caches had vamoosed! absconded! hightailed out of town! I found myself staring into the very article I had been staring at for the last seven hours, something inscrutable missing, the memories of alphebatized lists already fading quickly from mind as in a dream after waking up.

Was I merely dreaming? Would it have been better if I had been? I do not know the answer, nor am I sure I want to. What I do know is that there now exists a timeline, not too distant from our own, in which there is now a list of the earliest hurricanes to form in the basin over the last eighty-some-odd years, preserved for generations to come, edited by prospective amateur hurricaneologists excitedly exclaiming "Victor is the earliest storm to form in this basin since 1992!" as they submit another typo-ridden, citation-famished paragraph of text to the newest seasonal article. However, this is not the timeline we live in, and that, my friends...
makes
me
mad.
exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding CPAC to WPAC and adding Olivia to EPAC-WPAC.

There are many notable tropical cyclones from there like Ioke 2006 and Paka 1997. and Olivia should be counted as its remants reformed ad a WPAC Depression — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodguyas (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CPAC to WPAC crossovers happens way too frequently to be notable, and the fact that notable cyclones like these were part of it does'nt change the fact that this happening isn't notable on itself. And what Olivia are you talking about? There were 10 storms named Olivia on EPAC. ABC paulista (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]