Talk:List of tropical cyclones

This article was nominated for deletion on August 10, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives: 01

List_of_notable_tropical_cyclones#Most_intense_storms_on_record

Hmm... I'm thinking the list is probably too long and is bordering on being an indiscriminate collection of info/listcruft. I'd prefer a shorter one, say, top 5 from each basin, listed by basin. That would give 35 (WPac, EPac/CPac, Atl, NIO, SWIO, SEIO/Australia, SPac). As it stands only the section on the North Atlantic has a list of most intense storms within the basin. We could probably move that down to this section. That would solve the problem that we have right now, not knowing when/whether to list storms. Also, right now there's far too much emphasis on the WPac in this section. Splitting by basin would be better and remove any sign of systemic bias. – Chacor 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be systemic bias in the present situation. That would be like saying that a list of the highest-scoring NBA players ever shows a systemic bias towards black people. By the same logic, someone could say putting the 5 strongest of each basin gives undue recognition to basins which have traditionally far weaker storms. I suggest have both - a global list of the strongest, then a list of the 5 strongest in each basin. --Golbez 10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To truncate the list, how about cutting the list to lower than 900 mbar? KyuuA4 (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.... I probably made the edit history look disgusting.

I'm still getting used to adding in info in "boxes", so my latest edits took a while to actually get it right.

Apologies... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gavirulax (talk • contribs) 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Changed direct links to inline references

...but I left the no reference tag at the top of the page. Considering how many "facts" are on this page, we should have more than 9 references for the page. If everything was well referenced, this page could become B class. Of course, some entries like Isobel would be gone, for the page's benefit. Thegreatdr 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith

Hmm...I read somewhere that Keith's 872 mb pressure was measured by a plane but I wanted to confirm it before I changed the article. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Man-yi (Japan 07/2007)

I think that Typhoon Man-Yi should be part of the Significant Typhoon list, but I am not sure where to put it. It is significant because, according to Japanese national broadcasting company NHK, it is the 'strongest typhoon to hit the country in July since recording started after WWII'. I am currently in Japan, and getting updated on this information by use of Japanese Weather website Tenki.JP. It is, however, only classed as a Category 1 typhoon, and that could cause controversy.

lallous 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it could be added to the significant typhoon list, provided that is correct that Man-yi was the strongest typhoon to strike Japan in July. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Man-yi's winds, I have looked at all sorts of sources and they all say 155 mph; I even saw Man-yi have this windspeed on television reports in 2007, so I am pretty sure the winds were 155 mph, not 145 mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Island hurricane

Shouldn't the 1856 Last Island hurricane be added to 10th place in the most intense U.S. landfalling hurricanes list? It says in the main article "it tied with Hurricane Hugo as the 10th most intense hurricane to hit the United states." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-article storms

with some intense tropical cyclones in the most intense tropical cyclones list, there is no article for them, so, for example, for cyclone Orson in 1989, can you put 1985-1990 southern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons#Cyclone Orson instead of saying Cyclone Orson (1989)? it just says next to this (Page does not exist). It says this with lots of storms. Also, in the "list of most intense tropical cyclones", there is a cyclone named Theodore in 1994, but I can't find any info on this storm and it should be deleted; I did find a storm in Unisys in 1994 hurricane/tropical data for southern Indian Ocean that reached a 145 mph peak and lasted 25 days, but it does not say if it was Theodore or not, but later I found a best track for the 1990-1995 storms, and that storm was Rewa, but I couldn't find any info on cyclone Theodore so I could assume there is no such thing. In the most intense Pacific hurricane list, it says, for example, Hurricane Trudy (1990) (Page does not exist), but if you Put 1990 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Trudy, it works and refers right to it, so you should put this instead, because there is no main article for Hurricane Trudy, and you should do this with several other storms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed the list of most intense tropical cyclones, and if you take a look, there are no storms in that list that don't have a main article, or if you click on any of the storms, data is provided about them, instead of saying "Wikipedia does not have an article with this title," if you click on them. In the most intense Pacific hurricanes list, for example, it says for 3 storms, Trudy, Olivia, and Annette, (page does not exist) next to them. You should put the hurricane season they formed in and then#Hurricane Annette,Trudy, or Olivia, or any other storm, like this:1994 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Olivia, as an example.

Also, for some reason with some storms, like Hurricane Lane in 1994, if you put 115 knots into the computer, it shows up at 130 mph. You should put 116 or 117 knots down because the computer just rounds 115 knots down to 130 mph, but 130 mph is upper cat. 3, not low-end cat 4; that is 135 mph, and above Hurricane Lain in 1994 it says category 4 hurricane, but it shows 130 mph below that, and that would make it a cat 3, so you should put 116 or 117 knots in.

Name

This should be renamed, either back to list of tropical cyclones or to lists of tropical cyclones (hmm where does that redirect to?). See Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions Kappa 07:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This isn't a list of a random bunch of tropical cyclones. They're here because they're notable in some way. I like List of notable tropical cyclones better. That's what this article is, a list of notable (ie: significant or otherwise out of the ordinary) tropical cyclones. I don't agree with this name change. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the subjectivity of notable, I would rather have the important info here moved to the List of tropical cyclone records page, which is currently rather short and pining for expansion. For now, though, I would rather move it back to List of notable tropical cyclones and talk about it, since something should be done. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest that the presentation be tidied by creating a single table with many columns - rather than the current costliest, deadliest etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.95.0 (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

One of Accuweather.com's blogs cited this article for a Cyclone Nargis statistic. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame this article isn't cited nearly so well. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]