Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [1].

List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes edit

List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hylian Auree (talk), --Hurricanehink, Jason Rees

I am nominating this for featured list because the problems previously stated have been addressed. Hylian Auree (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As author of the list, I am co-nomming. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After discussions with Hink ive been alowed to co-nom.Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Strange Passerby (talk • contribs)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose – There are a number of issues I see. Some are minor, but a lot of stuff brought up in the first FLC have not been fixed, which leaves me wondering about the claim that "problems previously stated have been addressed". I would suggest reviewing The Rambling Man's comments from the first FLC before continuing. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • United States Weather Bureau should be National Weather Service as the former is no longer an existent entity. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As of now" should be "As of 2010" or "As of November 2010". "Now" can change, and if an off-season storm forms without the article being updated it'd be inaccurate. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sourcing for the background, for example the statement that "Regardless, off-season storms prior to 1964 are still defined by the current seasonal span and are still considered part of the annual season outside which they develop." On that note, I'd also remove the word "regardless", it seems to be unnecessary. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed that sentence, since I wasn't really sure how to handle it. I replaced it with a note - does that make sense? --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any single source for the entire table, or for the individual entries in it? I assume refs 4 and 5, heavily used in the records and statistics section, is what's being used for this? If so, would it make sense to add a {{small}} after the table with "Sources: [4][5]"? Likewise for monthly statistics. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, all of the names, seasons, dates, and winds are based off the two links. That's why at the top of the table, I have a ref next to winds (not to names, seasons, and dates so it's not cluttered). I could put the ref on the bottom, but I don't want people thinking that the deaths and damage came from there. I did add the ref to the monthly stats. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And on that note, if you do take up that suggestion, you could remove [4][5] from the list column headings, too, making it look cleaner. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Numbers or Unnamed? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Numbers for storms within HURDAT, unnamed for TD's that weren't numbered. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please solve the issues brought up in the first FLC, including sorting issues with the names, damage, deaths, and WP:ACCESS issues with the coloured backgrounds. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the sorting issues were fixed, and I'm not sure what the concern is over WP:ACCESS. The previous comment was:
        • "if I can't discern color, I can't use the key."
      • If you can't discern color, then you don't need the key. The color is just another little thing added to the article. Unless, do you mean that a column should be added for "Category"? --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you can't discern color, then you have no way of knowing the category. --Golbez (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I got it now. Does that work, what I added? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's fine by me. As for the sorting, it's not fixed. Try sorting by name. #18 and #19 are appearing before #5 and #6; #13 and #14 before #2; Unnamed before any of the A storms. Sorting by deaths produces a horrible mess where sorting in descending order has 0 on top and sorting in ascending order has "several", followed by 80 on top. Suggest you use {{sort}}. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Alright, I've sorted so that the numbers are first, then unknown, then the names. Hope that works. Anything more that you object to? --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Deaths and damage still don't sort properly. I'm getting $78.9 million listed before $9.46 million, and 25 deaths before 5. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ugh, fucking sorting :P I'm not sure how to fix the damage, since the damage is auto-inflated. Any suggestions? --Hurricanehink (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Several" means more than one and should be sorted as such. Also, could you fix sorting for the category status? Other than that, no other issues for me. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, the "several" issue has been fixed, as was the category status. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Afro (Nice Beaver) 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The chronology table seems to be unsourced in certain areas where information may challenged. The note isn't referenced. The timeline in the Monthly statistics section seems terribly out of place. Afro (Talk) 00:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does such info appear unsourced where it could be challenged? And how does that timeline seem out of place? It is the same as the data on the left, just in graphical format. Lastly, I don't know how to cite the note, but I'll look into it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates, Regions affected for starters. Then if not out of place the timeline is useless as its already conveying information in the table besides it. Afro (Talk) 03:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, I put the sourcing at the bottom. Also, I don't consider two forms of data as useless, if they provide different ways at looking at something. And, I figured out how to cite that note. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If two forms of data had different content it wouldn't be useless, however the only difference between the two is that one of the left has references. Also looking over the sources for the table I am finding that some of the items within the table aren't listed as presented in the table, as an example and I have no idea if I'm interpreting the source correctly but for the first item Ref 4 lists a hurricane which is Not Named, while Ref 20 says "No track available, only one point." which leaves me being unable to verify whether this entry is listed in the source, I also do not see any information on either regarding regions affected, you may want to look over the content in the table as I'm sure there are similar entries to this. Afro (Talk) 10:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I personally think the two tables should stay, since they are different ways at looking at the data. As for the sources, it's a bit difficult to discern for people unfamiliar with it. For all tropical storms and hurricanes (and TD's after 1970), they are in the best track, which is ref #4. For all tropical cyclones before 1925, they are in ref #20. The first storm (the one in 1865), can thus be found in ref #4 (as well as #20). You can find it easily by doing a search of "1865". It yields:
AL##65 NOT NAMED 053000 1865 13.0 80.0 50 0 -99 -99 -99 -99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *
  • In laymen terms, that's the 1865 season. The storm was unnamed, and it existed on May (05) 30th. It was at 13.0N, 80.0W, and had peak winds of 50 knots. For all storms, locations affected refers to the areas it affected along its track (the track being its latitude and longitude). Does that make sense? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the storm was unnamed? so why is it listed in the table as #1? Also listing the deaths as "Several" in the column isn't helpful and I am confused at the sorting, they should at the very least be higher than 0. Afro (Talk) 11:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, storms before 1950 were unnamed. Those with numbers are in the best track as official tropical cyclones. Those without numbers ("unnamed"), are either unnumbered tropical depressions, or they were tropical/subtropical cyclones after 1950 that didn't have a name. The sorting issue (for now) has been fixed. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still confused so the storms before 1950 are listed as Unnamed in the source so why isn't it listed as unnamed in the article? Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 13:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that would be a lot of unnamed storms. I just opted to list their storm number. I don't think it makes much of a difference. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well at the current state it proves inaccurate and inconsistent, I fail to understand how only a bare few of the hurricanes can be labelled correctly yet others cannot. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is both accurate and consistent, though. How would it be useful to have half of the storms listed under "U"? The consistency is that the storms are listed by either their name or their storm number. There just happen to be a lot of storm that don't fit into that metric, like unnumbered storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how its accurate, when storms before were 1950 are unnamed. I only bring up this naming issue because the column is listed as a name, not Name or Storm Number. By the way I am still opposed to the presentation of 2 tables in the monthly statistics for previous reasons stated. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, if you want to be really pedantic, it could be retitled as "Name or Storm Number", but I really don't think it's a big deal. It's just the heading for a column. As for the 2 tables, well, I'm sorry, but I prefer seeing the two versions like that. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be pointless to combine them since if we were to combine the graphs we would need a symbol per WP:Accessibility, where as at the minute i dont think we do.Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point I'm making on the graph is not that it doesn't meet Accesibility purposes, its that it conveys the same information as the table next to it. On the column name I'll meet you half way somewhat if a note can be provided explaining the naming process of the storms listed I think it would be adequate. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I added a note about names, I should've done that earlier. I apologize. I forget how some people don't know everything about hurricanes! --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, I contacted Afkatk's talk page, whether the opposition still stands. There was never a response to my above comment. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the second graph table adds nothing to the article, I'm still questioning its existence. There are also inconsistencies with the date format for Ref 8 and 9.Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Ref 8 doesn't have an exact date, unlike Ref 9, so that shouldn't be a big deal. As for the second graph, one is the numerical value, and one is the graphical value. I'd hardly call that adding nothing. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Retrieved November 30, 2010.", "(December 2, 1925), Retrieved November 30, 2010.". So your opinion on it is, ones a pretty picture and the other is text? Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 11:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. Last I heard, images were still welcome in articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just drop the point at the present time unless another editor wishes to do bring it up again. Ref 8 still has an inconsistency with the date format by the way. The first paragraph in Records and Statistics looks of had its last sentence cut off. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hinks just told me (on irc) hes fixed this point.Jason Rees (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have no major issues with the article. Afro (Nice Beaver) 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jason Rees (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comment - The references need to be gone through with a fine toothcomb as you have several publishers as authors. Also i note these problems need to be fixed.
NOAA needs to be spelt out in references.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 5 is lacking Author information and publication info despite it being listed on the page.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Depression 01 Preliminary report is lacking author info despite it being listed on page 2 of the report.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spelled out NOAA, added authors, and went through refs. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comment from Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment, separate from my resolved concerns above: an explanation should be made for why some pressures are listed as "N/A" (a brief line about when pressures started to be estimated or something would work I suppose). Likewise, some sort of explanation about why some damage totals are listed as N/A even where there were deaths (and by extension damage must've occurred) would be useful. StrPby (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The lead seems to have a few non-referenced stats like " with over 60% of such storms occurring during that month". I may not have looked closely enough but I can't see these stats anywhere else in the list so they must be cited.
    • Well, that's just based on what's in the article. It's routine math. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Occasionally, however, storms develop in late November and persist until December; this list excludes such storms." why? From a non-expert point-of-view, they're either in-season or off-season. These would appear to qualify as "off-season". (note: I think the main part of the article explains this, but it seems odd to say it in the lead but not explain it there)..
    • Hinks used the qualifier that they must of formed out of the normal season. Thus ones that form in November but persist into the off season are not included.Jason Rees (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, it's still confusing as "storms develop in late November" surely could include storms that occur before November 30, i.e. formed during the season? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the storms don't form in the off-season, that's it. The lede says the article is limited to storms that form in the off-season. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still confused. Even though a storm exists off-season, just because it didn't form off-season, it's excluded? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You've got it.Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, it is a list of off-season storms. Something that forms inside of the season is not off-season. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No but it still "exists" off-season. Take an extreme example, it forms on November 30, and persists for say three weeks (figures plucked from the air, so apologies) but it wouldn't be an off-season hurricane? Is this an "official" definition of "off-season" or an arbitrary cut-off? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, it wouldn't be an off-season hurricane. An example is Hurricane Epsilon. It formed in late November, and was a hurricane in December. In its report, the NHC mentions that it was a December hurricane, but not that it was an off-season storm, unlike the report on Tropical Storm Olga. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay, well if at all possible, a referenced definition would be good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Actually, I can't find a good referenced definition either way. I suppose I can easily add them, that formed in November but lasted until December. There aren't too many of them, and it wouldn't change the article much. Would you suggest that? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Well, I do promise you I'm not being deliberately awkward, it just struck me that "off-season" obviously means something different to you and Jason as it does to me. And without an official reference I guess either of us could be theoretically correct. It's a shame there's nothing definitive out there, because right now I think the inclusion of those which crossed off-season from November probably should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Haha, no, I understand the confusion, and I don't mind at all adding the November storms. I'll get on that. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "November 30[nb 1],[3] " note before, ref after comma, why?!
  • Color-coding of names doesn't make sense per WP:ACCESS despite the scale graphic. The name shouldn't be in that color, the SSHS category should.
  • What is SS on the scale? It's not on the graphic.
  • In fact, C1, C2 and C3 aren't mentioned on the graphic either. This is a touch confusing.
  • Damage column, I'd put a linebreak after "in" to reduce the overwhelming width of this column.
  • Records and Stats section - you have "Caribbean Sea" which you don't link, then afterwards "Caribbean" which you do...
  • Hurricane Alice is overlinked in that section too.
  • Portal link squashes the references, can you put it in the See also section (for instance)?
  • Staff Writer->Staff writer (although I could see no evidence of either, and many other claims) and page number (14)?
  • Generally published sources have surname, first name order in the references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • Why does SS sort before TS while the scale shows TS before SS?
  • Arthur needs a $ in the damages col.
  • Dates col doesn't sort correctly, 1973 Unnamed comes between Alma and 1940 #1 but should come between 1899 Unnamed and 1932 #1.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • All FixedJason Rees (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As previously mentioned, sorting problems seem to have been fixed. On a side note, I've finished adding the November–December storms to the list. Stats and storm totals have also been updated accordingly. ★ Hylian Auree (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        1. 12 and #4 sort out of order for me, I'm guessing they're treated like text instead of numbers so you'll need to force the sort.
        2. 4 value of damage sorts out of order still. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ive forced the sorting to sort accurately.Jason Rees (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry to bang on, but your N/A in the Damage column sorts differently from your N/A in the Pressure column (for instance). I'd expect consistent behaviour here. Also not sure why you need three columns for wind speed when a merged column would sort just as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No worries feel free to bang on. Regarding the pressure N/As not sorting as the N/As in damage. There seems to be a curious problem there, i set the pressure column to sort like the damage column, but it isnt working. The only thing i can think it that it might be is the fact that the damage column is the last sorting column and wouldn't have anything to sort against. (I hope this makes sense). Ill see if i can find a solution tomorrow.Jason Rees (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I had a look through and i cant get it too work either of the ways i thought it might work.Jason Rees (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what it looks like with the wind units merged. I think if we were to go ahead with that, the knots would be removed (since they are not needed by any means). Does that work, TRM? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, prefer that format. I'll have a look at the other sorting issues too, see if I can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydoke, it's done. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Okay, in Safari, the Damage column sorts incorrectly, and sorts four ways.
    • It's sorting fine for me (I just noticed the 1925 one wasn't sorting, so I fixed it). --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pressure still sorts with N/A equivalent to zero while Damage sorts with N/A always below rows with a Damage value, which is inconsistent.
    • Ive finally found a way around it and sorted it to many chorus of Hallelujah :PJason Rees (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also (have just realised that I) don't like the floating S-S hurricane scale graphic, without a caption or any particular relevance where it is.
  • What makes DR1.com a reliable source?
    • (Discloser: its the first time ive seen this source) It appears to be a main news agency (eg BBC) for the Dominican republic.Jason Rees (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's it! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Err, I don't really get the problem with the S-S hurricane scale. It is in the chronology section, which also mentions how SSHS is used within the table. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might just be Safari but it's virtually embedded in the text, it looks a little odd. Other hurricane lists I've seen have this centrally aligned on the top of the table or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after my many comments were all nicely dealt with. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: While I the think that the "SSHS category" column would look better centered, this list looks great overall and meets FL criteria. I support its promotion, assuming other reviewers' concerns are addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

  • Records and statistics: No need for multiple Hurricane Lili links here.
  • "with a total of five existing in the off-season. estorms Several other had three". Extraneous word there.
  • Several of the references (10, 11, 13, 21) lack PDF indications. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good catch. I got them. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for reviewing, guys! ★ Auree (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_off-season_Atlantic_hurricanes/archive2&oldid=1089077039"