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.
I am trying to get an image for each storm, like 2005. I have started uploading ones that aren't on Wikipedia yet, and they are listed below. If you find a better image, feel free to replace it.
What about TDs? There was 7 and 14. Don't they deserve a mention?
Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Fancy storm pics
Is there a need for that? It adds a lot of more white space, and doesn't add much. People aren't that lazy that they can't read one paragraph for information. If the information in the infobox doesn't exist, then it should be put into the paragraph.
Hurricanehink 22:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Are you talking about the "infobox small" tables? —
jdorje (
talk) 00:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Yea. IMO, they serve little purpose, considering most of it isn't even seen. What is seen creates excess white space.
Hurricanehink 02:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah, good points. However it is useful to have the information in an easily available table format. But the one-table-per-storm method is bad for an article that has more than one storm in it. Better would be to have one table for the article showing information about each storm, as
1997 Pacific hurricane season and numerous older AHS articles have. —
jdorje (
talk) 02:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Storm boxes?
Why do some storms, but not all of them have infoboxes? Jamie|C 20:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
They weren't finished because we never agreed if they should be there in the first place.
Hurricanehink 21:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Well we'll have to decide then because it looks weird when some storms have them and some dont. Jamie|C 13:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I vote we get rid of them and add meteorolgical statistics on the bottom, including death and damage totals by area.
Hurricanehink 15:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)reply
That sounds fine to me. However this decision should be made on the wikiproject page, and then applied to all seasons. —
jdorje (
talk) 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I added the remaining boxes to neaten up the page, I decided to do this following comparisons with 2003 and 2004 pages. It looks neater to have the boxes, and also follows the same format of 2003 and 2004. Which would mean considerably more work to remove them from the project than to put them into this page.
Nice going...It is good that someone caught that.
209.62.224.245 01:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)reply
They actually had an image for this one at NASA Earth Observatory.
Good kitty 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Season impact
(removed and put into article)
OK, would something like this be useful for the season?
Hurricanehink (
talk) 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Why not? Also can you figure it out to make one for typhoons and super typhoons?
Mitchazenia V5.0 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)reply
No idea. For WPAC, you have so many other things to contend with; different classes and JMA vs. JTWC mainly. I'm not a good computer person, so I probably shouldn't.
Hurricanehink (
talk) 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)reply
What are you talking about? I was talking about WPAC in general. What does this have to do with 1962?
Hurricanehink (
talk) 01:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)reply
It's yooooooooge
Good kitty 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Isidore vs. Lili
I just noticed that, although Isidore has the lowest minimum central pressure for the season, at 934 millibars, the hurricane season infobox has Lili as the season's strongest storm, at 938 millibars, with no mention of Isidore. Although I am aware that Lili's maximum sustained winds were significantly higher than Isidore's, making Lili a Category 4 at its strongest and Isidore only a Category 3, I have also noticed that minimum central pressure is usually the deciding factor when it comes to comparing the strength of different storms in Wikipedia articles. I vote for including both hurricanes in the infobox. What do you guys think is the best thing to do?
Ev-Man 23:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Excellent point, and I changed it. Strength indicates pressure, and is not synonymous with winds.
Hurricanehink (
talk) 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and I should have the full review up within a few hours.
Dana boomer (
talk) 12:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)reply
In the "Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Ranking" section table, why are Kyle and Hanna not linked?
I realize that you have the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale color ratings at the bottom of the page, but would it also be possible to put them near the "Season summary" chart so that it's easier for readers to decipher what all the pretty colors mean?
In the first paragraph of the "Seasonal forecasts" section, please use the full version of NOAA first, with NOAA in parentheses, and thereafter use the abbreviation.
In the second paragraph of the "Impact" section, you say "The first, Tropical Storm Bertha, made landfall along the Gulf Coast, killing only one person." It may just be me, but the "only" is probably unnecessary, and makes it sounds slightly insignificant that a person was killed. I'm sure this was not your intention, but this was the way that it struck me when I read it.
For a landfall system, one death is considered low, hence the word "only". –
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 14:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Please be consistent with your translation of 2002 dollars into another year's dollars. In most of the article, you just say that it's 2002 dollars and leave it at that. However, in the second and third paragraphs of the "Impact" section, you have 2002 dollars translated variously into 2006, 2007 and 2008 dollars. Either pick one and stick with it for all of the dollar amounts, or say 2002 dollars and leave it at that throughout the article.
In the last paragraph of the "Aftermath" section, instead of starting out with "Elsewhere", could you start out with "In Canada" or something of the sort, just to be more specific and not leave the reader hanging until they figure out that all of the places you're talking about are in Canada?
In the "Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Ranking" section, the last two sentences need a reference.
The first paragraph of the "Storm names" section needs a ref.
Current refs 18, 19, 20, 26, and 30 need publisher information (or at least to be formatted like the rest of the refs with the publisher after the title).
Overall, this is a very well-written, well-referenced and well-illustrated article. I am putting the article on hold for seven days in order to allow you time to deal with the few minor issues I have raised above. If you have questions, you can ask them here or on my talk page.
Dana boomer (
talk) 13:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)reply
All of the prose tweaks look good. There are still a couple of reference issues that need to be addressed. As soon as those are done, I will pass the article.
Dana boomer (
talk) 15:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)reply
These were mentioned in their season write up. I wonder why Miami hasn't looked into these any more? They had sufficient tropical characteristics.
Shearwater912 (
talk) 14:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Shearwater912reply
Many years ago, I looked in depth at the July 2002 cyclone, and not long after talked to Jack Beven at NHC about it. During it's genesis it was overtaken by a mid summer cool front offshore the Mid Atlantic states, and therefore could not meet the definition of either a tropical or subtropical cyclone. We were in agreement that the cyclone should be considered a relatively rare "frontal hybrid" cyclone. You can see its evolution beginning with the SAT JUL 6, 0900 UTC surface map at
http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/archives/web_pages/sfc/sfc-zoom.html)
AJC3fromS2K (
talk) 07:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
Needs inline citations, but otherwise, it's a B-Class.
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff) 23:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Last edited at 23:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 05:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on
2002 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on
2002 Atlantic hurricane season. 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.
I have just modified one external link on
2002 Atlantic hurricane season. 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While I believe this storm is somewhat notable, the season section is lacking and this article is quite short. I believe the season section would benefit from having this content merged into it since that article is an FA and must be COMPREHENSIVE in its coverage rather than simply covering the main aspects.
Noah,
AATalk 12:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Support: Arthur had minimal impacts, failing
notability guidelines.
''Flux55'' (
talk) 20:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Support merge. The article that is proposed to be merged isn't notable. It fails
WP:NSUSTAINED, as there is zero secondary coverage (with the exception of the
tropical cyclone's TCR), and thus fails
WP:GNG or
WP:EVENTCRIT since there is only primary coverage available, and limited secondary coverage. This
secondary source only contains a mere trivial mention of the tropical cyclone, which doesn't count towards GNG, and the only secondary source noted above isn't enough to establish notability of the tropical cyclone. ~
TailsWx (
🐾,
me!) 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While the storm did indirectly kill three people, I believe this is another case where the story can be told in the season article. The season section is lacking in coverage and merging this would help to make it comprehensive.
Noah,
AATalk 12:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak support - Cristobal clearly had impacts, indirectly killing three. However, outside that, it could easily be merged into the season article.
''Flux55'' (
talk) 20:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Due to the info by @
WeatherWriter, I strongly oppose a merge. However, I think it should be delisted from GA status
''Flux55'' (
talk) 01:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
If it is kept, there would need to be a valid reason for a delist, following the notice period and GAR process for time allotment for improvement. We can't just delist an article on a whim. If people did that, they would definitely get an ass chewing at the main GA talkpage for sure. Concerns were already raised by a GA regular specifically about not doing that before anything had started.
Noah,
AATalk 01:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Seeing how this article is structured, I've changed my mind. However, I still think it should be improved significantly
''Flux55'' (
talk) 01:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Caused numerous impacts on Long Island, and these merge proposals are beginning to become excessive.
71.190.208.91 (
talk) 20:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, the impacts are minor enough that they can be told in this article. And as to the IP address above me, I don't think they're excessive - the proposals are generally for short articles that would improve the season article with their merge. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 21:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
WeatherWriter: Unless it's significant expansion, the only other option would be to send this article to FAR for not being comprehensive.
Noah,
AATalk 23:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I would be ok with that. Based on what I just found, it probably shouldn't be FA or GA status. But, I still do not agree with a merge, since there is lasting coverage and impacts not yet mentioned in the article. Actually, that last part is a very easy removal from FAR and GA since GA requires that no further info needs to be added. And, that is not the case here. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page) 01:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
If it is kept, then this article will have to be sent to FAR for sure.
Noah,
AATalk 01:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
If we add the extratropical cyclone's impacts, should that be spun off into a separate article, like how 2023's
Ophelia was absorbed by a low-pressure area, which later caused
flooding in New York.
''Flux55'' (
talk) 01:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
If Cristobal was the LPA, no. Edit: Appears to be another system entirely. It depends on how bad the impacts are as to whether a new article is required. I’d recommend minimizing the mention in articles related to Cristobal since it’s only tangentially related and not directly causing the impact.
Noah,
AATalk 01:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Further discussion
I'd like to bring back up the discussion of merging Cristobal. There isn't any content in the Cristobal that isn't in the section of the season article. The impacts, such as there were, are all mentioned in the section.
WeatherWriter (
talk·contribs) mentions distant impacts from Cristobal in Europe, but that wasn't from Cristobal itself, which was only a tropical cyclone for four days, so it's not a matter of missing the impacts. Therefore, I'm proposing merging the article again, which, again, doesn't have any content now that isn't in the season section. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 02:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
WP:POINT and
WP:STICK. I know that you wanted a merge above and didn’t get it, but seriously, either let it rest for a few months or challenge the close. Proposing this is very POINTy especially when there hasn’t even been 72 hours post close. Also, just because impacts are only tangentially related doesn’t mean we don’t mention them- look no further then
Hurricane Ian.
68.129.15.101 (
talk) 23:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what
WP:POINT or
WP:STICK have to do with it, seeing as the previous discussion ended with no consensus. Also, 2002 AHS is a featured article and featured topic, and there was disagreement with what
User:WeatherWriter said above about Cristobal's remnants contributing to distant effects in Europe, and whether that constitutes enough new information to keep the Cristobal article, or if it's too irrelevant to even include in the section in the season article (which, again, contains all of the content in the Cristobal article). You brought up Ian, but that article doesn't mention anything a continent away. Also, it is helpful to use a Wikipedia user name when engaging in discussions. It appears you have made quite a few edits, and your input is valuable, so why not consider making a user name? That way, if you're taking part of various discussions, it is clear they all belong to the same user, as opposed to potentially using various IP addresses. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 02:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
68.129.15.101: - the Cristobal article has already functionally been merged into the season article. There is nothing in the Cristobal article that isn't in the season section. To anyone else, there just needs to be a consensus to formally merge a good article that is redundant. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 17:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support merge – The season article section covers the storm fully and comfortably. Also, the storm was not all that notable so as to merit a stand alone article.
Drdpw (
talk) 01:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply