Talk:Hurricane King

Todo
Complete it, I guess? Hurricanehink 02:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I surely hope there's more to come. At this stage it would take much more work to make it into a workable article than is justified. — jdorje (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the storm, based on its price tag and importance in Florida hurricane history, could stay, with extensive work done (almost a complete redo). Hurricanehink 02:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To the original author: look at Category:FA-Class_hurricane_articles for sample articles, and try to make the article look like that. It needs an infobox, pictures, categories, sections. — jdorje (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

well i attempted to start the hurricane king page, thanks for helping me with it, it is an important hurricane to the hisotry of florida--HurricaneRo 03:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC) can someone add a picture of kings track and a picture of the storm please--HurricaneRo 03:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll add the storm track, but due to how long ago it was, there's likely no pictures of it. HurricaneRo, you still have a lot of work to do if this article is to stay alive. Hurricanehink 03:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Congradulations!, you beat me to the Hurricane King Article. Storm05 17:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Who did? -- Juliancolton (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Category 3 or 2?
According to the NHC best track, King was a 105 mph Category 2 at landfall. This can be seen in King's track map, which clearly shows a Category 2 Miami landfall. However, the MWR does list 120 mph in the city. What should be done about this? Hurricanehink 21:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

im not sure?? maybe we should just right it was a cat two atlandfall and is believed to have been a cat.3--HurricaneRo 00:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be best to say that there was uncertainty, because it says [|here] in the AOML archives that there were sustained winds of 122 mph reported in Miami, well above the category 3 threshold, even though the NHC archives (which I can't find for King, does anyone have the link?) say 110 mph. I tend to have issues with the Unisys hurricane archives which are the only ones I can find that say it was a category 2 at landfall. They are notoriously inaccurate. --Runningonbrains


 * There is no uncertainty. The One and Only source is the best track data; the only problem is in interpreting it since there are various forms of it lying around.  The best track list of U.S. hurricanes does indeed show it was a cat3 at landfall. The 6-hourly dataset does seem to conflict with this, but it is less reliable (as with Hurricane Andrew) because it only goes at 6-hour intervals. — jdorje (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good link to have :adds to favorites: Runningonbrains 19:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I used an NHC page that listed the strongest landfalls, and it says King made landfall as a Category 3. The page is in the article. Hurricanehink 03:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Move?
Should the Hurricane King (1950) article be redirected here? Hurricanehink 18:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe so. Also, this sentence is confusing to me: "King was a very small hurricane, as nearby Camaguey recorded winds of around 65 mph." Is this supposed to be the size of the hurricane? If this sentence is "correct", then it's not a hurricane, because it has 65 mph winds, unless he meant 65 knots, inwhich case it is. -- RattleMan 20:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It shows that the city, which was relatively nearby, only recorded winds of around 65 mph when the storm was actually a compact, powerful hurricane. I'll go and redirect it. Hurricanehink 20:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

severe flooding?
It says here that "severe flooding" occurred in St. Petersburg, where the water was "ankle deep". Now, to me, that is minor flooding. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningonbrains (talk • contribs)


 * Very true. I'll fix it. Hurricanehink 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Retirement?
The article says that "King" was not retired following this storm. However I'm not sure if theres any point in saying that, I mean could King have been retired at all?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All storm articles have that, so I just thought I'd say it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hurricane King
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hurricane King's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hurdat": From Tropical cyclone:  From Hurricane Dog (1950):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane King. 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Mu4tV7pK?url=http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1950.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1950.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CV1scaM6?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aoml.noaa.gov%2Fhrd%2FLandsea%2FNHR-Cuba.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/NHR-Cuba.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)