Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Floyd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Former featured articleHurricane Floyd is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 17, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 8, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
January 5, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article


Todo

More storm history (gasp!) and better intro. Jdorje 21:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DONE!!! Man, that took all day! Is that better? ;-) I think this is one of those storms that could ultimately be a featured article. What's next on the todo list? Hurricanehink 04:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the content is great here now. It needs a better introduction, and maybe a little more of a "central thread of narrative" through the impact section...though I'm not sure how to do that. Jdorje 21:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! This is just one of those hurricanes that should have an article quality proportional to its effects. Nice changes you made, and not sure about the impact section. Let's hope this article can ultimately get to FA status. Hurricanehink 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One other problem: there's no info on the canada impact, although canada is listed in the infobox. Jdorje 01:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Hurricanehink 01:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, Jdorje. :) I've always described Floyd to friends as "This is what happens when a hurricane dies - it drops all of its moisture at once." Would you say that's an accurate representation? --Golbez 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's about what happened. Fortunately Floyd kept moving as it did so...if it had stopped dead over north carolina things could have been a lot worse. Other good examples for what happens when a hurricane hits a cold front are Hurricane Hazel and Typhoon Nina. (Also, it was Hink that did the article rewrite...I was just congratulating him on it.) Jdorje 21:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS link I added to the external links section has a huge amount of data and pictures. Jdorje 08:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very good, and I'm upgrading it to A-Class. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA?

Maybe, but what more big things can be done? Maybe some pics of the northeast, or other trivia. How much more do we have to do before we can put it up for FAC? Hurricanehink 01:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write some more in the aftermath section about recovery. For instance a news special I saw a couple of weeks ago reported that many homeowners in Washington who decided to rebuild have since filed for bankruptcy, unable to afford the ongoing costs of rebuilding. However I haven't really found any sources online from which to make a new section about recovery. — jdorje (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, an also we should get it peer-reviewed. — jdorje (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review, that's exactly what I was thinking after I finished typing. How do we go about doing that? One thing I know they're going to say is the pic in the NC flood disaster is too big. I found two interesting articles that might be able to help.
Hurricanehink 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I thought that picture was quite appropriate...it pretty much sums up the whole article. The problem is it's directly opposite the rainfall picture, and I don't know where else to put the rainfall pic. — jdorje (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong. That picture is great. It is just too big. Maybe it can be switched with the rainfall pic? This way the text will be squished to the left, rather than to the right? Not sure what the best solution is... Hurricanehink 12:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

After the above discussions I put this up for peer review. Follow this link to add the peer review page to your watchlist. (Hink: Creating a PR is really easy, and explained at WP:PR: just add the template to the talk of the talk page, follow the link and edit the page, then add it to the WP:PR page.) — jdorje (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I'm sure we'll get some good feedback. Hurricanehink 12:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

There's a whole collection of satellite images here. — jdorje (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably enough images, but good find nevertheless. Hurricanehink 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are great aerial photos of Bound Brook here [1], but I don't know if they are copyrighted.

Retirement

I was about to ask if it was the NHC or the WMO who retired the name, when I saw HurricaneHink had just noticed the same problem and changed it to WMO. But, for older storms the names came from the NHC only, right? Where is the cutoff? At what point did the WMO take over naming? 1979? — jdorje (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, not exactly sure. I would guess the WMO has been responsible for quite a while, though I have no idea for how long. 1969 was still under the National Hurricane Center's, due to John Hope selecting one of the names for the season (Camille, can verify on the page). I don't know how much after that did the WMO take responsibility, but I would guess sometime before 1999. Hurricanehink 23:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I removed this section from the main article; see the peer review for discussion. — jdorje (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Satellite image of Hurricane Floyd, commonly erroneously attributed to other storms

According to snopes.com, Hurricane Floyd has contributed to Internet folklore. The satellite image on the right often erroneously circulates through the Internet with a wide variety of descriptions, usually the most recent devastating hurricane. It has at various times been identified as Hurricane Katrina (which was only a tropical storm at that location in the Atlantic), Hurricane Frances, Hurricane Jeanne, and even the tsunami following the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. It is, in fact, Hurricane Floyd in September, 1999. Perhaps the fact that it is such a striking image is the reason it is such a temptation to credit it with being other disasters.[1]

Sounds good, but where could we put that awesome picture? Hurricanehink 14:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Barbara and David P. Mikkelson (2006-02-14). "Satellite View". snopes.com. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |publishyear= ignored (help)

FAC todo

A few final improvements and we should FAC this article. One problem is lack of sources for a few places - I added {{fact}} to the article; if anyone knows where that information comes from please add the relevant references. — jdorje (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As all of this has been done, I'm FACing it. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! FA # 6!!!! Hurricanehink 04:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many pics

Curtosy of the FAC, one user noted there are too many pictures, and I agree. The North Carolina section, in particular, has 1 too many. Each is useful in its own way. The house one is a keeper, IMO, due to the fact it shows Property damage, something not seen elsewhere in the article. The Greenville Tar River one might be able to go, due to the fact that there is a flooding picture in the Virginia section just paragraphs later. The flood progression is another one that might be able to go, due to the fact there is a big picture describing the flood progression and that the animation isn't very clear. The last one, the flooding along the Tar and Neuse Rivers, is very big. It tells a lot, but the size is a big problem. I'm not saying we should get rid of it, but one picture in the section should be removed, IMO. Hurricanehink 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of the Greenville Tar River pic while you were posting this. It looks much better now. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the North Carolina section looks better. However, the Virginia pic now overlaps, creating some empty space. Hurricanehink 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If just one of the pictures is to go it should be the coastal damage one. — jdorje (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You think? It is the only one that shows actual coastal damage. Hurricanehink 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The animated gif Image:Floyd_Rocky_Mount_flooding.gif renders badly... wasn't removing this picture also suggested on the assessments page. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there was basically no coastal damage. 90% of the damage was flood damage. The most important pics are the flood area graphic (the big one) and the greenville flooding (damage in greenville was something like $1b). Madeline's got a good point that the animated graphic is scaled pretty poorly...maybe that's the one that should go. — jdorje (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True about coastal damage. I agree, the animation should probably be removed. Hurricanehink 23:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took it out. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

Somebody changed the name Floyd in the retirement section into the name Floyd. Previously, some articles used bold in the retirement sections to list storm names, but I have pretty much gotten rid of it (there is no reason for an unrelated name to be bolded). Using italics would be acceptable to me; it's also fine to keep the name without markup or to use "quotes". But we should be consistent throughout all articles. So which should it be? — jdorje (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why it should be bold. Italics are fine. Titoxd(?!?) 05:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Font size for references

NSLE has reverted my font size change to use small font again. Sorry, but I have reverted to normal font again. I do not buy the space argument here. We have enough space here, this is not a paper encyclopedia. I think the space argument does not merit to harm the visually impaired users by using ugly little fonts. Please remember that this encyclopedia is used by people of all sorts of age. Not every user is in his twenties (as a lot of editors here). Please do the visually impaired users a favor. It helps them and me a lot to better read the references. The space saved by using 85% font is very small to merit such a high barrier for those who have problems reading small fonts. I believe the harm done to those who have perfect sight is minor compared to the harm done to those who have problems reading small fonts. Please don't be arrogant to us. Thank you for your careful consideration. --Ligulem 09:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being so persistent about the font size. I finally found out that I can define the font of the references for myself in my User:Ligulem/monobook.css. I would recommend to set the 85% font size for the references in Mediawiki:Monobook.css. I have posted a message on this on the tech village pump [2]. Sorry again. --Ligulem 22:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Toll?

First and foremost, my compliments to the authors of this page. I think they did a very good job. One thing I was wondering about, however, regards the information on the total death toll from the storm. The page lists 35 deaths in North Carolina, which is the official NHC count, IIRC. However, in Jay Barnes' North Carolina's Hurricane History (3rd edition, ISBN # 0-8078-4969-3), 52 total NC deaths are attributed to Floyd, several of which occurred in the weeks following the storm as flood evacuations were underway. Perhaps the discrepancy of 20 or so deaths is officially what would be called "indirect", but the above book also lists the cause of death for each victim - and the majority of them are flooding deaths. I always thought that "indirect deaths" were generally such things as heart attacks, mishaps during cleanup (such as electrocution), etc., so it seems to me as if the Barnes total ought to be at least mentioned. Certainly his original source (the NC medical examiner) seems authoritative. CapeFearWX 02:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWS Reports

This is for reference, and info from there should probably be included in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuation History

The article states that Hurricane Rita triggered the largest evacuation in U.S. history. However, I believe Hurricane Gustav (2008) may have actually caused the largest evacuation. Could some one verify this? (Hurricaneguy (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • Another point not brought up in the article was the evacuation difficulties and lessons experienced during Floyd. Floyd exposed large problems experienced by mass evacuations in Florida and Georgia. And magnified the often-unnecesaary "hysteria" evacuations. In the three FLA 2004 hurricanes, officials pointed at Floyd, and made better decisions on when to order evacuations, and to order them only in key areas. Instead of evacuating 2 million people and clogging highways to a stand-still, they told only people in clear danger areas to leave. And to only go inland enough...not to try to go all the way to Atlanta, for instance. Doctorindy (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also can anyone find a source for state-wide school cancellation in Florida? I know Jeb Bush cancelled school for one day (what a glorious day it was) but I can't find it anywhere. Redsxfenway (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anniversary storm?

I am originally from the Charleston, South Carolina area. When Hurricane Floyd was mentioned, I thought it was kinda interesting. As it turned out, Floyd came almost exactly 10 years to the very day after the disastrous Hurricane Hugo destroyed large parts of the area. Can this be put into the Hurricane Floyd or 1989 Atlantic hurricane season articles? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of trivial, since Floyd didn't do much damage in South Carolina. If it was 10 years to the day, for example, and someone reputable said it, it might be worth adding, but as it is, I don't think it should be mentioned. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a trivial thing to mention. At the time, Hugo was the costliest hurricane in US history. Then, almost exactly 10 years later, another extremely powerful storm threatened to do damage to the area. If nothing else, a brief mention could be added. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But as I said earlier, Floyd didn't do much to SC. It threatened to hit Florida, but didn't, and never really threatened SC that badly. If you get a source that backs it up, then maybe. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, they appear to have hit five days apart. Thats a bit much for "almost exactly", especially when you consider most bad storms happen in a two month period. 10 years is more arbitrary than it seems. If it was exactly the same day one year apart in the same area, that could warrant mention if it compounded existing damage, but otherwise, this seems a stretch. --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Floyd. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Hurricane Floyd. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane Floyd. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Floyd. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something is weird

Um, so I added up all the deaths from the subarticles(52 TX, 13 PA, 8 NJ, 2 NY, 2 NE), which adds up to 77. But the total death count is 76, and I can assume there were impacts outside of these areas(Bahamas, Maryland.) Can this be fixed please? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneTracker495:  Done. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 02:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge #1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. ZZZ'S 04:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe New England and New York should be merged into Hurricane Floyd. The articles are very short and are not large enough to be a stand-alone article. Their GA status convinces me that the article isn't going to be larger and would definitely improve the destination article. I was considering merging the others, but Florida has a large preparations section and North Carolina and Pennsylvania were the most affected and likely need expansion given their size. I'm unsure if New Jersey should also be merged or not, but I'll let the community decide. ZZZ'S 16:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Since Floyd is only 5,400 words or so, it should be expanded with the goal of future featured article status (which would require expansion anyway). There might be additional mergers in the future, but I'd start with these. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 8 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Floyd&oldid=1253061903"