Talk:Hurricane Ioke/Archive 1

Most intense
It seems that Hurricane John (1994) has incomplete pressure data. Since the winds speed of John was higher, then it seems likely that John had a lower pressure.Reub2000 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you can't simply say that John was more intense than Ioke cause of the wind speeds. In 1994, they didn't have accurate tropical cyclone data as they do today, and even if you re-estimate John's centrsl pressure, you still may not get his accurate pressure. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody (talk + contribs + userboxes) 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the answer will probably never be known. So it's the most intense hurricane with a recorded pressure in the central pacific. Reub2000 19:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so Reub. It appears to be due to satellite estimates.  If this is true, than John would have a lower pressure estimate since its winds were higher via Dvorak.  If there was a measured pressure from an island or ship below 950 hPa, it should be included in this article.  Thegreatdr 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reintensification
Now that Ioke is back up to Category 5,(1 min. mean), it makes it the third time it has weakened then reintensified to a Category 5. How often does that sort of thing happen in the W.Pac., as it is a fairly rare occurence in the Atlantic.WotGoPlunk 21:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this in the record section: "Ioke tied Hurrican Emilia of 1994 by hitting Category 5 status two times, twice as hurricane. Ioke hit Category 5 status again but as a typhoon, thus not counting towards the record.". Does it answer it-This ties Allen and Ivan for hitting Category 5 three times. Tip only hit Cat5 once.Mitchazenia 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is clownish to assign human names to things based on an imaginary line. One cyclone has hit category five three or more occasions in it's existence. If that is a record or ties a record, say so. Whether people call it by differing names does not change the physical reality of a physical event.
 * This storm has unique qualities, not based on crossing the dateline, but based on physical forces. Coming as it does as the 24th category-3 or higher in the 12 months since Katrina, the uniquenesses need to be highlighted, not swept under a rug of bogus definitions.
 * It happens to be aimed at Tokyo, is one unique feature, and if it hits there, the most populous density on Earth, people are going to be very interested in it's history.
 * The US stopped keeping archives after it passed out of the Central Pacific. THere are gaps between the CEntral and Guam archives. Japan listed it as a Tropical Depression when it crossed the dateline, even though they listed the winds as cat-5.
 * THere are gaps in the public archives, and if no other place exists on planet Earth keeping the incrimental record, then THIS PLACE should. That means finding the interim reports before they are lost and storing them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.178.78 (talk • contribs)
 * Typhoon Tip, the most powerful cyclone on record, was aimed for Tokyo too.


 * It weakened substantially before landfall, causing a handful of deaths and minimal damage.


 * You simply cannot predict what a cyclone will do more than 3 days out. Ernesto should have taught you that. --Golbez 01:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Isabel also reached Cat 5 three times.
 * Because it is an annular hurricane, means that it can maintain a strong intensity for a long period of time. Please sign comments with ~ . -- Irfan Faiz  12:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But why are you talking like this? Sometimes predictions are NOT right. And, why are you are complaining about the naming of tropical cyclones and why is it clownish? And what it'll be named? Hurricane Car? Typhoon Bamboo? Cyclone Kangaroo? and with greek alphabets, it will ran out. And JMA, NOAA, JTWC. etc, sometimes wrongly designate storms like i saw some named tropical depressions in the east pacific and a single named depression in the atlantic. This is an online encyclopedia, not a crystal ball (like your overprediction or what Golbez said). And a repeat of Tip would not be possible, i think around 5 storms tried to reach 870 mbar but stuck at 872 or 875 mbar. This storm is uniqe but it depands on the conditions, the area where Ioke was has low wind shear and warm sea surface temperature. Paka for example, it weakened dramatically from a Super Typhoon days after it crossed the IDT. I think this will end up a depression off the coast of Japan and making landfall as a small remnant low causing light to no rainfall. Think again before posting in article's talk pages. -- Irfan Faiz  12:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

HurricaneWarning tag
Is this really relevant in this article? Ioke is nowhere near a landmass, and the people on Wake are already evacuated. Until the storm actually approaches somewhere where people could be in danger, could we take this tag out? --Merovingian - Talk 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. I'll take the tag out for now.  Should anyone contest this decision, respond here with a decent reason. -Tc w d 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Merovingian - Talk 23:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Retirement question
Can the name "Ioke" be retired for impacts in Asia, which is far out of the Central Pacific? Or can a name only be retired for impacts within its basin? CrazyC83 05:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it can be retired no matter where it is. --Golbez 05:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's going to recurve north and hurt no one. I don't think it'll be retired. Linda and Monica weren't retired after all... 201.112.93.172 05:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither had serious land impacts though...if there was a stronger-than-Wilma fishspinner in the Atlantic (highly unlikely), that likely wouldn't be retired either. CrazyC83 05:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming
Shouldn't this article be renamed to Typhoon Ioke, like Typhoon Tip is? Mace 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No. John of 1994 was left as Hurricane John (1994), means this shouldnt be changed either.Mitchazenia 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Tip never was a hurricane. This started as a hurricane. – Chacor 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Our policy, which I think is a reasonable one, is to use the terminology of the original basin; in this case, hurricane. Other similar systems such as Typhoon Paka that formed in the Central Pacific before crossing into the Western Pacific are referred to as typhoons by Wikipedia because they were not upgraded to hurricanes before crossing over. —Cuivi é nen 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * However, if TY Ioke has a significant impact, I'd suggest the name change might be appropriate.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke? RaNdOm26 09:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't see Tropical Storm/Typhoon Paka, do you? – Chacor 09:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see Hurricane/Typhoon Ele and I see Hurricane/Typhoon John. Also, I don't see Tropical Storm/Typhoon/Super Typhoon Saomai. hahaha RaNdOm26 10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not my bloody point. Paka was a crossover, and we didn't name it TS (it's max CPac strength)/TY Paka. John 1994 was a crossover, but there isn't a Hurricane/Typhoon John (1994) article. "Tropical Storm/Typhoon/Super Typhoon Saomai" is quite frankly ridiculous. – Chacor 10:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Typhoon Ioke, as well as all similar names, are redirects to the article anyway. CrazyC83 00:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. If Ioke was in both basins, the name of the article should acknowledge Ioke's existence in both basins - Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke. The same applies with John 1994. Look, you even put Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke in the Pacific typhoon season page. I see no good reason why you would want to leave the name as Hurricane Ioke. RaNdOm26 07:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Ioke existed in oth basins - and the CONTENT of the article acknowledges that. We are going by its highest strength - in this case, both hurricane and typhoon, therefore we're going by its formation basin - CPac - HURRICANE. – Chacor 08:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What a weird criteria for naming a cyclone. Is there a fixed criteria written somewhere for naming crossover storm articles? It's not just the content that matters. People's first impressions on an article is always its TITLE - people only then look at its content. RaNdOm26 09:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And people know it was both a hurricane and a typhoon. Typing in "Hurricane Ioke" gives them this article; typing in "Typhoon Ioke" redirects to this article. I don't see where you're coming from. – Chacor 09:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How about typing in "Hurricane Ioke" or "Typhoon Ioke" redirecting to "Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke". If people know it was both a hurricane and a typhoon, why doesn't the title reflect that. People in Asia will be wondering why the article doesn't acknowledge "Typhoon" in the title. If you're thinking that more people will certainly type in "Hurricane" instead of "Typhoon" in their search, you are wrong. RaNdOm26 09:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the Wikipedia naming conventions. – Chacor 09:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that took a long time. Finally, something. RaNdOm26 09:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Longevity Records
Since NOAA suggested that "IOKE COULD ENTER THE RECORD BOOKS FOR LONGEVITY AS A CATEGORY 4 OR GREATER STORM". What are the records to be beaten?

Also should ACE be calculated for the storm (wherever located) for comparison to other storms? Hurricane part has been calculated at Talk:2006_Pacific_hurricane_season/ACE_calcs crandles 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hurricane Donna holds the record in the Atlantic. I don't know about worldwide. —Cuivi é nen 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Donna's record is just for Cat 3+. Sorry. —Cuivi é nen 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And ACE is not used in the WPac, so no. —Cuivi é nen 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, JTWC, even if not official, is reliable enough to be used to calculate the ACE.

I think Ivan probably holds the record for Cat 4+ in the Atlantic (nearly 8 days), and was just 6 hours short of Donna's Cat 3+ record (and further yet might hold the record for longest time at Cat 3+ in total). So far, I think Ioke has been at Cat 4+ for about 7 days. Pobbie Rarr 01:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Been through List_of_Category_5_Pacific_hurricanes. I couldn't find many details for Patsy, but I am sure Ioke has lasted longer at Cat 4+ than any of the other cat 5 Pacific hurricanes. Anyone know where to find details for Patsy? If Patsy is shorter, is this a record worth mentioning? More research to look at Cat4 hurricanes and Typhoons would seem sensible though. crandles 12:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Patsy was short lived 6-10 Sept crandles 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So, Ioke is now a Cat 2. Do we know if it broke the record? (The article said it did but the citation did not match the statement) --Golbez 10:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say almost certainly. However, ideally the NOAA or the JTWC will say so. Otherwise its a manual search to see if it can be verified through the best track archives (not easy).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Year   Storm#  Name            Dates           Wind    Presre  Category        #of 6hr reports at 4+ 1959	11	Hurricane PATSY	      6-10 SEP	150	-	5		6 1959	15	Hurricane #15	      23-29 OCT140	958	5		7 1973	1	Hurricane AVA	      2-12 JUN	140	915	5		8 1994	7	Hurricane GILMA	      21-31 JUL140	920	5		7 1994	11	Hurricane JOHN	  11 AUG-10 SEP150	929	5		17, 16 consecutive 1997	7	Hurricane GUILLERMO30 JUL-24 AUG140	919	5		15 1997	11	Hurricane OLIWA	 28 AUG-17 SEP	140	-	5		14 1997	13	Hurricane LINDA	      9-17 SEP	160	902	5		10 1997	19	Hurricane PAKA	 28 NOV-22 DEC	160	-	5		27, 25 consecutive 2002	5	Hurricane ELIDA	 23-31 JUL	140	921	5		5 2002	10	Hurricane HERNAN 30 AUG- 6 SEP	140	921	5		6 2002	13	Hurricane KENNA	     22-26 OCT	145	913	5		5 1957	12	Hurricane #12	     20-22 OCT	120	-	4		2 1959	6	Hurricane DOT	      1- 8 AUG	130	952	4		12 1967	12	Hurricane SARAH	      9-22 SEP	130	933	4		4 1971	4	Hurricane DENISE	2-14 JUL120	951	4		2 1972	3	Hurricane CELESTE	6-22 AUG115	940	4		2 1973	4	Hurricane DOREEN  18 JUL- 3 AUG120	968	4		1 1973	5	Hurricane EMILY	     21-28 JUL	120	972	4		1 1974	14	Hurricane MAGGIE 26 AUG- 1 SEP	120	934	4		4 1975	4	Hurricane DENISE	5-15 JUL120	-	4		2 1975	11	Hurricane KATRINA 29 AUG- 7 SEP	115	-	4		1 1976	1	Hurricane ANNETTE     3-14 JUN	120	925	4		9, 6 consecutive 1976	9	Hurricane IVA	 24 AUG- 2 SEP	115	-	4		2 1976	13	Hurricane LIZA	 25 SEP- 2 OCT	120	948	4		7 1976	14	Hurricane MADELINE29 SEP- 8 OCT	125	941	4		2 1978	3	Hurricane CARLOTTA   17-25 JUN	115	-	4		4,3 consecutive 1978	6	Hurricane FICO	      9-28 JUL	120	-	4		12, 6 consecutive 1978	8	Hurricane HECTOR     22-29 JUL	120	-	4		3 1978	14	Hurricane NORMAN 30 AUG- 7 SEP	120	-	4		6 1978	18	Hurricane SUSAN	     18-24 OCT	115	-	4		1 1979	5	Hurricane ENRIQUE    17-24 AUG	125	-	4		3 1979	9	Hurricane IGNACIO    23-30 OCT	125	938	4		3 1980	11	Hurricane KAY	     16-30 SEP	120	-	4		3 1982	18	Hurricane OLIVIA     18-25 SEP	125	-	4		5 1983	2	Hurricane BARBARA     9-18 JUN	115	-	4		4 1983	8	Hurricane HENRIETTE27 JUL- 6 AUG115	-	4		3 1983	11	Hurricane KIKO	 31 AUG- 9 SEP	125	-	4		11, 10 consecutive 1983	17	Hurricane RAYMOND     8-20 OCT	125	-	4		7, 5 consecutive 1983	19	Hurricane TICO	     11-19 OCT	115	-	4		1 1984	4	Hurricane DOUGLAS 25 JUN- 6 JUL	125	-	4		8 1984	5	Hurricane ELIDA	 28 JUN- 8 JUL	115	-	4		1 1984	9	Hurricane ISELLE      3-12 AUG	115	-	4		2 1984	17	Hurricane NORBERT    14-26 SEP	115	-	4		6, 2 consecutive 1985	9	Hurricane IGNACIO    21-27 JUL	115	-	4		4 1985	10	Hurricane JIMENA     20-29 JUL	115	-	4		2 1985	17	Hurricane RICK	      1-12 SEP	125	-	4		7 1986	5	Hurricane ESTELLE    16-26 JUL	115	-	4		6 1986	10	Hurricane JAVIER     20-31 AUG	115	-	4		2 non consecutive 1986	17	Hurricane ROSLYN     15-22 OCT	125	-	4		6 1987	14	Hurricane MAX	      9-16 SEP	135	-	4		7 1987	19	Hurricane RAMON	      5-12 OCT	120	-	4		6 1988	6	Hurricane FABIO	 28 JUL- 9 AUG	120	892	4		2 1988	8	Hurricane HECTOR 30 JUL- 9 AUG	125	935	4		6 1989	15	Hurricane OCTAVE      8-16 SEP	115	948	4		1 1989	17	Hurricane RAYMOND 25 SEP- 5 OCT	125	935	4		5 1990	8	Hurricane HERNAN     19-31 JUL	135	928	4		9 1990	14	Hurricane MARIE	      7-21 SEP	120	944	4		4 1990	16	Hurricane ODILE	 23 SEP- 2 OCT	125	935	4		6 1990	20	Hurricane TRUDY	 16 OCT- 1 NOV	135	924	4		13, 7 consecutive 1991	10	Hurricane JIMENA 20 SEP- 2 OCT	115	945	4		8, 5 consecutive 1991	11	Hurricane KEVIN	 25 SEP-12 OCT	125	935	4		12 1992	5	Hurricane CELIA	 22 JUN- 4 JUL	125	935	4		7 1992	7	Hurricane ESTELLE     9-17 JUL	120	943	4		5, 3 consecutive 1992	8	Hurricane FRANK	     13-23 JUL	125	935	4		6 1992	17	Hurricane ORLENE      2-14 SEP	125	934	4		10 1992	18	Hurricane INIKI	      5-13 SEP	125	938	4		4 1992	22	Hurricane TINA	 17 SEP-11 OCT	130	932	4		10 1992	23	Hurricane VIRGIL      1- 5 OCT	115	948	4		1 1993	4	Hurricane DORA	     14-20 JUL	115	945	4		4 1993	6	Hurricane KEONI	      9-29 AUG	115	-	4		4 1993	7	Hurricane FERNANDA    9-19 AUG	125	934	4		7 1993	8	Hurricane GREG	     15-28 AUG	115	948	4		5 1993	11	Hurricane JOVA	 29 AUG- 5 SEP	115	948	4		2 1993	12	Hurricane KENNETH     5-17 SEP	130	932	4		6 1993	13	Hurricane LIDIA	      8-14 SEP	130	930	4		4 1994	5	Hurricane EMILIA     16-25 JUL	135	926	4		15 1994	13	Hurricane LANE	      3-10 SEP	115	948	4		3 1994	17	Hurricane OLIVIA     22-29 SEP	130	923	4		4 1995	1	Hurricane ADOLPH     15-21 JUN	115	948	4		1 1995	2	Hurricane BARBARA     7-18 JUL	120	940	4		10, 6 consecutive 1995	10	Hurricane JULIETTE   16-26 SEP	130	930	4		4 1996	5	Hurricane DOUGLAS 29 JUL- 6 AUG	115	946	4		6 1997	6	Hurricane FELICIA    14-22 JUL	115	948	4		3 1997	10	Hurricane JIMENA     25-30 AUG	115	948	4		6 1997	15	Hurricane NORA	     16-26 SEP	115	950	4		1 1997	17	Hurricane PAULINE     5-10 OCT	115	948	4		2 non consecutive 1998	2	Hurricane BLAS	     22-30 JUN	120	943	4		4 1998	5	Hurricane ESTELLE 29 JUL- 8 AUG	115	948	4		1 1998	8	Hurricane HOWARD     20-30 AUG	130	932	4		10, 5 consecutive 1999	4	Hurricane DORA	      6-23 AUG	120	943	4		12 2000	3	Hurricane CARLOTTA   18-25 JUN	135	932	4		4 2001	1	Hurricane ADOLPH 25 MAY- 1 JUN	125	940	4		5 2001	10	Hurricane JULIETTE21 SEP- 3 OCT	125	923	4		7, 6 consecutive 2002	6	Hurricane FAUSTO 21 AUG- 3 SEP	125	936	4		4 2004	8	Hurricane HOWARD 30 AUG-10 SEP	120	943	4		3 2004	10	Hurricane JAVIER     10-20 SEP	130	930	4		9 2005	11	Subtrop Storm KENNETH 14-30 SEP	115	947	4		3 Longest Paka 1997 27 (25 consecutive) 6hr reports at Cat 4+ (but that is a Typhoon). Next is John 1994 with 17 (16 consecutive) 6hr reports at Cat 4+.

Is that enough to put the record in? crandles 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How many did Ioke have? --Golbez 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the track map, I make it 31. So Ioke would indeed take the record. Pobbie Rarr 02:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The track map includes intermediate advisories from the CPHC I believe. – Chacor 01:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a manual trawl of Best Track data. I would hope that Best Track could be cited rather than throwing out as original research. crandles 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Longest in other basins:

crandles 00:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * South Indian 1994 Storm #20 20 6hr reports at Cat 4+
 * North Indian 1999 Storm #5 6 6hr reports at Cat 4+
 * Atlantic 2004 Ivan 34 (33 consecutive) reports at Cat 4+


 * Subtropical Storm Kenneth? I thought Kenneth was a full blown tropical system. Jake52 My talk 13:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just copied from but now that has been changed to say Hurricane. Did you email or are they watching? :) crandles 14:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I count 32 from Ivan but that sounds like the world record. I count just 28 from Ioke and 25 from Paka. These are all consecutive. I did not count seperate, shorter stints at 4+. After all, the record is for consecutive time as a 4+ storm. Longest time spent as a major hurricane is undoubtedly the 1899 storm with 47 consecutive 6 hr periods as a major hurricane but spent most of that time as a 3. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that official for the San Ciriaco Hurricane or just probable? You see, Wikipedia currently has Donna down as the record-hollder in the Atlantic. Pobbie Rarr 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Advisory 20 to 29 is 10 ending 08/26/17Z then on  there is advisory 31 to 51 which sounds like it should be 21 but 3 are missing 36, 39, and 46 so there is only 18 listed 18+10 =28 but if you count the missing 3 then it is 31. Then there is the question of number 30: 31 is listed as being at 08/27/12Z so it looks like there is a 19 hour difference since advisory 29. So I am struggling to work out whether it is 31, 32 or 33 6hr advisories. 08/24/11Z to 09/01/12Z looks like it ought to be 33.  crandles 20:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

NWS Data
JTLYK, the NWS has a observation site on Wake Island, which will provide good data in the coming hours. Here's the most recent observations, and here's where that came from. The question is, how can we source it so we can put it in the article? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First Cat 5 CPAC?
I am almost completely certain that Patsy was also a CPac storm, named from the typhoon lists (since that's how naming was done then). —Cuivi é nen 23:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the first CPac *name* to be Cat 5 while still in the CPac. --Golbez 23:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That would trivia which wouldn't be that significant. The important record is first CPac storm to form in the CPac. If Patsy was the first then Ioke was the second, that is it. However, reading the JTWC ATCR and the CPHC CPHC summary does not clarify what where Patsy formed. From what I can figure, the track traces back into the WPac (implying a WPac storm) but the first positive data point is in the CPac. The HURDAT begins on the dateline and keeps it in the W Hemisphere (UNISYS=HURDAT track), though it is faulty. The JMA analysis starts later on the dateline and moves the storm initially into the E Hemisphere (JMA track map. Does a storm with its first data point at 180° exactly with 65 knot winds and initially moving east count as forming in the W or E part of the ocean? My opinion: Patsy is a WPac storm.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The JMA picked Ioke up at 180.0&deg;E. Therefore my view is that if Patsy formed at 180.0&deg;E, it is a WPac storm. – Chacor 04:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, after all, typhoons exclusively move westward. - SpLoT 09:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Typhoons move exclusively westward? I'm afraid that sentence is wrong either way it can be interpreted; hurricanes move westward too (so not EXCLUSIVELY typhoons), while typhoons do move east, a la Typhoon John (also a crossover - it crossed from CPac into WPac and back into CPac) in 1994. :P – Chacor 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite a storm...
Two things: first, does anyone have a link to satellite data now that it's over the W pacific (the NRL site picture is quite low quality).

Second, does anyone know what the size of that concentric eyewall is? It looks to be more than 100 miles across! -Runningonbrains 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Its probably a misnomer to call it an eyewall now.. Ioke is starting to becom extratropical etc.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ioke is dying, looks like STS Maria when it turned ext. -- Irfan Faiz  23:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice image of it dying Good kitty 05:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is horrible...
My first impression of this article is the repetitive images of the same thing without any purpose of its presence. You have got two images saying it's near Wake Island, and another image in the Impact section which shouldn't be there. You have got two somewhat identical images side by side without saying much about them. You really have to organise the article's structure, and delete a few of the pictures. I'm not saying that the images are bad, just too many of them. RaNdOm26 10:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Be Bold and remove them yourself :) Its obvious this article has too many pics - thats what its Commons category is for...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

September 8 Alaskan Low
Someone created an article on ex-Ioke, and I redirected it to this article. However, he keeps reverting it, so it may be a good idea to look at this one for any mergeable information, because I may take it to AFD if he doesn't stop, as the article is OR. --Core des at talk. o_O 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also wrong in several places, there is no special numbering for extratropical storms. It should be merged. We mentioned the extratropical effects of Maria in the Atlantic article. --Golbez 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like he's going to leave it alone (though he did userfy it), so it should be a simple matter of going into the history and finding mergeable information. --Core des at talk. o_O 01:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it is related to Ioke, it belongs here. Likewise, if Florence stays strong and affects the other side of the Atlantic, that goes in the Florence article. CrazyC83 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Emilia
In the records section, there is a mention of Ioke and Emilia being tied for most stints as a 5 in the Pacific. It should be noted that the National Hurricane Center never designated Emilia as a Category 5. They list it as a 135kt Cat. 4 with a pressure of 926 millibars. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See Talk:List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes. The CPHC who are official for the CPac (not the NHC) did designate it as such, there is a HURDAT problem.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just the same, I think the discrepancy should be mentioned. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Extratropical storm history
So, why shouldn't the storm in its extratropical form be mentioned in the storm history section? It is, after all, storm history not tropical storm history. -Runningonbrains 13:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the page history. – Chacor 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, what I saw on the page history was that an anonymous user added information in good faith (even provided a source when the initial addition was reverted as unsourced), and was reverted and badgered without an explanation, but instead was read wikipedia policy citations. He at least deserves an explanation as to why his addition does not belong in this article (in laymans terms).


 * Regardless, some info on the extratropical state really should appear in the storm history. Just because it appears in the impact section doesnt mean it shouldnt be there as well... -Runningonbrains 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thegreatdr 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New Damage Reports
This article appeared i the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper yesterday. It's titled, "Wake Survived Typhoon--Barely." I think that should say it all. The article also notes, "70 percent of the tiny island's facilities and buildings are moderately to severely damaged." Just thought I'd leave the link here in case someone wanted to merge this into the article. 青い(Aoi) 01:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Record only for Pacific?
So did it break the worldwide record? --Golbez 22:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It may have done, I have added note to longevity section above. There is a bit of a problem with missing advisory 30, 36, 39 and 46 and time for 2 advisories between 29 and 31. Looks like 8 1/4 days consecutive (plus a non consecutive further 3 6 hr reports). crandles 20:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Haven't trawled through west Pacific yet. crandles 20:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The world record is Typhoon Tip with a pressure of 870mb.Reub2000 21:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, record for time at cat4+ intensity, not pressure. bob rulz 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then specify the record that you mean! Reub2000 01:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's assumed that the people who monitor this page know what I'm referring to. --Golbez 03:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

West Pacific record for cat4+ longevity prior to Ioke was tied: 1961 Super Typhoon 18 and 2002 Super Typhoon 12 both with 28 advisories. So it looks like Ioke was a world record. crandles 17:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I calculate Ivan's Power dissipation index (PDI) as 85.9 *10^6 Kt^3. I estimate (for missing 5 advisories estimated lower of 2 either side) for IOKE 102.4 *10^6 Kt^3 so that could be another record though I think a few others need checking like San Ciriaco, 1961 Super Typhoon 18 and 2002 Super Typhoon 12... crandles 19:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope 1961 Super Typhoon 18 managed 119.1 *10^6 Kt^3. It might be a record for a hurricane though. San Ciriaco only managed 69.76 *10^6 Kt^3. crandles 20:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Super Typhoon 18 is Nancy, right? That data is considered incorrect these days, and usually discounted; she didn't actually have 215 mph winds, though the tracking data still says she did (no one's gotten around to updating the estimates, I guess). —Cuivi é nen 12:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How is the name spelled?
The CIA factbook, in describing the damage on Wake Island, spells the name of the storm as Loke. Everyone else uses the name used in this article. Which is correct? - Thanks, Hoshie 09:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ioke is correct. Look at it this way - you certainly don't pronounce "Loke" as "ee-OH-keh"  ;) – Chacor 09:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Epac/Arctic
since this storm affected the alaskan coast does this mean that it was an epac storm or a arctic ocean storm as well as an Cpac/Wpac storm ?Jason Rees 15:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not an arctic ocean storm. Ioke remained south of the arctic circle. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * so does that mean that Ioke was an epac storm ?


 * Yes, Ioke was an EPAC storm (as CPAC storms are usually combined with epac storms) as well as a WPAC storm. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Technically from a purely basin-only POV Ioke never was an EPac, but the U.S. Govt. usually considers CPac under EPac as well (as evidenced by the NCDC's EPac page). – Chacor 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

HURDAT update
The NHC site has the 2006 Pacific HURDAT up now. 35855 08/16/2006 M=22 9 SNBR= 803 IOKE        XING=0      (CP) 35860 08/16*1041425 25 1010*1041439  25 1010*1041454  25 1010*1031467  25 1009* 35865 08/17*1021477  25 1009*1011488  25 1009*1011497  25 1009*1021506  25 1009* 35870 08/18*1021515  25 1009*1001525  25 1009*1001536  25 1009*1001545  25 1009* 35875 08/19*1001553  25 1009*1001560  25 1009*1001566  25 1009*1001573  25 1008* 35880 08/20*1021580  30 1006*1041589  30 1006*1071602  40 1000*1101617  45  999* 35885 08/21*1121632  65  996*1151644  70  990*1201652  75  985*1271660 100  960* 35890 08/22*1351670 115  945*1451677 115  945*1521685 115  945*1581693  90  964* 35895 08/23*1641698  90  971*1691702  90  971*1731705  90  971*1761709  90  971* 35900 08/24*1811714  90  971*1851720 100  960*1861725 115  940*1881729 125  935* 35905 08/25*1901734 125  935*1911742 140  921*1921747 140  921*1921751 140  921*  35910 08/26*1931758 130  930*1911765 130  930*1881774 140  920*1831780 140  920* 35915 08/27*1791787 140  920*1761797 140  900*1721807 140  900*1691814 140  900* 35920 08/28*1661824 135  900*1631833 130  910*1621842 130  910*1611850 130  910* 35925 08/29*1601858 130  910*1621866 135  910*1621874 130  910*1641881 140  910* 35930 08/30*1661888 140  910*1711895 140  910*1741902 135  910*1811911 135  910* 35935 08/31*1861918 135  910*1921926 135  910*1971937 135  910*2021947 135  910* 35940 09/01*2071955 130  910*2121964 130  910*2181977 115  927*2241992 115  927* 35945 09/02*2312008 115  927*2362023 110  927*2402038 110  927*2452052 110  927* 35950 09/03*2512065 100  927*2572076 100  927*2662082  95  927*2752092  95  927* 35955 09/04*2852101  85  958*2972111  70  972*3092120  65  976*3252125  65  976* 35960 09/05*3412128  60  980*3572126  60  980*3752109  60  980*3992085  60  980* 35965 09/06*4192066  60  980*4502033  60  980*4761988  60  980*0000000   0    0* 35970 HU

The important bit there is on the 27th: 900 mbar. Should this go in?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure HURDAT qualifies as an official source, and it doesnt seem like a typo since that would have been about when it was at its most intense level. I'd update the min pressure. - Running  On  Brains  20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, not for locations west of the International Dateline. Tokyo is the RSMC for the northwest Pacific.  Since it went to 900 hPa first just east of the dateline, you're safe.  I'm very suspicious of that 20 hPa pressure fall with no increase in wind.  A sudden increase in storm size in six hours would be the only explanation for such a change, if it is real. Thegreatdr 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thats why I posted to the talk page not directly to the article. 910 I could believe but 900 seems a bit much, especially at only 140 kts. /me hopes the CPHC get their report out soon.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is due to a change from the Eastern Pacific to the Western Pacific Dvorak pressure/wind relationship. If you remember, the AMSU estimates were even lower than 900 hPa.  I bet CPHC matches NHC, if it's in the track database.  Thegreatdr 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a point. If I remember correctly, the NRL estimates went from 920mb straight to 900mb after Ioke crossed the date line (with the winds remaining at 140kt). NRL estimates in the West Pacific usually correspond with the JTWC, which tends to be pretty bold (as opposed to the more conservative JMA). Pobbie Rarr 03:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

CPHC report finally out
CPHC report is finally out, someone please update the article as necessary? They provide synoptic situation, too, which might be useful for storm history. And the key thing is that in the CPac, the CPHC lists lowest pressure only as 915 hPa, not 900 as above. – Chacor 11:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The best track data will be interesting when rereleased, because that still forces a 15 hPa difference right along the International dateline unless they got JMA or JTWC to change accordingly. Oy.  Thegreatdr 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The JMA's minimum pressure for Ioke in their BT was 920, however at the crossover the JMA has it at 925 hPa. – Chacor 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That must mean PHNL/CPHC is using JTWC data west of the dateline. A definite problem for both our purposes, and theirs.  Thegreatdr 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Records
I don't like how the last record is phrased. I think giving the number of consecutive hours (198) spent at Category 4 or above would be more effective than listing the number of 6-hourly reports. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Pressure
UNISYS gives a minimum pressure of 900. I don't think they're talking out of their ass. Looks like it came from the West Pacific. That also would not be satellite measured because JTWC standard for 140 knot storms is 898. Perhaps it came from JMA. This should be researched (by me or anyone who has time). -- § Hurricane E  RIC  archive 20:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, not JMA. Valid or not, it came from somewhere and I'm quite curious to know where. -- § Hurricane E  RIC  archive 20:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's from the Best track file. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): See above  b (MoS):  See above notes.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Good work on the article. No problems anywhere I can see. Mit ch 32contribs 23:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

track map
Isn't it out of date? The last update was on September 9, 2006, and I remember it taking months to get reports out on this one. Good kitty 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I never noticed that. Is there a chance it could be updated? The JTWC, JMA, and CPHC best track has been released; since the article treats it largely from the point of view from CPHC and JTWC, I think it should use the Hurdat data, which provides the entire history of the storm (though the "depression" stage should not be included until 00z on August 20). --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

featured article
What can be done to finally get this up to FA Status? Juliancolton 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the article is up for Featured Article candidacy, if you're interested. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As a member of the WPTC would I be able to assess an article?-- Juliancolton (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can only assess articles as either Stub, Start, B, or A-class. GA class and FA class require reviews. Ioke is currently up for featured article candidacy. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this officially an FA? Juliancolton (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. ---CWY2190TC 00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats good, another hurricane FA to add to the list! Juliancolton (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)