Talk:Hurricane Karl (1980)

Records

For when I work on this article:

• Furthest north development of sub/tropical storm
  • Broken by 1991 unnamed hurricane
• "with Karl becoming a hurricane on November X, the 1980 season tied 1932 and 1969 for the record with most November hurricanes, which was later accomplished during the 1994 season. 2001 broke the record when 3 storms attained hurricane status during the month"
• Furthest north Cat 1 until unnamed '91 and Hurricane Noel (2001)
• Hurricane strength second-furthest north
  • Surpassed only by Lois 1966

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think some of this information is highly trivial. The second northermost November hurricane? Being one of two November hurricanes along with three other seasons? The information about the Perfect Storm? All of that is highly trivial, not to mention dubiously sourced by HURDAT. We agreed a few months back not to use HURDAT for our own records (as it's borderline original research). One has to look through the entire dataset, for example, to find out whether that it's true that it was "among the farthest-north development of a November tropical or subtropical cyclone on record". We shouldn't be using HURDAT to pad our articles. If someone else says that information explicitly (such as a journal article, some meteorologist), I wouldn't mind it being there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I don't see how this is any more dubious than Karl's "records". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Alicia's record is blatantly false, which is why I removed it. I don't remember more than two or three users "agreeing" to removing HURDAT-based records. Karl's anomalous geographical and meteorological characteristics are what makes it notable, and if the information is already there (which it is, in HURDAT), then it falls on the "research" side of the "research/original research" fence. Having to do a little work to verify information doesn't mean we should remove it. Juliancolton (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying we should be able to include anything we want as long as we can cite it to HURDAT? WP:VERIFY says the references have to "directly support the material". WP:NOR also says - "That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Certainly, gonig through HURDAT to find the material falls under analysis and synthesis. It just doesn't sound very encyclopediac, having to go through an entire dataset and analyze it just to verify a little record. Furthermore, I don't think that it being the second northernmost November hurricane, or the info about the Perfect Storm, are encyclopediac at all. Since when do we include indications of the secondmost or thirdmost something for as trivial a record as "northernmost", second most November hurricanes, third northernmost to attain hurricane status, etc. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"So you're saying we should be able to include anything we want as long as we can cite it to HURDAT?" No, I don't recall saying that. I'm saying if we do the research (which is allowed, I'm sure, as strict as WP is) to verify a suspected record, and we cite it to HURDAT, which provides us with the data to carry out said research, it's acceptable. I'm personally not lazy, so I'm willing to spend half an hour to verify a record that emphasizes Karl's meteorological noteworthiness. Juliancolton (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't think we can do the research, per the links I gave above. The references has to directly support the material, and can't be analyzed or synthesized. It's pretty simple, really. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How does it not directly support the material? Anybody with a second-grade education can look at the number "45°N" and tell what's higher than 45 and what's lower. WP:OR explicitly states that violations include "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". Decoding a number-based document by simple calculations hardly constitutes an agenda to push a fringe position, since there's only one position to take: the factual one. Additionally, I'm not even sure a reference is absolutely necessary for most of the information in this article, as WP:V states that only material "likely to be challenged" needs a source. And since HURDAT clearly backs up these records as being factual, nobody can ever challenge them; they're fact. Juliancolton (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Because one would have to look through the entire database to prove it. That is not directly supported at all. Directly means you can take it directly. You can point to the exact paragraph that proves it is correct. For HURDAT records, you have to go through the entire database, which could be argued as "analysis or synthesis... that advances a position not advanced by the sources". HURDAT is just there, a huge listing of numbers. Gleaning information it is advancing a position that isn't advanced by the source. I don't mean the information isn't true, just that the way it's sourced doesn't work. It's not a significant piece of information either. Remember, Wikipedia is not "a complete exposition of all possible details" :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

But Wikipedia "incorporates elements" of specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. And I disagree with that interpretation of directness; I can say this is where Karl formed, cite the exact line of HURDAT that shows the relevant coordinates, and show that no other storm in November formed further north. As I said, this is stuff a first grader can figure out. How can you say rehashing an admittedly dry record is advancing a position of any kind? It's fact, as I said before. Juliancolton (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it's harder to prove that no storm in November formed further north. That takes quite a bit more time, and it's certainly not direct. At the very least, the dictionary.com definition is "exactly, without delay, in a direct manner". I'd hardly call looking through all of HURDAT as direct. And of course WP incorporates elements of specialized encyclopedias, but that still doesn't mean every last fact should be included. Finally, saying a dry record is advancing a position because, by including it, you're indicating that it's important (worth including). HURDAT just puts it all out there. One could equally say that Katrina was the only storm to develop over the Bahamas to become a Category 5 in the Gulf of Mexico in the month of August, citing it to HURDAT, but if no one else says that, then why should we? We're inventing records and stuff to fluff our articles. If no one else talks about those things that Karl did directly, we should not include them. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Because that's not what Katrina is notable for. Karl's northern formation, and its formation within a larger system, is what makes it notable, and I can attribute the comparisons of Karl to the 1991 Perfect Storm to several textual sources (NCDC, etc.). Juliancolton (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, poor comparison, but the rest of what I said stands. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion is being sought here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Karl (1980)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Few things.

• It evolved into a separate vortex, and due to the lack of inhibiting wind shear, a small tropical system developed - maybe say a small cyclone developed, or something, as the next sentence says it was subtropical. Alternately, at the end of that sentence, say "a small subtropical storm developed at 0000 UTC on November 25." Or something.
• When was it named?
  • I reworded that sentence, since I don't think the storm's naming was a notable feature independent of its classification. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• You should mention the peak intensity was estimated (and how that intensity was estimated).
  • I'm not sure I understand. No statistics on tropical cyclones are guaranteed to be exactly accurate, so everything is therefore estimated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • But how did they estimate Karl's intensity? Usually it's through Recon or Dvorak technique, and it's probably not Recon given the location... ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• On November 27, the storm's eye became more ragged - any way you can merge that small sentence somewhere else?
• I think you should mention when the hurricane season is somewhere in there, how Karl developed less than a week from the end.
• You should specify that Karl maintained hurricane status further north than any other since Lois. Otherwise, it seems that Karl does for any tropical cyclone.
• You should also specify that the record for most November hurricanes is two. Also, find a way to link Hurricane Jeanne (1980) in there.

I'm too lazy to do all of the on hold stuff, since all of this is so easy. Just let me know when you get these so I can pass it. :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything else is done. Nice review, thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Hurricane Karl (1980)

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Procedural delist Noah, AA^Talk 14:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge consensus Noah, AA^Talk 14:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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.