Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Luis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Todo

[edit]

External links section Jdorje 08:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better? Hurricanehink 01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on! This can't still be a stub. Hurricanehink 02:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. I was just busy editing the article! Jdorje 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, just checking. Good work with the little things, especially references. Hurricanehink 02:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

This article needs some "Hurricanes in XXX" categories for its caribbean strikes. But there are so many caribbean locations, I find it hard to make all these categories work together properly. — jdorje (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Deaths

[edit]

My school nurse lived somewhere in the caribbean durring this storm and she claims she say hundreds of people dead, it is posible they never learned of these deaths?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Silence Knight (talk • contribs)

I doubt it. It's been a long time since a hurricane caused hundreds of deaths in the eastern Caribbean. In addition, FEMA is usually very good with death totals. I doubt they would miss a few hundred people. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FEMA? What would they have to do with it hink? I suspect that your nurse was talking about was a different storm.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't FEMA the agency who inspects damage on the U.S. Virgin islands? That is where a lot of Luis's damage occurred. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of Luis's damage was in the Virgin islands? Not according to the article or the TCR... Now you've got me confused Hink--Nilfanion (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I thought more islands belonged to the Virgin islands than there actually are. OK, so I would guess the respective countries' governments wouldn't miss 100 people from the death tolls. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substandard grammar and improper or unsourced writing

[edit]

Somebody edited with dubious claims on Hurricane Luis, one claimimg a 98 foot monster wave happened in connections to Hurricane Luis. Also, whosoever edited this article was using questionable grammar, and some of the edits may be vandalism or dubious edits at the least. Can someone please cleanup Hurricane Luis-the grammar, substandard edits and unsource claim are unneeded and are making this article appear nonreliable. 173.26.80.178 (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can personally attest to the tidal wave. My submarine was coming out of Halifax the night the thing rolled over us. It knocked us 150 feet underwater with our upper sail hatch open. We took on about 10,000 gallons of water. I've never been so seasick in my life. It was a miracle no one died.Daveamee (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)daveamee[reply]

Re-rate

[edit]

Can someone re-rate this article. I doubt this article is really a stub, it too long to be a stub and it also has too many references to be a stub. Anyone agree to re-rate the article? --12george1 (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still severely short. There is really no way it can be considered a start-class article until more sections are expanded. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1,000 people drowning

[edit]

I removed the second part of the sentence:

"The hurricane killed nine people (two in the French side and seven in the Dutch side), and possibly 1,000 people drowned in the lagoon according to some sources."

The statement is vague, there is no source given, and it contradicts the death toll in the article. If there is a source, please feel free to put it back in the article. Kachyna(talk) 00:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winds

[edit]

Hello. I was wondering about the original intensity of Hurricane Luis. There's this site called "Stormpulse" that I go to often, and I was going through Luis' track. The intensity they have is 150mph winds and 935 millibars pressure. I just wanted to make sure that y'all knew about this, because I don't like Wiki to be wrong. Thanks, --Ryder 03:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC) talk

Nope, the TCR has 140 mph as the peak. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the extremely long revival, but he’s actually correct. Luis’s TCR does indeed state it was 150/935, and we were oblivious to the fact for several years. That link is botched and I don’t think that was the correct one. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV: That used to be the correct TCR link but NHC decided a few years ago to change them all the TCR links to PDF's from HTML. Anyway, I am agreed that 130 kts is the correct intensity, but I am pinging @Hurricanehink: since it seems very odd that he would make such a mistake.Jason Rees (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Err @Hurricanehink:.Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke to Hink offline and he was shocked and couldn't quite believe that he had made above - nice catch @MarioProtIV:.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV, Jason Rees, and Hurricanehink: I just double-checked HURDAT2 and it gives 120 kts as Luis's peak winds, contradicting the 130 kts given by the TCR. Which should we treat as correct? --Dylan620 (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The best track trumps the TCR, so looks like I was correct all along! Until the best track is updated when reanalysis gets there, I think we should go with 120 knots, unless @Thegreatdr and Cyclonebiskit: can shed some light. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The BT only trumps the TCR at certain times and in this instance, after reading the TCR and several discussions, I don't think it should. This is because the 120 kts was the operational peak while the NHC justifies 130 kts in the TCR.Jason Rees (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point (and I wish I could've included some emojis in my previous comment, was only having fun) - I emailed NHC about the issue, we'll see what they say. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could e-mail Chris about Luis and see if it's a transcription error of some sort. The TCR should not be at odds to HURDAT2. When this occurs, the TCR is normally correct. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Luis. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Luis. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 03:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Luis. 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) 02:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity at landfall

[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the storm track image and article text appear to be contradictory. The text says that the hurricane made landfall in Newfoundland at category one intensity, just before extratropical transition. However, the track image appears to show Luis making landfall at category 3 intensity as a extratropical cyclone. Can anyone verify which is correct? Thanks, Gex4pls (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of the track

[edit]

As you can see, the colours don't match the storms info. Seeing as Hurricane Opal has the new colours on its track, why not have Luis's track have the new ones? Thanks in advance! 86.144.36.38 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Supportstorm:, @MarioProtIV:, @Sria-72:, do any of you know by chance? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll get around to updating it soon when I can. I do wish though when we made the switch we had a more coordinated effort (Jasper Deng did a good job initially IIRC, but there hasn’t been a coordinated effort to do everything back to 1851. Also, just a side note since you pinged Support, he has said he doesn’t support the new scale and has stuck with the old one for other language wikis. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I could probably do the track with the new colours and show it? It's ok if you say no. 2A00:23C6:4B67:501:75DF:450E:48A8:A53C (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Meteorological history of Hurricane Luis into Hurricane Luis

[edit]
Withdrawn. ZZZ'S 21:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I don't believe that there should be a met history article about a storm that doesn't meet the recommended size of splitting. The main article, Hurricane Luis, is only 3 615 words. While it did generate the largest recorded wave in the Atlantic (which is pretty much the only significant record that was not surpassed), it does not justify having a separate, short article from another short article, neither of which come close to, let alone exceed, the recommended size for splitting. After doing some calculations, if the information worth keeping in this met history article was properly merged into the parent article, the new size of the main article would be around 4 182 words. The met history article is a GA while the main article isn't, so the main article would improve in quality and comprehensiveness. ZZZ'S 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at the time - this article is pretty bare bones at the moment, and almost every impact section can be expanded. I worry that merging in the MH now would make the article seem a lot more complete than it is. Since the MH is already a GA, it's already stable where it is, and I don't think the main article would be improved much by merging the MH in, not when so much impact is missing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll withdraw this proposal until the main article is expanded. ZZZ'S 21:11, 21 December 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_Luis&oldid=1264395244"