Jump to content

Talk:List of retired Atlantic hurricane names

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

Assessment Table

[edit]
1950s C54 E54 H54 C55 D55 I55 J55 A57
1960s D60 C61 H61 F63 C64 D64 H64 B65 I66 B67 C69
1970s C70 A72 C74 F74 E75 A77 G78 D79 F79
1980s A80 A83 E85 G85 G88 J88 H89
1990s D90 K90 B91 A92 L95 M95 O95 R95 C96 F96 H96 G98 M98 F99 L99
2000s K00 A01 I01 M01 I02 L02 F03 I03 J03 C04 F04 I04
J04 D05 K05 R05 S05 W05 D07 F07 N07 G08 I08 P08
2010s I10 T10 I11 S12 I13 E15 J15 M16 O16 H17 I17 M17 N17 F18 M18 D19
2020s L20 η20 ι20 I21 F22 I22

Number of retired storms - Gracie not included

[edit]

The press release indicates 70 names were retired, but we are getting 71 with the new additions. There was a previous mention that Gracie in 59 might not have been retired, and indeed the NHC does not include it; the 2007 names have been added, though. Does anyone have any word whether Gracie was retired, since it's looking like it isn't. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we poke DR to ask for us? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked him, and I also sent an email about the problem. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is conflicting on Gracie due to mixed sources. I think it might be best to treat it as not retired for now. Maybe we should also move Hurricane Gracie to Hurricane Gracie (1959) due to such issue. CrazyC83 (talk)
Moved it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a very good reply from the webmaster at the Hurricane Research Division. Here was my email. 

In the AOML FAQ for retired hurricane names, I notice you include Hurricane Gracie in 1959 as one of the retired names - 
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/B3.html. However, the National Hurricane Center clearly does not include it in their list of 
retired names - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/retirednames.shtml. Additionally, a recent press release announcing the retirement of 2007
storm names indicates that only 70 names have been retired - http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080513_stormnames.html. The
list on your site has 68 names, which, adding the 2007 names, would total to 71. Could you provide some clarification, as this issue 
is confusing.

And here is the reply. 

Mr. Hink,
Thanks for catching that.  I didn't write the original list of retired names which makes up this FAQ,
so I am cc'ing the original authors and NHC's webmaster in hopes of clarifying this.  Gracie may not have 
officially been retired, but it has been retired de facto, since the name was never reintroduced.  The use 
of women's names for Atlantic hurricanes began in 1953, and for the first decade the composition of the 
name lists was very informal.  For the first couple of years they used the same list, then began to change 
them around but not in any organized fashion.  It wasn't until 1964 that they employed rotating lists of
names.
The retirement of names from the list was also very informal at first.  In 1954, Hurricanes Carol,
Edna, and Hazel were so devastating, that the Weather Bureau decided to leave their names off
any lists for ten years.  Carol and Edna were eventually reintroduced and used, but in 1969 it was
decided at the Intergovernmental Hurricane Warning Conference to re-retire those names, this
time indefinitely, which is why those names are highlighted in red and the year of their last use
is given.
The problem with Gracie is that documentation of any decision may be lacking.  Notes from
the Intergovernmental Conference, where such a decision would've been made, were not
regularly published, as they are now.  There is no mention of the name's retirement in the
seasonal summary by Gordon Dunn.  There might be some records at NHC that might
document this, so I am leaving Gracie on our list unless we can find out otherwise.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
Neal M. Dorst
AOML/HRD webmaster

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New version of this article

[edit]

Over the past few months i have been working on a new version of this article, and now it is almost ready to be published, except i dont know what would be the best way to do it.Jason Rees (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason, I noticed that you developed your changes in paralel with changes to this article, which means it can't be trivially merged without loss of the changes that were made on this page. I think it's best if you just carefully and slowly merge your changes in here, giving it enough time for others to comment on. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Jason wasn't the only person who edited in his draft version, so the edit history would be destroyed by copying it over here. IMO, the best solution would be copying it over, and leaving a message on this talk page, along the lines of what was done at the top of here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could do a history merge, but that won't help much - with parallel edits that becomes even messier, and the history will become incomprehensible. I'm afraid the only way forward is to pretty much abandon the userspace draft, and merge in the changed parts. Forking and merging is just not a workflow that works very well with a wiki. If you need admin help here to do technical chores, give me a ping, but other than that, there isn't really much I can do here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i have just copied and pasted the article in and provided attribution at the top of the page. I felt that the changes i implemented were too much too do it gradually since it is a completely different to reflect the format used in other basins.Jason Rees (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible addition if can be found: country requesting retirement?

[edit]

I wonder if there is a way to find out what country actually did the retiring of the storms, and highlight it in the areas affected. In some cases, such as Katrina 2005, it is probably obvious (but would still be OR if not sourced), while others it may not be if many were affected without an extreme hit. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty trivial imo since we cant apply it to the whole list, the other concern id have is finding the sources for such lists. It would have to be the WMO Final Reports half of which are not currently online and would have to be found in met libraries and scanned in by someone. That being said i wouldn't mind finding the one for the Atlantic in 1994 and seeing if the common excuse for Gordon 94 not being retired is true.Jason Rees (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
  • "Within the Atlantic ocean" - probably should specify North Atlantic.
  • "the names of any significant tropical cyclone" - singular/plural agreement problem here. Probably should just be "name"
  • Opening sentence is too long. Try cutting it down.
  • "practise" - should be "practice" (American/Canadian English prefers the c)
  • You should clarify with Carol, Edna, and Hazel that they were in 1954.
  • "however in 1969" - semicolon before however, and comma after however.
  • " In 1977" - add comma to the end
  • "when it struck Central America during October and November 1998" - Mitch only struck the region in October, so I'd cut November.
  • "which caused over $108 billion in damage during August 2005" - "during" doesn't seem right (maybe "in"), and you should add a note somewhere around here that all damage totals are in the original years' USD unless otherwise specified.
  • "Since the formal start of naming during the 1947 Atlantic hurricane season" - I think you shouldn't emphasize the 1947 so much. Perhaps, in the lede, specify 1953 as the start of human naming, given this is about retired names, and names in the Phonetic alphabet can't be retired (just ask Alpha).

That's it through the lede. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and TAWX14 have responded and dealt with these comments.Jason Rees (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. What about mentioning 1954? And I think 1947 is inappropriate to mention. Retirement didn't start until human names were introduced, which was 1953. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1947 isnt irrelevant to mention since we should mention when the naming of hurricanes formally started even if the names were not publicly released until midway through 1950. The 1953 season is more irrelvant to mention in the lead since its just fluff.Jason Rees (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is about retired Atlantic hurricane names, which couldn't have happened, IMO, with the phonetic alphabet (just like with the Greeks, a letter wouldn't actually get removed). 1953 is the first naming list which could have had retired names, since it was the start of human names, which (given 1954) they were retire-able. I also think, for ease of reading, you should say Carol, Edna, and Hazel were in 1954, and the practice began the following year. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree, the phonetic alphabet and the Greek Alphabet are retire-able if the Hurricane Committee so wishes to do that, in fact i believe the official policy at the moment is too retire them and skip the letter the next time its needed. Anyway as you stated on IRC earlier we do need to state, when the naming started in the lead and that's 1947 not 1953, even if some were subsequently considered not to be tropical storms.Jason Rees (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the WMO said that Greek storms would not have their names removed. Storms worthy of retirement would be included in the retired storms list as "Alpha2006", for example, but Alpha wouldn't be removed. I think it's logical to include the start of human naming in 1953, since that's the first year that storms could have been retired, but even that is extraneous. I think it should just be removed from the lede instead of being shoehorned in. And I still think that it should be emphasized that Edna, Carol, and Hazel were in 1954, instead of the current emphasis on 1955. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments.

  • "By 1947, tropical cyclones developing in the North Atlantic ocean," - remove comma after "ocean"
    • Done.
  • " This practise " - this is 'Merica! Use 'Merican english!
    • Done.
  • "and caused a lot of confusion within the media and the public" - I think "a lot" is a wishywashy word. I'd just remove the phrase "a lot of"
    • Done.
  • "next 2 years" - should be spelled out
  • "before at" - poor constuction. I recommend splitting up the sentence, add a comma, change to "until" and add "when" later, something like that.
  • "as a result the same names were reused during the next year with only one change: Gilda for Gail." - there should either be an "and" before "as", or a semicolon, and change "Gilda for Gail" to "Gilda replaced Gail".
  • "before in 1960" - same as before, poor construction.
  • "Female names" - Why Proper noun?
    • What?
  • The second paragraph of "Background" makes no mention of what year Edna or Carol formed.
  • "it was decided to start retiring the names of significant tropical cyclones for ten years after which they might be reintroduced" - comma needed somewhere here.
  • "with the names Carol and Edna reintroduced ahead of the 1965 and 1968 hurricane seasons" - add "respectively" at the end
  • "ten lists of hurricane names were inaugurated, by the" - why the comma?
  • "at each years hurricane committee" - "years" --> "year's"

That's it in "Background". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies between this article and individual hurricanes'

[edit]

I've noticed a number of discrepancies in the death and damage numbers this article includes with those of their respective hurricanes' articles. I don't particularly feel like going through each article and seeing which side has the correct numbers, but that should probably be done. —烏Γ (kaw), 03:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally attempted to do this in the past but the biggest problem is different people, have different thoughts on the death toll based on reliable sources. For example Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) and I have disagreed on the usage of this source here.Jason Rees (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I nipped through the 2010s earlier and found a couple of mistakes in Irene and Sandys totals which have now been corrected. The whole of the 2010's should be consistant now.Jason Rees (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self: Check Hazel and the rest of the 1950s when the rework is complete.Jason Rees (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies between what defines a storm as the "most intense"

[edit]

Recently there seems has been some debate as to what makes a hurricane the "most intense" for each decade. It is generally agreed upon that barometric pressure determines what the most intense storm is, rather than wind speed. For the 2010s decade, even though the National Hurricane Center says that Matthew is the strongest Atlantic hurricane since Felix in 2007, both Igor and Joaquin had lower barometric pressures than Matthew. It doesn't seem to make sense that an exception be made for Matthew, because it undermines the consistency of the article. --Undescribed (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should be going off winds in this basin because that's what the NHC uses to rank storm strength. Also, for what it's worth, the tropical cyclone article defines it as using winds. Most readers assume that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case, shouldn't this article also note that for the 1980s decade, Allen is the most intense storm of the decade and not Gilbert? Allen had winds of 190 mph versus 185 mph with Gilbert, even though Gilbert's pressure of 888 mbar was lower than Allen's 899 mbar. --Undescribed (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by my argument. Or... we can list both the one with lowest pressure and highest winds as a compromise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to list both winds and pressure but I will note that this is a project wide issue that doesnt just affect this article. As a result, I am loathed to make any changes to this article before a more through discussion takes place on the project page.Jason Rees (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the article should list both winds and pressure, but that the issue extends far beyond the scope of this article. As a result I have started a discussion on WP:Tropical cyclones here: [1] --Undescribed (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 50 external links on List of retired Atlantic hurricane names. 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) 06:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of retired Atlantic hurricane names. 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) 05:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of retired Atlantic hurricane names. 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) 19:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why break up the tables by decade?

[edit]

@Jason Rees: Why do you say it "works a lot better" to break up the table of hurricanes into decades? The whole point of a sortable table is to organize all the entries along the lines of particular fields, and breaking up the table defeats that purpose. If I want to know how many hurricane names have been retired for each letter of the alphabet, or what are the highest and lowest wind speeds and death and damage totals for hurricanes that led to a retired name, all of this was easy using the sortable features once I had combined the separated decadal tables into a single table. You undid this work saying that it "works a lot better" the old way. Please identify what exactly it is that works better. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acctully @BlueMoonlet: I strongly feel that the whole format of the article is a lot better broken into decades, as it allows the reader to have a introduction to what happened with the naming that decade, before viewing the retired names. It also allows the reader ro view the death, damages and windspeeds on decadal basis and possibly see if there is a rising trend in names retired from year to year. Also your edit summuary just said that you were merging them to "allow for global sorting" which isnt possible, since the list of areas affected by each hurricane is completely different from one hurricane to another.Jason Rees (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all that information was preserved in my version. The only thing missing is the totals at the bottom of each decade-specific table, but much of that information was repeated in the text, which I kept. Each decade had a second of prose devoted to it, including the totals for death and damage.
When I said "global sorting," I meant sorting over the entire data set (i.e., all decades), not sorting over geographic areas. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the information was kept but the order it is in now, allows the reader to view the retired names by decade, before moving on to the next decade and retred names without having to scroll back up to find out for example when the hurricane committee took over the naming.Jason Rees (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having all the narrative and then the tables seems to make more sense. I don't know why a person would want to look at information in the order you describe, or be annoyed at the scrolling if they did. And anyway, why should (for example) the hurricanes from 1978 and 1979 be listed in the same table, but the hurricanes from 1979 and 1980 be listed in separate tables?
On the contrary, several interesting questions can be addressed when you can sort all the data together, but impossible when the table is broken up by decades. As I've already mentioned, these include how many hurricane names have been retired for each letter of the alphabet, or what are the highest and lowest wind speeds and death and damage totals for hurricanes that led to a retired name. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with having one big table, with the interesting narrative in an independent section before the table. Some wouldn't be needed to put there, like the deadliest storm of the 80's. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement name mentioning

[edit]

Would it be a good idea to include the replacement names in this list? For example:

Name Dates active Peak classification Sustained
wind speeds 		Pressure Areas affected Deaths Damage
(USD) 		Replacement name Refs
Igor September 8 – 21, 2010 Category 4 hurricane 155 mph (250 km/h) 924 hPa (27.29 inHg) Bermuda, Newfoundland 4 $200 million Ian [1]
Tomas October 29 – November 7, 2010 Category 2 hurricane 100 mph (155 km/h) 982 hPa (29.00 inHg) Caribbean 44 $348 million Tobias [2]
Irene August 21 – 28, 2011 Category 3 hurricane 120 mph (195 km/h) 942 hPa (27.82 inHg) Caribbean, Bahamas, United States East Coast, Eastern Canada 58 $14.2 billion Irma [3][4][5][6]
Sandy October 22 – 29, 2012 Category 3 hurricane 115 mph (185 km/h) 940 hPa (27.76 inHg) Caribbean, Bahamas, United States East Coast, Eastern Canada 234 $68.7 billion Sara [3][7][8]
Ingrid September 12 – 17, 2013 Category 1 hurricane 85 mph (140 km/h) 983 hPa (29.03 inHg) Mexico 32 $1.5 billion Imelda [4][9]
Erika August 24 – 28, 2015 Tropical storm 50 mph (85 km/h) 1001 hPa (29.56 inHg) Lesser Antilles, Hispaniola 35 $511 million Elsa


J4lambert (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally want to see sources for all the replacement names before they are added in as the sources that we are currently using to cite the retired names do not tell us what the name was replaced with.Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that's a good idea, but I think that the replacement names would have to be included for all retired storms in order to maintain consistency. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Pasch, Richard J; Kimberlain, Todd B (February 15, 2011). Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Igor: September 8–21 (PDF) (Report). United States National Hurricane Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 30, 2012. Retrieved July 19, 2015. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Pasch, Richard J; Kimberlain, Todd B (March 7, 2011). Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Tomas October 29 – November 7, 2010 (PDF) (Report). United States National Hurricane Center. Retrieved July 19, 2015. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Costliest TC's was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference emdat was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Avila, Lixion A; Cangialosi, John (December 14, 2011). Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Irene: August 21 – 28, 2011 (PDF) (Report). United States National Hurricane Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 28, 2012. Retrieved July 19, 2015. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Telling the Weather Story (PDF) (Report). Insurance Bureau of Canada. June 4, 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2015. Retrieved July 19, 2015. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Blake, Eric S; Kimberlain, Todd B; Berg, Robert J; Cangialosi, John P; Beven II, John L (February 12, 2013). Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Sandy: October 22 – 29, 2012 (PDF) (Report). United States National Hurricane Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 17, 2013. Retrieved July 19, 2015. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Hurricane/Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy, October 22–29, 2012 (PDF) (Service Assessment). United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. May 2013. p. 10. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 2, 2013. Retrieved June 2, 2013. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ Beven II, John L (February 12, 2013). Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Ingrid: September 12 – 17, 2013 (PDF) (Report). United States National Hurricane Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 21, 2014. Retrieved June 1, 2017. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Updating

[edit]

Could you please update the image of the map of retired names? It really needs to show Ingrid, Erika, Joaquin, Matthew, Otto, and the names that are retired from 2017. Please update the map after the RA IV Hurricane Commitee in April 2018. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:D905:4CA:467:CA5F (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the map needs updating but at the moment we have a lack of willing volunteers, who have the track map generator to generate this or other maps.Jason Rees (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I need you guys to find other people to update the retirement map, which should update after the 2018 RA IV Hurricane Commitee in April 2018. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D47:EC19:112E:C476:DE91:11B4 (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If your that bothered about the map being updated then im sure you could get the software and do it yourself as we are not here to do your bidding. It is also a privilage to have the map on this page as some of the retired lists don't acctully have them.Jason Rees (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: where is the software? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks.Jason Rees (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please update the map and have it show Ingrid, Erika, Joaquin, Matthew, Otto, Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Nate? Please. The map is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D47:F779:E448:DA8E:2EFB:489B (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listing by Letter

[edit]

@Paintspot: To list the names by letter strikes me as pretty redundant to the main list, since you can sort the names into Alphabetical Order - it maybe by decades at the moment but for reasons listed above, we should get the list into one section at some point rather than it up into various sections. Also you stated within your edit summary that you thought it was nice, which doesn't tell me about what your thinking and goes against the advice contained within Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it.Jason Rees (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: The table is not redundant. It's the same data but presented as a summary rather than broken down by decade. There is currently no summary on the page. Summary tables are relatively common. kstern (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think rather than broken down by decade, all of the decade tables should be merged into one. This way we’ll have true comparisons among all retired storms, like strongest, deadliest, costliest. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has done this, I'm putting the table back. I don't think one person forms a consensus to remove something, and a summary table is needed in this article until the data is in a single table. Kstern (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Column for replacement name

[edit]

Has anyone (any time in this list article's history) proposed adding a new column in the table whose definition is replacement name?? Example:

The row that mentions Katrina says:

Katrina August 23 – 30, 2005 Category 5 hurricane 175 mph (280 km/h) 902 hPa (26.64 inHg) Bahamas, United States Gulf Coast 1,836 $125 billion

However, in the column we're discussing; Katrina's row should say "Katia". Any thoughts on this column?? (If I'm not told otherwise in the first response to this post, I'll assume that no one ever talked about discussing a column of this kind.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgia guy: Its been discussed but we need to find sources to say that X was replaced by Y - easy for the modern-day replacement names harder for older ones.Jason Rees (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jason Rees, how old?? I would guess before 1979. Georgia guy (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure off hand but I also note that the NHC/HRD/WMO do not provide a list of replacement names on their lists of retired names, which makes me wonder if we really need it.Jason Rees (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewHat250 and Nioni1234: Hey, I saw both of your edits to the list and thought that it might be worth revisiting this subject. My personal view is that I am not sure how needed it is to say that Allen became Andrew or that Katrina was replaced by Katia. I would also be concerned about finding sources that stated Carol eventually became Camile, as I am not sure that they exist.Jason Rees (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well ok than I won't add them if it causes a problem, sorry. Nioni1234 (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table params

[edit]

Hi all, is there any reason why the tables are set to 100% width? This parameter looks comically large and decreases readability on larger screens. WMSR (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong but i believe that the table widths need to be defined as a part of the Manual of Style, in order to allow the tables to present the data consistently.Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Dora

[edit]

Apologies if this is a dumb question - there is currently a hurricane by the name of Dora off the coast of Hawaii [2]. Is this name not retired, or is it only retired for the Atlanic?

Relevant links: Hurricane Dora 213.105.99.162 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ignore me, it was just a Atlantic retirement. 213.105.99.162 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing that no-one caught that the name Dora appeared on both the EPAC list of names and the Atlantic list of retired names. We will see if it remains the case, when the Hurricane Committee meets next year.Jason Rees (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the damage cost account for inflation ?

[edit]

Are the costs in the damages collumn accounting for inflation or do they represent the values of their contemporary periods ? DanganMachin (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its easier and better to leave them as the values of their contemporary periods, as its original research to inflate the damage totals since you have so many different factors that come into play.Jason Rees (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_retired_Atlantic_hurricane_names&oldid=1250353984"