Talk:List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes

Template

There should be a {{Category 5 Pacific hurricanes}} that parallels {{Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes}}. Jdorje 06:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish every list was this rockingly great

Wow! What a great "list". It's really an article not a list. Well done, everyone who edited this! ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Cat 5's

Article does good job at explaining why there are so few Category 5 hurricanes at Pacific, but perhaps it should extrapolate further. There have been only 8 Cat 5's at EPac since 1970, but 14 at Atlantic. This despite the fact that on total number of storms, EPac is on average much more active than Atlantic, and according to tropical cyclone article, has also about 2 times as much major hurricanes than Atlantic. I think this disparity should be addressed by someone 'in the know'. --Mikoyan21 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ioke is the only CPAC named storm to reach Category 5 intensity, thats 9. --Irfanfaiz 02:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Central vs Eastern

Should some attempt be made to explain the difference between Central and Eastern, or is it better to just lump them all in together? I don't mean different tables of course - just an explanation of how Ioke is the only CPac one there, or if the others reached that strength in CPac, or what not. --Golbez 21:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Emilia

I'd like to point out that 1994's Hurricane Emilia was not a Category 5 hurricane. Both the preliminary "Best Track" and the "official" best track both show Emilia peaking at 135 knots. The NHC's Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale page says, "Category Five Hurricane: Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr)." (both my emphasis). Finally, the report for 2000's Hurricane Carlotta says in its abstract at the top that "Carlotta was a category 4 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson scale)". That report also indicates Carlotta, a Category 4 hurricane, peaking at 135 knots at 21/0600 and 21 / 1200. Thus, a hurricane peaking at 135 knots is a Category 4 hurricane, not a Category 5. As Emilia is shown in the best tracks to be peaking at 135 knots, I can't call it a Category 5. I don't know why the CPHC says Emilia was a Category 5 because it wasn't. My best guess is that it was downgraded in post analysis. I'm just telling people this so you don't try and revert me or add it back or anything. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That may be because the CPHC handled it at its strongest, not the NHC. See: [1]. According to them, Emilia topped out at 140kt from 18Z July 19 to 00Z July 20, and from 12Z July 20 to 00Z July 22. The CPHC is the authority for central pacific storms, and I will use their numbers and reports over the NHC's. However, it is worth an email, either to the NHC or CPHC, and asking. I've found the CPHC webmaster to be communicative. For now, I'm putting Emilia back. --Golbez 23:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, not this please not this. The case of Emilia is enough to show that the NHC differs from the CPHC. That means every single storm for which the CPHC has track data needs revision (cries).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an editor with Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia. With the recent strengthening (and subsequent re-strengthening) of Hurricane Ioke to a Category 5 hurricane, there have been doubts over a previous hurricane. The CPHC's 1994 summaries show that Hurricane Emilia twice obtained Category 5 status. However, I have come to understand that the NHC's best track for Emilia peaks this system as a 135-kt hurricane, that is, Category 4. Could you please help to clear this up, so that our article on "List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes" could be cleared up? Your help is greatly appreciated.

Yours,

Editor "Chacor" at Wikipedia

– Chacor 02:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. This isn't the first time the two hurricane centers have disagreed with each other: one Central Pacific advisory on Hurricane John gave a central pressure of 910mb, much lower than the 929mb minimum which is currently accepted. Based on this alone, I'd be inclined to go with the NHC, but this sounds like too big a mistake to make (i.e. Cat. 5 or not). Furthermore, you'd think the CPHC would have got the message by now if Emilia wasn't a Cat. 5.

Oh well, it looks like Chacor has kindly sent an e-mail to those responsible so this should be resolved soon. Pobbie Rarr 03:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I quote their reply,

"Chacor",

i've been made aware that there are some discrepancies with the best track as listed at NHC. We will do additional checking to find out what that is all about, but the official records for all Central Pacific storms (140W to 180, north of the dateline [sic]) are maintained at our Central Pacific Hurricane Center office here in Honolulu. Once we get this (and some other) issues worked out in our historical database, they will be made available on our CPHC website. We expect that database to be online sometime this fall.

Hope this helps...and I'll try to get back with you once I find out what

the reason is for the Emilia discrepancy...

– Chacor 08:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to be biased towards NHC, but I would keep Emilia in with a footnote on the discrepancy. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 03:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing from list 1997 OLIWA & PAKA ?

[2] lists 3 cat 5 hurricanes:

The two missing from this article are:

1997 11 Hurricane OLIWA 28 AUG-17 SEP 140 - 5

1997 19 Hurricane PAKA 28 NOV-22 DEC 160 - 5

Is there some reason for these not being included in the article?crandles 16:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Typhoon Oliwa and Typhoon Paka were never Category 5 hurricanes. They formed in the east Pacific, but did not reach Category 5 strength until they crossed the dateline into the Western Pacific (and hence were Category 5 typhoons).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah thank you. One other difference Emilia 1994 is on the list but according to [3] it is only a 4 with max wind of 135.

Scroll up. We discussed this. The NHC is wrong. --Golbez 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would probably be a little less blunt about that, Golbez. In that arguement, either party could be wrong. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 03:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Central Pacific = CPHC official. And CPHC says Cat 5, that's the end of the story. I'm till awaiting a response from them regarding the discrepancy. – Chacor 03:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, it may be CPHC that is official, but NHC maintains the database which includes Central Pacific tropical cyclones. What if CPHC dropped the winds in post-analysis? Thegreatdr 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Compare the NHC TCR and best track with the CPHC's. Discrepancies such as these are still occuring today (see Daniel). Last I heard, the CPHC had told Chacor that the NHC had the wrong data. --Ajm⁸¹ 00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the email is above under the #Emilia section, where the CPHC say that there's a discrepancy in the NHC info. – Chacor 02:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality check before FT promotion

Hello, here are a issues that can be quickly addressed to make sure this article meets Featured List Standards and consequently, Featured Topic Standards.

• "This is a list of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes." FLs do not begin like this anymore. FAs do not start by saying, "This is an article about X", so neither should featured lists.
• "Only 1994's Hurricane Emilia and 2006's Hurricane Ioke have reached Category 5 intensity more than once, that is, by weakening into a Category 4 or weaker storm and then re-strengthening." Change first comma to semicolon.
• "The climatology of the basin generally has Category 5s occurring in clusters in single years." Shouldn't Category 5's have an apostrophe?
• "Fortunately, landfalls by such storms are rare due to the generally westerly path of tropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere." "Fortunately" is POV here.
• "This therefore excludes storms such as Super Typhoon Paka which formed east of the dateline but didn't reach Category 5 intensity until after crossing the dateline." Therefore should go before this. What does "this" specify anyway? Comma after "Paka".
• "Only two Pacific hurricanes are known to have reached Category 5 intensity multiple times; Emilia and Ioke each did it twice (Ioke reached Category 5 status a third time as a typhoon while in the Western Pacific)." Only is POV.
• "The earliest Category 5 storm is 1973's Hurricane Ava. The latest Category 5 is the 1959 Mexico hurricane. " I think this is mixed up.
• "However, the lack of Category 5's during the late 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, is real." "real" is not the right word here; consider the opposite, how can the lack of the Category 5's be "fake". Maybe "certain"?
• "A hurricane of this magnitude has sustained winds of greater than 135 knots (155.4 mph/250.0 km/h)." No, always be specific: "A Category 5 hurricane has sustained..."

I'll try to finish these up tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I made your suggested changes. I'm nut sure why you consider "fortunately" POV, as getting hit by a Category 5 hurricane is surely a bad thing, right? Also, "real" was intended to make it clear that the lack of Cat 5's was an actual lack, as opposed to just being apparant because such hurricanes weren't observed. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 06:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Fortunately"—What you say is true, but for the sake of NPOV I say it shouldn't be included. For all we know, there may be people who want the cyclones to make landfall. As a last explanation, read WP:MORALIZE. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• "These are the strongest and third strongest landfalls by east Pacific tropical cyclones, respectively — the second strongest was 1976's Hurricane Madeline." Em dash should be unspaced.
• English variation inconsistencies: I see "metres" and "unfavourable", but also "recognized" and
• "For its first time as a Category 5, Emilia was at that intensity for 6 hours; the second time was for 12 for a grand total of 18 hours.[7] For its first time as a Category 5, Ioke was at that intensity for 18 hours; the second time was 24 additional hours east of the dateline, giving a grand total of 42 hours." Is "grand" really necessary?
• Some of the images could use more descriptive captions. Seeing as the names of all the hurricanes are wikilinked in the table, they shouldn't need a link in the captions.
• "The minimum central pressure of these storms is, for the most part, estimated from satellite imagery using the Dvorak technique. In the case of Kenna and Ava, the central pressure was measured by hurricane hunter aircraft flying into the storm. In the case of the 1959 Mexico hurricane, the best central pressure reading was measured after landfall. Because of the estimation of central pressures, it is possible that other storms more intense than these have formed." Needs a reference.
• The first table has 1950s, 1970s, 1980s, etc. linked. Why is this necessary?
• "It is therefore possible that there are additional Category 5's other than those listed, but they were not reported and therefore not recognized."
• "The reason for the general lack of Category 5's in non warm-ENSO years is due to limited space for development."
• "The climatology of the basin generally has Category 5's occurring in clusters in single years." Needs a rephrase ("generally has" is not the best way to say it).
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images images breach: do not place images directly under subsection headings.
• "There have been no May, November, or off season Category 5's". How about: "There have been no Category 5's during May, November, or off season." I'm not sure, but should off season be hyphenated or made into one word?

Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it would be nice for you to respond to the points that I brought up before you added the rest of your concerns. I made your suggested changes except for ones I have an explanation for:

Apologies about the belated responses. Real life has been hard on me lately. When I came back to make more comments, I didn't catch your response. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no inconsistency in spelling usage as the list is in Canadian English which allows both forms so long as they are internally consistent.
    • Cool. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "There have been no May, November, or off-season Category 5's" What's wrong with that sentence? Your suggestion is longer.
    • Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking on some of these. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I assert that avoiding interfering with tables and not indenting following headings is a compelling enough reason to leave images where they are.
    • OK, I'll take that; although I'm not an expert on this. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with "generally has"? 3 Cat 5's (Patsy, the 1959 hurricane, and Ava) have form in non-El Nino years, while 9 (Emilia, Gilma, John, Guillermo, Linda, Elida, Hernan, Kenna, and Ioke) have. 3/4 is a reasonable basis for a generalization, and the "generally has" makes it clear exceptions exist.
    • Again, sorry; I should be more specific. There's nothing wrong with "generally". Using the verb "to have" in this way ("has") is awkward. I wish I could suggest something, but I am not an expert on the subject, so I have difficulty rephrasing the sentence without making sure that the sentence still keeps its meaning. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think additional is necessary in the sentence.
    • "other than those" listed implies that there are "additional" Category 5's. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I rephrased the sentence to "In general, Category 5's form in clusters in single years." No "has" to be found.
      • "Additional" is now subtractional and gone from the sentence.
      • User:Juliancolton moved some of the pictures (not me) so you might want to check again and offer more suggestions.
      • Let's hope that your real life becomes easier! Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your patience. The article looks good to my eyes now. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: The first sentence is still too self-referential. How about this: "Category 5 hurricanes are hurricanes that reach Category 5 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. They are the most catastrophic hurricanes that can form. They are rare in the eastern Pacific Ocean and generally form only once every several years. In general, Category 5's form in clusters in single years. Landfalls by such storms are rare due to the generally westerly path of tropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere."

• This way, readers can read the general overview of what a category 5 hurricane is, and then can go into more detail (category 5's in the Pacific Ocean). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I changed the opening sentence as you suggested, with the provision that I changed the second instance of "hurricane" to "tropical cyclone" (so as not to define the phrase "Category 5 hurricanes" with the word "hurricane"). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 07:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Just one teeny detail: The way the lead sentence reads with the bold right now, it seems like the article is about category 5 hurricanes in general. My solution: Don't bold anything. Looking at recently promoted FLs, there are many articles that don't have the name of the article in bold. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I removed the bolding. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess....

Really? Is this a good article? The tables are incoherent and repetitive. I strongly advise those who are involved in this debacle to have a look at the Atlantic Hurricanes page and see how tight and consie that article is. This is what bugs me about this site. The information is slap dashed around there is no consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.250.118 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

i also agree that this article is a mess

poor grammar primarily. it reads like it was translated by a computer. probably was.

"Before 1997, the means for estimate pressure from satellite imagery was not available" 68.38.197.76 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Category 5 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.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1949to2007_epa.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716085913/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2002kenna.shtml to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2002kenna.shtml

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Hurricane Otis (2023) to the image that shows cat 5 hurricanes from 1994-2023

Add it. Nanchang17 (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Landfalls table

I propose that, consistent with our other "List of Category N Atlantic/Pacific hurricanes" articles, we make a table for landfalls. Though it would have only five entries, it would allow us to also specify the locations of the landfalls much more clearly. As-is, the section specifies only landfall categories and not locations. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)