Talk:Hurricane Sandy/Archive 1

Diversity of models
This article shows the wide variety of predicted tracks, with different models giving landfall from Ocean City to Cape Breton. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weather Underground also has model data to use too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Bahamas
In the table, 3 deaths are mentionned in the Bahamas but the reference only talk about one. So either the data in the table has to be corrected or someone find a new reference to uphold the 3 death there. Pierre cb (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Large wind field
I wanted to mention that Sandy probably could become one of the largest Atlantic hurricanes in history, and this page lists the current top 10. The latest advisory right now, #19A at 2 a.m. EDT October 27, shows that winds extend outwards up to 435 mi (705 km). –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I want to mention that people should stop speculating, wait until things actually happen, then write them up in an encyclopaedic way, with reliable sources. There's already too much "forecasting" in the article, which will be replaced very soon by reality. All very pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a true, sourced fact that the wind field is rather large already (extends outward 450 mi, 725 km now). I am not saying we should put the info in yet, but to be ready to put the info if/when the storm grows to a record size. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I created the "Records" section. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it got removed because of a lack of good referencing (which I admit was a problem). Maybe we can re-add it with better references later. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I dont see anyplace where the NHC comes out and states this in the reference provided, I have been listening to multiple news sources that say that Sandy is large yes but comes in second largest in history. Are there reliable sources to confirm this that it is the largest? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would recommend that it be removed until it can be referenced better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the first sentance mis-leading? While it appears based on early analysis that the Gale-Force wind field may be the largest on record in the Atlantic Basin, the Hurricane-Force wind field was less than 10% of some of the larger storms to make it that far north in the Basin (e.g. Igor 2010). I feel this first sentence "Hurricane Sandy, the largest Atlantic tropical system in diameter on record..." implies that it somehow rivals the power or intensity of many of the larger, more powerful storms in Atlantic history; when the only record it may have set is in Gale-Force wind swath--a relatively insignificant superlative. (Scotty.tiberius (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC))

Nicknames in lede
I removed "Frankenstorm", "Perfect Storm", and "Superstorm". The term "Frankenstorm" is being used to describe the combination of Sandy + the cold front it is approaching, not the hurricane itself. The latter two are, needless to say, just descriptions of the storm. Non-RS refs (for the purposes of determining a name) added say things like "threatens to become 'Perfect storm'" and compares it to the previous "Perfect Storm", and the other ref refers to it as "'Super storm' Sandy". Those are descriptions. Not names. There's already a section discussing nicknames. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 14:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and I edited in what the refs actually say, after this was readded, since I don't feel like editwarring. Feel free to remove my edits along with the rest. There may be some merit to keeping "Frankenstorm" in the lede, though input from someone more experienced with hurricane articles would be helpful on that one. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 16:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it as well. I also sent a message to the user because he has violated the 3RR. Maybe he will come by this page and discuss it. United States Man (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you guys keep reverting his edits to be honest. It's already sourced and we have always added popular nicknames of a storm in the lede. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then make a valid argument about why it should be on there. We have always added popular nicknames of a storm in the lede. is not a good argument. Come up with a good reason and it can be readded. United States Man (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well actually, since we've always done it like that, I think you should make a valid argument about why it shouldn't be. The nicknames section can easily be removed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't need to. 2001:db8 already did that. Your turn. United States Man (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh...nevermind. I'm not going to argue about every little thing with you. Just keep the article the way it is. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't need to argue if you could come up with a good reason. United States Man (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the name Frankenstorm has to do with Halloween, so even if the front-merger does not happen as it did in 1991, Frankenstorm will still be around looking for candy.Tumblehome (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are implying here. United States Man (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * United States Man, sorry for being unclear earlier. At the time I was suggesting that we should include Halloween as part of the reason Sandy became nicknamed "Frankenstorm", mostly because it was in the lede paragraph, but that's not an issue anymore.Tumblehome (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The correct and only real name of the storm is Sandy. We should not be reporting on names made up by media outlets to attract readers/viewers. it's not our job to play their game. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant and untrue. A great deal of Wikipedia's references come directly from media. Wikipedia is meant to help people find information, not hinder them by strictly relying on official terminology. 8ty3hree (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2012/10/26/frankenstorm-hurricane-sandy-name/1660867/Tumblehome (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The media is fine when it sticks to reporting the news. That's not what this is. It's making up a name, when the storm already has an official one. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was about to add "Frankenstorm" when I decided to check the talk page. Since the term is used in quite a few news sources, having it in the intro is useful. Having it does not make WP look like a tabloid. Auchansa (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Frankenstorm has been retired as a nickname already. "Superstorm Sandy" seems to be the new one. I think the media wanted this to be like "Snowmagaggedon" and "Snowpocalypse", but unlike those storms she already had a name (Sandy) so it became confusing.Tumblehome (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Extratropical Storm Sandy article?
As we all know Sandy is most likely not going to cause damage to the east coast as a Tropical Storm or Hurrican but as an Extratropical storm. Would it make sense to split off an article from here reguarding Sandy's post tropical effects? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not as a full article no, the meteorological and other aspects should be kept here. However, subarticles by region might be warranted later. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh okay I just expect with the impact of the storm that there will be alot added but that answers my question on where the content should be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's not even a guarantee Sandy is extratropical at landfall. Many models keep it as a fully warm core until after it moves ashore. For public awareness purposes and to make the Wikipedia subarticle naming business easier, I hope they keep it tropical up until landfall. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like it would be propper to follow 1991 Perfect Storm and Hurricane Grace (1991). If the NHC forecast is accurate and it becomes extratropical in 48 hours, not much impact on the CONUS will have occurred yet, and two articles can be made that complement each other.  If it happens much later than 48 hours too close to landfall, things will get messy.  For what it's worth, some of the Northeast offices are not issuing tropical-related products and will only issue nor'easter-related products so as not to confuse the public. (Which is going to be a disaster in itself; as a meteorologist, what's occurring is fascinating, but for the general public, I hate to think about when this makes landfall). Inks.LWC (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Once the whole thing settles down a bit, we should go through and it should be split into an article detailing the tropical cyclone and the nor'easter, similar to 1991 Perfect Storm, unless everyone thinks it makes more sense to keep it all on here. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Playerstroke (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC) I believe we need to make an extremely rare exception to the Extra-Tropical rule because the storm is still being called "Sandy," ("Superstorm Sandy" is being used to describe it now) and people across the East Coast are going to remember it as Sandy as a result. It has transitioned to an Extratropical Cyclone right at landfall so there is no doubt that the name will be remembered in infamy.

Handling HPC advisories
Normally they aren't used much in the current info. But given the extraordinary situation, I would keep current information on Post-Tropical Storm Sandy as long as it is a serious threat (i.e. winds at least tropical storm force). How to make the infobox work with that though? CrazyC83 (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we create an article on Frankenstorm Instead of messing with the infobox? If you really wanna do it I think you could mark the Current Stat "Extratropical Cyclone(EC)" When Sandy lose tropical Characteristics. That would be unusual though. 76.124.224.179 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are already plenty of preps here, and it will be the same circulation when it's no longer tropical, just a different type. There is no need for a separate article. As for the infobox, I think we should have enough info in the HPC advisory. Don't they usually mention where it is, the wind speed, the direction, and pressure? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the HPC issued advisories for post-tropical/extratropical storms. United States Man (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The operating procedure is here. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Frankenstorm"
It's a noteworthy nickname, and its reasoning should be in the article as long as it's sourced. I'm not sure why this is so controversial, but it appears that some don't want it there, so instead of deleting and re-adding, let's talk about this here. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a merge from the stub Frankenstorm. If editors will not allow a small section somewhere on the term's origins and usage -- which seems odd to me, too -- then does it go back to being a separate article? Which would be unfortunate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Eventually it should probably be 2 articles, similar to Hurricane Grace (1991) and 1991 Perfect Storm, especially as it is expected to become extratropical well before landfall. But still, those articles will complement each other.  Even if they're not separate, the Frankenstorm section helps readers understand why it's labelled as such by the media. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then maybe the merge, which was boldly done (not by me) after I placed a merge tag, was a mistake. Right now, the article creator's referenced info on origins and meanings is hidden from view on the page history of the redirect, which is a shame -- and contrary to WP:PRESERVE of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; I find this a bit of a shame since I placed that redirect, but now the material is hidden entirely. It doesn't hurt to have the basic information kept in this article to explain the name. Then again, it was kind of a WP:REDUNDANTFORK considering that the material was removed from this article by other editors before being forked. The editor who created Frankenstorm can always revert it and continue the merge discussion, in any case. I wouldn't have normally redirected it like that, but it seemed in the best interest of getting people to the right place with such a major event occurring. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the merge was not a mistake. Frankenstorm hasn't happened yet; Sandy is still happening.  Frankenstorm should be made (and it shouldn't be called that; it should be something like "Halloween 2012 Nor'easter" or "October 2012 Nor'easter") when it becomes post-tropical. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's another article entirely... :) The "Frankenstorm" article was about the etymology of the name, thus it did seem to need merging in any case...I don't think that part was a mistake, just a bit of a shame that the content isn't anywhere at the moment. I agree we'll almost certainly need an article named something like what you suggest, but that will of course be about the storm, not the nickname! – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotcha... I see what you meant now. Yeah, "Frankenstorm" should probably redirect to the Nor'easter page, with a hatnote linking to Sandy, but the information about the name should be on both. If nobody chimes in giving a good reason to oppose the name info being included here, I'll readd it. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I object to Frankenstorm, suggest Hurristein instead. It's not used by any reliable sources, but it avoids potentially defamatory associations with Frankenberry. Halloween is supposed to be scary, not "spooktacular". "Hurricane Sandy" is genuinely scary, as it conjures images of dustbowls and not being sure if you're being blown by a dude or a chick. Per WP:IREMEMBERHALLOWEEN, I say it's spooky enough as is. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Be nice to the friendly folks in Herrstein, or WP:NOCANDYFORYOU! – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 07:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Frankenstorm" is simply not encyclopaedic. It's playing the game of the tabloid media. The storm does not need a name like that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't from the media, it was from NOAA itself: -- Tohler (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing "Frankenstorm" show up in social media from my American friends. It's now community usage; everybody knows what it means. We describe reality, we do not define it. Nor do we censor it. --Pete (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that "Frankenstorm" is going to be with us well into the future, but under the heading Anthopocene. Be very careful about your treatment of the word now, for you are creating the future. Whoever said it first, it was a freudian slip. Sphere1952 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This name is ludicrous. This wasn't even a genuine Category 1 hurricane. The media made it out to be Katrina or Camille simply because N.Y.C. was involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.125.40 (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Two articles?
Correct my if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 1991 Perfect Storm a separate article from Hurricane Grace because it was a separate system that absorbed the hurricane? It seems that the circulation that is Sandy is what is expected to the the bulk of the damage in this case. I don't think the fact that Sandy is going extratropical is sufficient for two articles, considering that Katia had significant impacts as a post-tropical cyclone, but remained as one article. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hurricane Sandy is expected to make landfall as a hurricane - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with Sandy still being classified as tropical so close to landfall, it should probably remain 1 article. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think another article might be needed for the prep and impact from Sandy? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think individual states might warrant sub-articles, but they shouldn't be made until the sections are of an appropriate length. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Bermuda?
Bermuda was also hit by Sandy's large gale wind field, as it is visible on this map: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at3+shtml/030345.shtml?swath#contents I think that it makes sence to add the article to the Hurricanes in Bermuda category and to list Bermuda as an affected area in the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season article. --92.206.78.129 (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bounty
Please remember to update Bounty (1960 ship) with what happens/happened with the ship, and why it's in trouble. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now reported as sank. See here.  Farawayman (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Nicknames
I feel names such as Frankenstorm should not be included in the article because it is media hype-labeling and sensationalism. Yes, the storm will be massive and bad, but is wikipedia a PEDIA that sticks to the objective facts and scientific information? Or is it a Yahoo article? 65.214.33.174 (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * They should remain, as they are significantly reported, and a likely search term. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Give it time. If we use it now, we are helping the media give it that name. HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with HiLo48. It is not up for us to decide what is and isn't the "correct" name. We report what the RS say; we do not judge based on our own preference. But as HiLo indicated, we are potentially shaping that outcome if we use it too early. Since the term refers to the convergence with the cold front, and that is not yet complete, I think it is premature to promote a name. That being said, if the name holds in the media after the event, I think it's warranted, regardless of whether we think it's scientific, etc.204.65.34.134 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The storm turned hybrid on the 26th. The merger with the cold core storm was not completed until later. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Frankenstorm" in particular came out of the mouth of someone at the NHC. I think the word should be treated etymologically. Who said it first, and when? Whether it serves some interest or not is a separate consideration from it being a word people took note of and may use in the future.  Wikipedia should simply note that xxx called it Frankensorm on yyy. This can be used later if the word becomes common fare. (Think in terms of Oxford English Dictionary.) Sphere1952 (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sandy predicted to make landfall as a hurricane
It should be noted that Sandy is currently predicted to make landfall as a cat 1 Hurricane in NJ. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Specify "gender" in lead?
I think readers might reasonably want to know if "Sandy" is a boy's name or a girl's, and not know that the naming system alternates between genders (thus, after Rafael, it's a lady). Worth noting, or do we leave it to readers to deduce? "Frankenstorm" totally sounds like a guy to me, so there may reasonably be confusion among people who get their news from "the news". I think we should clarify, if only so readers can properly curse at the storm. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hurricanes don't have genders. The gender used to generate the name isn't relevant to the event, and there are articles covering hurricane naming for those who are curious. I can't tell if you're being serious... – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 22:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, serious. Sandy is an ambiguous name, and the Frankenstorm stuff may suggest to many that it's a guy's name. I get that a storm actually isn't any gender. But they definitely have names, and names shape perceptions of things. That's why particularly harsh storms have their names retired. If a storm named Andrew or Katrina reappeared, it wouldn't actually be the same storm, returning. But it would seem that way (to some more than others). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Retiring storm names has nothing to do with the gender used in assigning the storm's name. Nor is it our job to help shape people's perceptions. Nor is the article about "Frankenstorm." Nor is "Sandy" ambiguous for the purposes of the article. Perhaps you should find an RS noting that people are confused as to whether Hurricane Sandy has been given a male or female name, then we can include that. Your seemingly absurd argument and insertion of that into the very beginning of the lede makes it hard to WP:AGF, quite honestly. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 23:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm OK if it's not cool for the lead. That's why I asked. But it's certainly worth mentioning briefly when the naming itself is. No undue weight there. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'm not trying to shape perceptions, I'm just stating a fact that may correct someone's incorrect perception that the storm has a masculine name. It's simple education. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not notable. It was removed from the body by other editors previously, before you put it in the lede. I'm not going to editwar after just removing it again, but I feel like I'm feeding a troll here. You haven't provided an actual rationale for why we need to describe that the name "Sandy" was picked as part of the female hurricane name list vs the male hurricane name list. The origin of the name is not relevant to the current hurricane. (Nor is it "simple education." Should we also explicitly explain that Sandy was picked because the last storm started with an "R" and this one starts with the next letter in the alphabet? That's just as "educational.") If you think anyone has an incorrect perception, please find an RS. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 23:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Larry King himself is confused. That's probably not a serious question, but his Twitter followers are likely wondering as well, now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then there's this Bride of Frankenstorm stuff from NASA. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I added Tropical cyclone naming to "See Also" just to make this pointless discussion hopefully come to an end. As for your source, you acknowledged that storms do not have a gender. That source treats the storm as having a gender. It's people joking about the storm, obviously. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 23:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Joking about the name. The ambiguity of the name is demonstrated by the joke making sense. Anyway, I've readded it, in three words, with a perfectly valid source backing it up. Problem solved? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As for relevance, what actual effect does being the 18th named storm have on the storm itself? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Low Pressure
Should we mention something about Sandy's unusual pressure? It is 940 mbars.

--Darkinferno30 (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been reported that this is apparently the lowest recorded pressure for any storm in the Northeastern US. I can't find an RS on that though, but it does certainly seem notable. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 22:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That has been mentioned in several places, but I would question it's veracity. Based on a quick glance at NOAA's Historic Hurricane Tracks The Great Hurricane of 1938 had a low pressure of 938mb at landfall, Hurricane Gloria (1985)-951mb just before landfall and Hurricane Igor (2010)-950mb at landfall, versus Sandy's low of 953mb. I feel that the fact that a lower pressure occurred at a landfall point further north and several close,if not lower, NE US landfall pressures brings this superlative into question. (Scotty.tiberius (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC))


 * But there's other things like lowest non-tropical pressure in the Continental US and lowest (940 mb) in the Atlantic north of Cape Hatteras, NC (or lowest tropical cyclone N of CH? Don't remember and not sure if regular lows at sea can do that). Several cities like Philly and Baltimore broke their (from any reason) pressure records. And New York could've if it's path had been a bit less unusual. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sandy now Post-Tropical
The NHC released it's 7PM update saying that Sandy is now Post-Tropical, how do we handle this in reguards to the infobox? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

' The info box should get updated automaticaly by a bot within 15 minutes of this info being publiched by the National hurricane center Hybirdd (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that in the infobox it still has this as a hurricane which its not now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is fixed now. Still emphasizes the category to keep people to know this is a hurricane-strength storm and has NOT weakened. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Split?
Looks like there'll be a ton of info on Sandy in the US. Should we split off Hurricane Sandy in the United States at some point? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There are currently two United States sections in the Article. Probably should be merged.Vettrock (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One is in the preparations section and one is in the impact section. Eventually these will probably be split into a separate article. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I tried but it kept getting redirected and reverted by pedantic tossers, so fuck it. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Full of routine content
Do we need this much content for routine news in the main article? And without mentioning the topic's significance compared to other hurricanes, like mentioning it is the largest Atlantic storm ever on northeast path? Some content feel like downright advertisement (what? waived overdraft fee is the most important impact to the United States?).--Skyfiler (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This article would be a lot different if it was being maintained by just project users. Since whe have all these outsiders it has been hard to keep control of what is on here. I do agree that some of it is bit much. United States Man (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a really big fan of the utterly useless picture of Barack Obama on the telephone, myself. I'm sure that the article will be streamlined once the interest drops down. Resolute 23:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to add useful information (like power in parts of Manhattan being shut down at the moment due to record flooding) with the "Superstorm" and "Frankenstorm" and insistence that we note that Sandy is a female name, etc, etc. I keep edit conflicting on anything reasonable I try to add, due to the volume of junk being added. I give up. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 23:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So this is useful? You made it far wordier and weightier, and added stuff about "Frankenstorm" when the article hasn't mentioned "Frankenstorm". You say the storm itself isn't a woman's name (though I was saying the name is a woman's name), but now it says the storm is not just a woman, but a bride. Are you trying to sabotage this so it's removed? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited it to what the ref says. The ref does not say Tropical Storm Sandy is a woman's name...because it's not, it's a storm. The ref mentions that Sandy, which the storm is named after, is a female name, in the context of comparing it to "Frankenstorm." If the information is going to be included, the context must be included as well. You can't just pick and choose and mangle the source. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The NAME Sandy is a woman's name. The storm is a storm. Anyway, your sabotage worked and created more edit conflicts. Restoring it to the perfectly fine claim it was is causing even more conflicts. Way to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Sandy being a woman's name isn't relevant to the storm...unless there's some context. What did you expect adding a ref titled "Hurricane Sandy Actually a 'Bride of Frankenstorm': NASA"? I added the context for you, since your version wasn't relevant to the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to remove it, but I kept getting conflicted so I gave up. United States Man (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the name of the topic. Where it came from is relevant. If you can't grasp that, leave it alone for those who can. Edit warring is just frustrating for editors getting ECd. I've reworded it to make clear we're talking about the name, and not a storm with a vagina. Can we agree now? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it again since it has nothing to do with this article. If you can find one other hurricane article that has the gender on it then I will at least agree to something. But, otherwise, no. United States Man (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's significant that it's the largest Atlantic storm ever in the Northeast, then just add that info. As for "Frankenstorm" and "Superstorm," both are terms that received widespread use in major media and therefore I believe are notable. Yes, it is a bit hard to add info at the moment - I had that same problem earlier in the day, receiving several "edit conflict" messages when trying to add information, but I eventually managed to push it through. I think most of the edits are generally good-faith and therefore protection or anything really isn't necessary. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The terms are fine (and Frankenstorm is noted in the body at the moment), and "Superstorm" seems to be becoming notable in the media. But naming has been discussed on the talk page, with some rough consensus...maybe that needs to be discussed further now, but that's what the talk page is for. I agree the edits are mainly good-faith, but when you have multiple users repeatedly trying to change the lede and infobox to "Superstorm Sandy" without any discussion, well, then it's hard to do anything but edit conflict. Maybe the preparation and impact sections DO need to be split off more quickly, just to make it possible for editors to edit without going crazy. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to start sending out warnings if the infobox is changed again. It is getting on my nerves. I can't believe how much crap has went on and off of this article. There were so many people editing at once that it took me almost ten minutes to save a page earlier. United States Man (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not helping by removing sourced, relevant content. I've tried my best to talk sense about the name, but it's tedious. I'm done for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it has to be added. It's not relevant in my view and not worth discussing right now. The discussion can be picked up again later. 00:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Giant pic of Hull, Massachusetts
I realize that whoever uploaded that pic of the storm in Hull, Massachusetts wanted to make an impact, but can we scale it down a great deal? -User:DanTD (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Scaled down. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Not impossible to produce quality articles even under these circumstaces
(see Talk:Hurricane_Sandy )

I know it is easy for a backseat driver like me to offer suggestions, but I will give it a shot anyway:

This is not the first time an article like this is being developed on Wikipedia. Yes, it is hard to work co-operatively, but not impossible. Take a look at Malala_Yousafzai which had similar traffic stats on October 16, 2012 ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Malala_Yousafzai ) as this article did up to now ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Hurricane_Sandy ). Ottawahitech (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, when you have 20 people trying to edit at once (half of those probably vandalizing) then is is hard. United States Man (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Alas thrilling it was. However I agree some parts of the article really needs a little quality check now that the breaking part is over. I mean where is the red thread in some of the updates and sections made? --109.70.49.30 (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Preparation and impact of Hurricane Sandy in the United States article or Impact of Hurricane Sandy in the United States article
I propose that after things settle down a little that we make a seperate article for the Preparation and Impact for the United States, alot of info is confined here and I did see someone mention an article title like this in a past section here. Thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Although there won't be as much information. I think you should follow a format like Hurricane Katrina (not exactly, but sort of like a model). United States Man (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't object to this proposal, however should we include all of the affected areas in the article? Caribbean countries (Haiti, Cuba, etc.) were preparing in addition to the United States. --   Luke      (Talk)   00:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree there needs to be some sort of split so that people can edit the article without running into a dozen edit conflicts, and without edits taking minutes to save at times (assuming you don't hit an ec at the end!) Plus it's getting a bit long, of course. I don't know if we necessarily need to include those other areas past the main article; the information for those is much more minimal, and if it grows, it can be similarly split. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In general, I think there's a lot of information in "Preparation" that could belong in a separate article, but is excessive in the main Sandy article. (Cases in point: Google canceling the Android event; also separate sections about each governor declaring "state of emergency") ypnypn (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's enough information for either, I would suggest something like "Preparations of Hurricane Sandy in the United States" and another article named "Impacts of Hurricane Sandy in the United States". There will more than likely be enough information for an individual article for each. I don't like the idea of merging preparations and impacts in the same article though. Rye998 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a great deal of information around this, plus it is continuing to develop. It should probably be split as proposed. Dmarquard (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

To give an idea nothing like this has ever happened before in NYC, im hearing alot of info on impacts for NYC alone including subway fires, a broken crane on a highrise and flooding in mass parts of manhattan, and it was not even the place that had the direct hit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of datacenters currently running on backup power in NYC is unprecedented too. I assume they'll restore power by the time places start running low on diesel in the next couple days, but expect a bunch of web outages if the roads manage to stay too flooded to truck more fuel in. JFK/EWR/LGA all being closed for such a long time (JFK/EWR say closed until at least Oct 31 at the moment) is unprecedented back to 9/11 as well, I believe. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 02:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be articles for New York and New Jersey effects ASAP. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Preparation and impact" is completely unnecessary. It's too wordy. Hurricane Sandy in the United States is all that is needed. I guess Hurricane Sandy in New York or Hurricane Sandy in New York City would be a useful split too. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying references
While we're getting a lot of edits to this page in a short period of time, it's important to figure out what references go where. Right now, most everything is referenced, but for anything that is not, I suggest using the template to avoid instances like this where an added referenced sentence may give the appearance that the unreferenced sentence before it is referenced. To use the template, just type. Optionally, you can add "|October 2012" as a parameter at the end. For any changes to the death tolls, those need to just be removed until they are sourced. It's too hard to verify the total if we let unreferenced additions stay and try to reference them later. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Crane Photo
Can someone take a photo of the Crane that is dangling in NYC? It may fall off!

Victor Grigas (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/JordanBalderasJordanBalderas (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

NYC Subway Photo
Is there a "free" photo from the underground station's CCTV showing the water flooding? --109.70.49.30 (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * are images created by the city public domain? Victor Grigas (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as i know the MTA photos on flickr are released under a CC license 84.197.162.1 (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fake Photos
Watch out for fake photos! Victor Grigas (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just happened to stumble on similar with a good bunch of fake vs real images: – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * wow, Victor and db8 it's really hard to tell. Have to admit I fell for the seal photo earlier. --109.70.49.30 (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that photo of the soldier on the page now fake?Victor Grigas (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. It's confirmed via the source on the image as well as the Facebook page for the unit who protects the Tomb. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Somebody add this image!
I've tried to add this image 20 times already but can't because of edit conflicts.

I give up.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried. It's impossible. I suspect there will lots of images streaming in and some choices will have to be made, but at this point editing the article is very difficult. I'll try again tomorrow if someone hasn't gotten to it. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

✅ Ec-ing is fun! It probably needs to be resized and/or moved around in some fashion, but that's one of the best pictures of actual hurricane effects we have so far, I'd say. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 03:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (Heh, and I edit conflicted trying to note that here, too! :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 03:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Only 2 edit conflicts, but resized both Marblehead and Hull. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

From Flickr
Here are creative commons photos from Flickr if anybody wants to upload them:, here's a nice one: , and another:

Images of power out
Can people take photos of places with power out that would normally have power? I'd love to see them next to all these places mentioned in the article Victor Grigas (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Picture on commons something in the likes of that? if you would like more let me know on my talk page please. Hybirdd (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

West Virginia
Can someone add photos of the blizzard? As that is unusual for a hurricane, it should be added. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Gov. of NJ and Atlantic City mayor in quarrel
Did anyone else hear CNN mention this? Something about the two publically criticizing each other in connection with the evacuations. Anyone think this should be mentioned or is it too small/irrelevant a thing? --109.70.49.30 (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Far too trivial. Thank you for asking. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all in Lorenzo Langford's article, but really doesn't belong anywhere else. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hidden infobox?
Can someone explain to me why there's a hidden infobox at the top of the editing page for this article. It seems to contain useful info about the fatalities and locations, etc. What's the point of having it in the markup if readers can't see it in the article?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It will be unhidden once the storm is inactive. Until then it has the current storms infobox. Showing them both at once might confuse readers with only appearantly contradicting infos. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For full disclosure, I have just made my third or fourth (I've lost count) revert to adding this back in. In case it was my fourth, it's a good faith measure that I don't believe violates the spirit of WP:3RR, since it's not edit warring.  The non-typical users just don't know why it's commented out.  Therefore, I've added an explanation to the first line explaining to leave it commented out until the current infobox is no longer being used.  Hopefully this helps people refrain from adding it back in. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Damage total
This rescent article says at least 20 billion in damage. I've decided to include it for now, but it might need to be updated. Rye998 (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Damage estimates are bound to be very provisional for today, I guess a stable figure will come in due course. However, we can't not have a figure just because it's liable to be temporarily vague. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Ultimately, this article is going to need a TON of cleanup, and that'll just have to wait for a few days - trying to clean this up right now would just give people headaches with all the edit conflicts. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the 20 billion in damage is only a temporary estimate, I highly doubt that's an accurate figure for total damage. It could definitely change as more reports come out, but it's fine to include for the time being. Rye998 (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

PageInformer:Damage was reported to reach 50 billon by the end of this month, hurting the unstable economy
 * Playerstroke (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)We need to add Sandy to the Costliest Atlantic Hurricanes Page because it is now the fifth costliest storm on record in the Atlantic with the 20 billion total. Its likely though to end up 2nd on the list and possibly even top Katrina when its all said and done.

Semi-Protection?
Starting to think we need to at least semi-protect this page, IPs are deliberately changing information especially fatality statistics. Thoughts? - Marcusmax ( speak ) 16:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it vandalism or is it overenthusiasm combined with conflicting news stories? If the former, then yes, semi=protect. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Im not sure what it is, random misinformation and people changing infoboxes and tables...not sure it is intentional or not. That is why I hesitate to put in a RPP. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 16:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the article will need tons of cleanup in the coming days, I suggest we semi-protect it for now until everything is back in order. Rye998 (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As much as I'd like to agree, we need a reason. I'd definitely like to say, "Semi-protect it, and it'll cut down on the edit conflicts", but it's not a valid reason per WP:SEMI.  The fact is that the vandalism is not out of control.  We just have a lot of edits going on, not vandalism. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right that we can't semi-protect it in an effort to avoid edit conflicts with IP's, unless it's preventing vandalism. I agree vandalism isn't a problem for now, but getting the article cleaned up would be easier if that happened. That was just what I suggested, but if it's not a valid reason, what else would be problematic enough to warrant protection? Rye998 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I already asked and it was declined, we just have to fight through the edit conflicts here and revert vandalism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys reached the correct consensus IMO. Just because people, including myself (who has done my part of vandalism in the past), was enthusiastic about updating the article, those who did attempt to vandalism, was clearly distinguishable. I went along for parts of the night and it wasn't all that bad.--109.70.49.30 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

9 Missing?
Where is this statistic coming from, I can't find it in any linked article? I'm talking about the fatality table of course - Marcusmax ( speak ) 18:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been changed back to 1 missing as that's all we have sources for. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Other states affected

 * Sandy's moisture meeting the colder air mass to the west dumped feet of snow in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. Over 500,000 without power in Indiana. Over 500,000 without power in Ohio also (Weather Channel info, not verified yet). This AM I saw (TV) there were 14 dead in NYC, haven't verified that either.66.212.64.252 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Videos?
There are plenty of Creative commons videos on Flickr by Nasa and others that could be uploaded to commons and linked here. 155.201.35.58 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to, but a another editor said we had plenty of pics and videos on the article already and nay new media needs to present something that isn't already presented.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are sub articles, if they're about the Greater Antilles, New Jersey or New York, you can add them there -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Overload
There are so many different users editing this page at the same time that everybody keeps receiving a multitude of edit conflicts and the server is becoming overload. I am requesting that you do not edit the page continually unless you are adding important information. Changes to the wording and structure of sentences can be worried about later, but it's hard to get new information into the article with all of this going on. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In Articles like this, in situations like this, edit conflicts, simultaneous edit attempts, occasional overloads, etc, are inevitable, and just have to be dealt with, and accepted. And though I understand your point, it's hard to say about what edits are "important" and aren't.  Yes, minor edits are not as important as major additions and citational points...but all are arguably necessary, and should be done or at least attempted at some point. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * By WP:SIZERULE the article is too big. Moving the majority of text into geograpical articles would alleviate several problems. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll make a sub-article for the Greater Antilles impact. I don't mean to summarize all of the 66 deaths into a small section, but right now, the focus is all on the impact in the United States. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well that may be true, but I believe editor TropicalAnalystx13 was referring to server overloads. Not necessarily the actual size of the article.  (Though that will probably be an issue too.) Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been getting those "server overload" notices on this article but not on others. It's just an overloaded article; moving the USA section to a national article in keeping with WP:SUMMARY STYLE would alleviate it, and moving the rest of the national or regional sections would pretty much cure it.  Jim.henderson (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But the United States is pretty much all of the impact. There are just too many areas to cover. I think some more sub-articles will help, such as Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New England. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, USA is most of the broken things, which indeed deservve great attention, hence should be the soonest to WP:SPLIT. If that's enough, then it's enough.  Else, split again.

Puerto Rico?
one died in Puerto Rico. Did he includ in the deaths in the U.S. or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Русский пацифист (talk • contribs) 01:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that has been included. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Table of deaths has been changed. Repeat your answer, please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Русский пацифист (talk • contribs) 03:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Robin Walbridge
FYI, Robin Walbridge, a victim of the hurricane, has gotten an article. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

 * Why is the lead section all in past tense? Unless I'm mistaken, this hurricane is (unfortunately) still active. Also, why do the infobox and the tag at the top of the article call it Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy but everywhere else it's referred to as Hurricane Sandy?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Any article on an event like this inevitably becomes a massive breach of WP:RECENTISM, especially if things are written in the present tense. It should all be in past tense. And it really shouldn't include forecasts and speculation at all. We are not a media outlet, nor a storm warning center. We need to wait until the dust settles and calmer heads prevail, and then make sure that we turn this into a balanced, historical report on what actually happened. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I know it's hard to keep cool with Sandy raging around you, but I think all editors need to reflect on the use of Wikipedia to disseminate news, even it is very important news. 14.139.45.242 (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

NYU Medical Center
Is the evacuated hospital covered under New York University School of Medicine ? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Cyclone SANDY was "Subtropical" between October 26th and 29th.
It should be stated in the article that Sandy became a Subtropical cyclone on (Friday) October 26th. It means that it had characteristics of both Tropical cyclone and Extratropical cyclone ("metamorphosis" stage from tropical to non-tropical), since that day until October 29 when it became in a Extratropical cyclone (Post-Tropical).

I hope you take into consideration my request. Thank you! 190.166.6.217 (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the National Hurricane Center, it was considered tropical during the aforementioned time frame and we will refer to it as such since they are the authority on tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2012/al18/al182012.discus.015.shtml? INTERACTION WITH THE SHORTWAVE TROUGH IS EXPECTED TO CAUSE SOME RE-INTENSIFICATION AS THE CYCLONE STARTS EXTRATROPICAL TRANSITION.
 * http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2012/al18/al182012.discus.016.shtml? THE STRUCTURE OF SANDY CONTINUES TO EVOLVE.
 * http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2012/al18/al182012.discus.019.shtml?
 * 1100 PM EDT FRI OCT 26 2012  SANDY IS SHOWING CHARACTERISTICS OF A HYBRID CYCLONE THIS EVENING. OVERALL...THE SYSTEM LOOKS LIKE A LARGE OCCLUDED FRONTAL LOW. HOWEVER...SURFACE OBSERVATIONS DO NOT SHOW STRONG TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS...AND CENTRAL CONVECTION IS OCCURRING IN BANDS TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE CENTER. IN ADDITION...AMSU DATA FROM NEAR 2000 UTC INDICATED THAT THE SYSTEM STILL HAD A DEEP WARM CORE.


 * http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2012/al18/al182012.discus.022.shtml?

Why are the fatalities broken out this way in the infobox?
Fatalities 	132 (55 in the United States)

In most such infoboxes, if a certain country is mentioned as a part of the whole, then all the countries that constitute that whole would also be mentioned (e.g., United States 55, Cuba XX, etc.) Why is only the United States mentioned? Moncrief (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of it is because most readers of the article are probably American. Second, I personally think it helps eliminate confusion, as often media outlets report the U.S. death toll as if it were the overall death toll. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed the same thing and thought it was strange. So what if many readers are American? And the fact that some U.S. media outlets are provincial in their reporting is not our problem. --  tariq abjotu  21:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed it so now it makes sense. United States Man (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All infobox figures should not be nation-specific, and should be based on the entire track. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

US section Too short?
I'm not sure I agree with chopping off the entire US section. Now the US section mentions a few airlines and extremely generic, and there is no mention of impact in New Jersey or New York. I think the solution is keeping the article how it was, but just having more sub-sections and less trivia. Yes, I suppose I'm proposing merging Effects of Hurricane Sandy in the United States. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It doesn't accurately summarize the events that occurred in the U.S. It was chopped recently because the article was too long and people were editing it too much, creating edit conflicts. Rather than pulling blocks of info back here, I recommend writing a summary. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This was an excellent application of WP:SUMMARY. I was out getting (bad) pictures of the dangling crane over 57th Street, so I didn't do the split but it is very welcome and should be followed by neatening the division.  After election day when the USA has other things to think about, we can more carefully trim silliness, but I don't think we'll trim so much that making it all one big article will be an impromement. Meanwhile we can make the summary more an overview than a list of isolated facts.  Jim.henderson (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not really. The point of the main article, to summarize each region, and then the state articles (like NJ and NY) go into more detail. the US merge should be reverted IMO and instead MH, Delware, Maryland, and possibly even Canada sub-articles are made. YE Pacific  Hurricane  01:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the US article be merged back, at least for now, before other subarticles (Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland/DC, Virginia, Carolinas, inland areas(?), Canada, Bahamas (if enough info is found) are made? CrazyC83 (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I merged it back in, and I'll make a Canada article. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I say that if the US Section was long, on the impacts, then maybe it should have a summary with a See also of more on the Impacts in US, or why not just create an Article called Impacts from Hurricane Sandy or something like that, as it would be a good article while keeping the length of the article down. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even then it would still be too long as more is added. The inland areas (Ohio/Kentucky westward) will be the toughest to break down and name (West Virginia's blizzard is probably enough alone for its own subarticle; that would likely need to be formatted partially as a winter storm article). I might be able to work on some tonight if I can get my schedule around to it. Probably West Virginia and Maryland/DC are closest to being able to break off right now. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Superstorm Sandy"
Im seeing this term used widespread in the news, should it be added as "Also referred to as" in the lead? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason it is often called "superstorm" is because calling it "hurricane" was not accurate after it technically turned into a tropical storm. I guess "superstorm" sounds more newsworthy than "tropical storm". Since it's often used in the news, I don't have a problem with including it in the lede. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added the term with four references (BBC, CNN, MSNBC, and even a source from New Zealand) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It didn't "technically turn into a tropical storm". It became extratropical; it was a cold-core system rather than a warm-core system. 108.35.0.73 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And added in a second storm and wrapped an Arctic jet around it. It is rather unusual, possibly unique in the records. A simple tropical storm would have been s bit easier to deal with, not least because it would probably be much smaller. - Tenebris 00:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.187 (talk)

If we must include it (and I don't think it should be in the lead section, let alone the lead sentence), then we have to make clear that this is an invention of the media, and not a scientific term. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * After some more consideration I agree with Kafziel, although I disagreed at first. The official name is and is only Hurricane Sandy. We should stick with this in the lede. 109.70.49.30 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Costliest U.S. hurricanes
If Sandy's current damage totals prove to be correct, shouldn't this table be mentioned in the article with Sandy? --Rye998 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be no lower than #5 based on early estimates, and some have it as high as #2. It should be added with a footnote since it is a very uncertain estimate at this point. Economic costs do not count in property damage. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It should, at the most conservative, be put in 5th place since most sources I've found say it did at least 20 billion. It hasn't been confirmed to have done over 50 billion, ect, though it's not impossible when all is said and done. Rye998 (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

hurricane randy
why is it called hurricane randy above the picture and when i tried to change it nothing happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.12.74 (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Current Jamaica damage estimate is grossly understated
The Jamaican government says the repair bill for Sandy will come in around $5 billion, 300 times larger than the $16.5 million currently listed in the infobox. http://www.jis.gov.jm/news/leads/32131 68.51.228.43 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That article is dealing with Jamaican dollars, so when the conversion is done, it's about $55 million. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been added. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of global warming section

 * The following discussion has been closed. This discussion has been closed because multiple sections on this talk page were discussing the same issue, so a centralized section has been started to discuss it. Please make any comments on the issue in the new section: Climate change in the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

In this diff deleted a thoroughly sourced paragraph on the science of global warming and observed factors influencing Hurricane Sandy. His stated reason in the edit summary is the sweeping claim that it is political opinion. There is nothing political and nothing opinionated about how observed sea surface temperatures and the meteorological blocking pattern are feeding the storm. The section merits inclusion or something more than political opinion of wiki editors for its omission. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (REPLIED BY ALYXM) Just looked up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature, it says in the tropical cyclone paragraph, that hurricanes do not need warm water to form, in fact it can be from warm air, with the water below and or around the hurricane to be cold/freezing. It also says that this has happened a number of times, so rising ocean temperatures being one of the major factors for hurricanes? Is only half true, maybe less, so in that case it is speculation, some scientists can be wrong. Rising ocean temperature is true as it is obviously present, that is due to the end of the cold period and beginning of the warm. Just like the medieval era heat wave that lasted for 200+ years. -- Alyxm (talk • contribs)  11:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's entirely a question of WP:WEIGHT. A number of "frankenstorm" articles have mentioned global warming, meaning a mention here is not unreasonable, but the majority of articles have not mentioned global warming at all, meaning any mention here should be brief. A dedicated section seems like too much; a couple of sentences (perhaps at the end of "Meteorological history") would be reasonable. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  19:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per , extreme weather's probability is influenced by global warming climate change, but it is unlikely to be determined solely by it, a matter of statistics. 207.250.21.23 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I really dont think this is needed as another editor points out it adds too much WP:WEIGHT to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We can find all the RS's in the world, but the issue definitely is one of weight. This page should probably be linked from the Global Warming page where all of this is relevant. The section as stands is too long, but can be shortened to only a few sentence. In my view this isn't really the time to do that though. The page is being edited too much, too quickly and the updates are the most important right now. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * x2 It's worth having something eventually. Presumably after this mess of a storm goes through, it'll warrant a place under meteorological history (perhaps contributing factors subsections referring to the cold front, the hurricane, the blocking high, and then GW).  Def. not worth a whole section at this point.  There's no deadline and right now the global warming stuff is pretty hand-wavy.  I'm sure there'll be an actual paper on this in 6-12 months....  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and nuked it. In addition to the points above, the previous text was about global warming and extreme weather events generally, not this particular event.  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I felt that the material was extremely tangential and inserted as a way to promote an unrelated issue. Maybe a reference to Hurricane Sandy as an example of the effect of "blocking" - if there actually is any effect here - in the relevant article. But we can't say that there's any connection at all. Hurricanes - large hurricanes - are regrettably all too common. Saying that any one factor, whether it be AGW or God's wrath at the upcoming election, is to blame is a very long shot. --Pete (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that's taking things too far in the other direction. There are many factors which influenced the strength of this storm, and at some point we'll have a section describing them, and AGW will likely be one of several (there's for instance, the unusually (record?) warm gulf stream current that can be at least substantially attributed to AGW), but not now.  Requires careful statistical study at the very least.  So we shouldn't rule out including some AGW mention in the article eventually.  That said, I agree that the existing section was bad, pretty much a textbook example of a poorly executed WP:COATRACK.  Sailsbystars (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there similar discussion on Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Katrina? 64.109.54.142 (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that all this well-sourced and valid material has been deleted, and now is being kept out of the article even is summary form, on the flimsy basis that 'there is no deadline' before which it must be mentioned. If people want to talk about politics in this context, it sounds more like, "We'll keep all mention of global warming out of the discussion until after nobody's interested in this storm any more." A bit like the US presidential debates. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I don't object to it, but it does need to be rewritten. With the article being edited heavily with updates at the moment, many of whom are in the storm, my view is that it can wait for a day or two. That situation won't change, but there will many updates to add over the night. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a mention is warranted, but a full section is too much. The IP had the right idea: neither Irene nor even Katrina have such a section (though there is this, for some reason). Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT)  22:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Restore the section until consensus has been reached on which part to keep. Create a separate sub-article if we decide it's too long and move most of it there, but we need to have at least a mention here, possibly in the lead. Mr G (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not care at this time to debate whether the following article meets the acceptable-blog test but it is specifically on the subject and I offer it as background for this dicussion: How global warming made Hurricane Sandy worse NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the influence of Global Warming should be berifly mentioned because it has been reported by RS. "Meteorological history" would probably be the appropriate section. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Even when going from the study of Hansen, J. et al. it should be mentioned as one of the factors. I question Kennvido's own political motives in forcing this discussion out of the article. Umma Kynes 22:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

There is still no mention whatsoever of climate change in this article, even though there is no doubt that it's a systemic cause of hurricane Sandy. It's hard to take WP seriously sometimes. 80.202.75.220 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC) (Nick)
 * I'm restoring the section that Kennvido removed. Arguments about undue weight are unfounded. Businessweek has a cover story with the title |"It's Global Warming, Stupid", and other mainstream news coverage has addressed Sandy and climate change (|See Time) as has science oriented media (| Nature). I don't think it can be plausibly argued that discussing climate change and Sandy is undue weight when the major science media are discussing it and when one of the foremost business magazines puts the story on its cover. The section itself is decent. Contrary to Kennvido's claim in his edit summary, there is nothing political. Most of the section is sourced to commentary from an atmospheric scientist directly related to his comments on Sandy.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No doubt my original version you restored could be (has been?) improved and by now there are many additional RSs and voices on point.  But one thing to say about the original:  The two key factors I listed were not - as one of the comments above suggests - merely generalized remarks.  Rather those sources with quotes in the refs section were specifically talking about H Sandy.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not delete - It looks like someone deleted the section again, accusing it to be political opinion. Considering that the Mayor of NY has now endorsed Obama for his stance on climate change due to Sandy, the global warming aspect is definitely worth mentioning. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel that there should be a sourced statement in place on where the other side stands on this to help balance the section out, I have placed a POV tag in place until this happens. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Cover article of Time (magazine) adds "weight" to this mention, with Outsmarting The Surge quotes Thanks to a combination of factors--more people and property in vulnerable coastal areas as well as climate change--we're likely to experience disasters on the scale of Sandy more often in the future. and Stop ignoring the climate connection. 99.109.125.89 (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)  I believe this comment is deletable because it is from a sock of a blocked user.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The alleged connection with global warming certainly seems to be growing in notability; numerous sources are now asking questions about the the AGW despite AGW having been a moribund topic of discussion for the past two years.  As such, I have re-added GW material as a small subsection under meteorological history (a larger mention should probably go in the sub-article) and made sure that the connection to Sandy in the referenced souces was clear.  Sailsbystars (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It is half political and half not FACT. You mention it here on Sandy's page... better mention it on all rather large hurricanes, tornadic activity, ice melting, blizzards and the like. ANYTHING that has to do with weather... and that's to be fair. I had a solution I mentioned on my talkpage:

Hey here's a thought... state your case regarding the hurricane, with PROVEN FACTS over on GW page, where it states, The effect on hurricane activity is less certain.[128] and put a link down in the See Also on the bottom of the Hurricane Sandy article... Kennvido (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC) I think that is a fair compromise, Respectfully Submitted, Kennvido (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If the section is/was 'half political', clean it up. Don't delete the whole section. It's a valid subtopic of this article. The storm didn't emerge from nothing. The environmental factors that contributed to the strength and size of this significant storm are very much important and relevant. To exclude them is to not give due weight. Additionally, there should probably a separate section for the politics of this storm. It already has a few notable political effects. — Sowlos (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * IF there is to be a civil discussion regarding whether or not GW should be on the page or somewhere else, it should NOT be ON the page until a final decision is made. JMO Kennvido (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC
 * Editor who do not disagree in a WP:CIVIL manner usually incur sanctions.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want an extreme believer or a non believer in GW to make the final decision. That is not fair and just. It will be years to PROVE anything. Why not put a disclaimer that SOME BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE before the statement in the article. That would satisfy everyone IMHO. Kennvido (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Request from the guy who started this thread... Please continue the discussion in this this later thread down below. Kennvido since you have already posted down there you know that thread exists. If you have not already added your last thoughts to it please consider repeating them there so we can keep this organized. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

probleL


 * Ken, I've seen you write in a few places saying we can only include "facts"; everything must be "proven"; we can't include "speculation," etc. This is not how Wikipedia works. We have to work from reliable sources and state what they say. If there's no agreed upon view, we report "speculation" like on the fate of the Princes in the Tower, and we even cover speculative minority viewpoints like those on the Shakespeare authorship question. When editors take it upon themselves to decide what is "fact," Wikipedia dissolves into bickering about personal opinions and viewpoints without a path to resolution. Verifiability, not truth explains this process. We have to work from reliable sources and weight the attention we give various viewpoints by the prevalence they have in these sources. It shouldn't matter who makes the "final decision," because decisions should be based on outside sources, not personal opinion about what's "fact." (BTW, nothing is "proven" in science, so "proof" is not a reasonable standard for inclusion. Hypothesis and theories are never considered "proven." At best they are supported by observations.)--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 

"Frankenstorm" nickname
OK, we've had several discussions on this, and so far, participation has been scattered and hard to follow. So I am going to try to do this in an organized manner with 4 proposals for what to do with the "Frankenstorm" nickname. First, let's lay out the facts about the nickname:
 * 1) The name was first used by Hydrometeorological Prediction Center meteorologist James Cisco to describe the "combined gyre" of Sandy and an "amplified polar trough" forming a "hybrid vortex". The name does not refer to Hurricane Sandy itself, and the name was not coined by the media (two common misconceptions I've seen so far).
 * 2) The name has been heavily used by the media.
 * 3) CNN has placed an embargo on the use of the name, due to the seriousness of the storm.

So what should we do with it? I have come up with 4 proposals that I believe encompass the viable options. (The order of the proposals is in no way relevant - I had to pick one to be A and one to be D): and impacts of the storm. The nickname SHOULD also be included in the lede.
 * Proposal A - There SHOULD be a section in the article dedicated to the nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media. The nickname SHOULD also be included in the lede.
 * Proposal B - There SHOULD be a section in the article dedicated to the nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media. The nickname SHOULD NOT be included in the lede.
 * Proposal C - There SHOULD be a discussion about nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media; however, this should be incorporated into the general section on the
 * Proposal D - There SHOULD be a discussion about nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media; however, this should be incorporated into the general section on the preparation and impacts of the storm. The nickname SHOULD NOT be included in the lede.
 * Proposal E - There SHOULD only be a brief mentioning of the nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media in the lede.
 * Proposal F - There SHOULD NOT be any mention of the nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media.

Please try to keep this organized and civil so that we can actually come up with some consensus. Remember that this is not a vote; I am merely coming up with the 6 proposals, because I think they are really the only 6 possible options that we could do, and so far, it's been hard to understand people's exact feelings on the matter. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Im seeing more sources that point to "Superstorm Sandy" Than this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Prefer Proposal D, but only relating to "Frankenstorm." The media seem to be using this term less frequently now, and it's inaccurate as you point out; the new name they like seems to be "Superstorm Sandy", and I think that one may be valid for the lede IF it retains notability. "Frankenstorm" seems notable for a brief mention somewhere in the article, but doesn't seem to be notable for the lede. So mention both in the body for now, and promote "Superstorm Sandy" to the lede if it does become common usage in the next few days. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 03:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Prefer Proposal E (or as a second choice D) ypnypn (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Prefer Proposal D, per above, sources seem to be using "Superstorm" Sandy more now, we should go on a nickname that goes along with WP:COMMONNAME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Prefer Proposal D I'd say some nicknames deserve a mention, but only if we can document that they are widely used. We should also put in redirects for those nicknames if we haven't already. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Prefer Proposal D as per noms and others. The name is there and is relevant in a sense, but not important enough to live in the lede - unless "Frankenstorm" ends up being how we refer to Sandy in a year's time, in which case things will have to change.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

*Prefer Proposal D it was part of the event per se, however if we mention Frankenstorm in the lede we might fuel the fire. 109.70.49.30 (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I will not have part in this due to the falsehood uncovered below. 109.70.49.30 (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no "falsehood" that's been uncovered. The site I used to archive the material is not online anymore (perhaps the storm knocked it off), but the information can still be verified via this USA Today article. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * C List it just like a person's alternate names, but a section is undue weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

IMPORTANT CAUTION: The source being used to justify the claim that "The name was first used by Hydrometeorological Prediction Center meteorologist James Cisco" is not working. Without being able to check what it actually says, I can only retain my previous position of it being inappropriate content. And we should not play the media's dumb games. There's also the problem that Cisco's claimed use of the name was for a combined event, which hasn't happened yet. The votes so far should be discarded. (And we don't vote anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a new link until the archived page is back up: . Also, the merge has happened, as the cold front was absorbed into the hurricane and it became post-tropical. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new link. But the event Cisco was referring to still hasn't happened. The media is using the name to mean something different that is already occurring. So, what does the nickname refer to? The hypothetical future event described in the source, or something the media is excited about now? If it's the media version, which it kind of has to be, the Cisco reference is irrelevant, and all my original concerns about helping a media frenzy along just grow. (And stop posting abusive crap on my Talk page. YOU made a claim with a source. The source was dead. Then so was your claim.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But the event has happened. It happened when the storm became post-tropical.  And I have never been abusive.  I merely reminded you to assume good faith and not to mischaracterize a dead link (which was working hours ago) as a "falsehood". Inks.LWC (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The media was using the name long before the event happened. And the word "falsehood" is no longer in my post. Do please pay attention. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, which is why it could potentially be helpful to talk about what the term actually referred to, the merging of a trough and Sandy, which HAS happened. (And I never said it was in your post... it's in the edit summary..) Inks.LWC (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but not in the final Edit summary associated with that post. I had three goes at it. (I do wish we had the ability to edit past Edit summaries. Even my typos are embarrassing at times.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Frankenstorm" was only a temporary nickname for the storm and I would prefer option E or F. If necessary, we could mention "superstorm Sandy", since that is what the media commonly refered it as when it made landfall, but unless the name lasts for a long time, I wouldn't include it. Rye998 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still being used. Time used it 11 hours ago, and it's still coming up with massive results on Google News.  As for "Superstorm Sandy", that should most definitely go in the lede, but I don't think that will be disputed. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My question is, would "Superstorm Sandy" last a long time? Would people in the northeast and mid-Atlantic still call it "Superstorm Sandy" 1, 2, or 10 years down the road? Or would it just be called "Hurricane Sandy" by then? If it's refered to as "Superstorm Sandy" several weeks/months/years from now, I would keep it in the lede indefinitely, but if it's only going to last for the next few days, I wouldn't include it. That was the case with "Frankenstorm" at least. Rye998 (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we have no way to know, we can't base whether we keep it in the lede on whether we think it will be a notable name. Also, putting it in the lede possibly causes WIkipedia itself to make the name notable, making that question even more ambiguous...but there's already an official name we can use, so there's no reason to do that. Thus, my suggestion to keep "Superstorm" in the body as well for now, but revisit in a few days or longer, when it's hopefully more apparent one way or another whether "Superstorm Sandy" is a lasting name. It may become lasting and used more, or it may just quickly die out like "Frankenstorm" seems to be doing. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 14:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Proposal C - that's what I personally lean toward, although it's becoming apparent that D seems to be where the consensus lies, so unless something changes, I'll try to incorporate this into the article once the idit conflicts die down a bit. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Current storm information
Please can someone show me what policy allows this section to become a news story? Why is it OK for some editors to allow bare URLs in the middle of the article?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style requires it. Until something is resolved it is required to remain on there. United States Man (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't see the bit that states using bare URLs are OK. Can you point that out to me? I do see the text at the top that clearly states "This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline", however WP:NOTNEWS is.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Except it is not a news story. YE Pacific  Hurricane  19:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That section is.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize in a week the current information section will not be there so what's the big deal exactly? Jay Jay Talk to me 19:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's OK then! It's setting a precedent for all future hurricanes/earthquakes/tsunamis, etc.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if WP:NOTNEWS says we shouldn't include that, I think WP:IAR makes it perfectly reasonable to do so anyways. It seems to be standard on past hurricane articles I've seen, and the relevant WikiProject obviously thinks so; going with their guidelines is reasonable. Helping better inform readers of a massive goddamn storm through the use of a couple minor bare links seems to be the kind of thing WP:IAR is meant for. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that because we've always done it, we continue to do it? I still don't see why it's OK to put those links in the body of the article. Maybe CNN is down right now.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated on your talk page, if you have a problem with it, discuss it on the wikiproject's talk page. United States Man (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are making a mountain out of an anthill, readers want to know the most recent info reguarding the storm, the links there back up the data that is being updated at a regular page from the NHC, the NHC isnt news its data and info reguarding the storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (taken from the hidden comment) "DO NOT REMOVE at any costs" - Who worded that abortion?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that's not worded very well; I readded exactly as was removed, though that should be edited. I don't know if I'd call it an "abortion" though. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Note - I removed the bare URL linkrot infobox as well. Honestly, it seems to be added in bad faith pursuant to this discussion. The links are obviously being updated frequently, and will disappear when the storm dissipates. They are not going to rot, because they will be removed far before that is even a possibility. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 20:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

✅ I added links to the full NHC info and to NASA images/data. Could probably use some improvement, though. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment and suggestion: this article is linked on the Google news splash page and is honestly one of the most comprehensive pieces. In fact, at the moment it is news for lots of people, but soon won't be. I suggest at least an "External Links" section to link to the National Weather Service or something. I don't know the conventions for storm articles, but was struck by the lack of the EL section. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC tag since the article has changed so much it cannot be determined what issue has been discussed and Hurricane Sandy is no longer a current event. If discussion on the broader issue is requested, consider the WikiProject talk page or Village pump (policy). Ryan Vesey 19:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on the U.S. in the lede
I think the relatively large and detailed description of the United States contra the other countries of impact is unbalanced? --109.70.49.30 (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. And no, it shouldn't be. But cleanup is extremely difficult at this point in time. Be patient. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree Noel darlow (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The overuse of 'superstorm'
I agree, time for a new moniker.... Since it collided with a cold front, LET'S CALL IT A BURRACANE!!!!! Kennvido (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you mean this in a humorous way. If not, then you have some serious learning to do about wikipedia. United States Man (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Burracane, per WP:COLDOUTSIDE and WP:TWOAGAINSTONE. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 November 2012
I was just looking to change the tenses of some of the article. Some, especially the "New Jersey" portion of the article are still in a tense that suggests the hurricane is yet to come (preparations section). Thanks.

Justin R Bradshaw (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you're talking about so this may be Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done. If I have missed something please identify specific text from the article and set the "answered" parameter above to "no" to reactivate the request. Thanks. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 02:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You guys semi-protected it?
I am very disappointed with the decision and I am sad that it is not clear how you can appeal. Can some editor explain to me in plain english why you can be a part of an article for a couple of days and then be censored out for a *week*? Please don't write vandalism or register as an answer, we've dealt with this and it's been okay handled by the majority. The spirit of wiki needs to be taken in to consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.70.49.30 (talk)
 * I can't speak to the protection, since I didn't do it, but, just out of curiosity, why don't you create an account? What's the drawback? You're doing good work; why not register? I'll be up for a while and I'll set you up with user rights if you want to keep editing with an account. Anyway, the offer's there. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 03:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am up for the offer (too bad XeniX was already taken, now all you UNIX lovers will have to live with the fact that MS once upon a time created a UNIX clone MUHAHAHA) ;) XeniX is MS *NIX (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Add Recovery Section
It would be nice to see a "Recovery" section added. 64.128.27.82 (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * After all the damage is calculated and everything is cleaned up in New England, there might be some sources avaliable for an aftermath section. I think it's too soon to make one now though. There is still a lot of cleanup to do, and there aren't enough sources to make an aftermath section yet. There might be a few for the U.S, but I don't know about the Caribbean. --Rye998 (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of those would probably be in their respective regional articles, so it would be best to only put national-level recovery in here. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, most of the sources I found thus far are only some scattered news reports of aftermath. I wouldn't be upset if anyone decides to include them, but until we get the most reliable information, including what we find now wouldn't hurt. Rye998 (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Many companies, including The Walt Disney Company, New York Yankees, State Farm, etc. are donating to the Red Cross. I'm not sure on reliable sources yet, but some have announced it already. --   Luke      (Talk)   00:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 November 2012
In the West Virginia section, please change "including Mr. Rose" to "including Rose", since we're not supposed to use titles.

2001:18E8:2:1020:94A7:A9BA:2045:6DB6 (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done; benign MOS edit. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reopened this request as I hit multiple errors trying to save the changes. Will try again later or if someone else can do it that would be great. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✔️ It went through. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

the marathon cancellation should arguably be mentioned in this main Sandy article for the following reasons...
greetings to anyone interested or concerned. I know that the Runners Marathon cancellation is mentioned in the "Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New York" article, but IMO I think at least some passing remark about that should be made and included in this main Sandy article too. The reason being is simple. It's really not only a New York issue. Even though (obviously) the event takes place in New York, this marathon is a national event, and also brings people literally from all over the world.  There are runners who arrived to New York from France, England, Spain, Germany, Italy, parts of Asia and Africa even...who are very upset and disappointed about the events, and the cancellation (even if they know that the cancellation was warranted).

There are people from other parts of the world, who are in New York right now, and who have to go back home now.

The marathon is simply not just a New York thing, in other words. But an international matter. And so is the cancellation. Not just local to New York City (regardless of the fact that the running itself happens in New York City).

The world sees it, and even participates in it. So I feel that the cancellation issue and point should be included, in the New York section here, in this article as well. Any thoughts? Let me know. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but only briefly. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Seconded.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article have a recovery section?
Shouldn't this article mention the current recovery process. For an example, the military is now trucking fuel to devastated regions: -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible turn to Eastern Seaboard known as early as October 21
GFS and the ECMWF both predicted this possibility by the 21st. This blog, by a professional hurricane tracker, follows the different models closely as they evolved. Twice daily updates, right up until departure for ground zero at New Jersey. Please update the article appropriately. http://hurricanetrack.com/2012/10/21/major-changes-with-models-for-99l-that-could-lead-to-significant-impacts-for-east-coast - Tenebris 01:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.149 (talk)

See also section
The See also section is a bit out of control. This many "See also"s is a bit excessive:


 * Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635
 * Great September Gale of 1815
 * 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane
 * 1938 New England hurricane, major hurricane that affected the Northeast
 * 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane, a hurricane that also caused severe damage to the Jersey Shore
 * Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962, last storm before Sandy to cause major flooding on the Delmarva Peninsula
 * 1991 Perfect Storm, similar storm in the eastern United States
 * December 1992 nor'easter, severe flood event in New York City
 * 1993 Storm of the Century, storm with similar effects
 * 2011 Halloween nor'easter, affected the Northeast exactly one year before Sandy
 * Hurricane Carol, similar storm that severely affected the Mid-Atlantic states and New England
 * Hurricane Gilbert, last hurricane to make landfall in Jamaica
 * Hurricane Gloria, brought sustained hurricane force winds to Long Island
 * Hurricane Hazel, another complicated trough interaction storm in eastern North America
 * Hurricane Igor, the largest Atlantic hurricane on record until Sandy
 * Hurricane Irene, last hurricane to hit the Mid-Atlantic states and New England
 * Hurricane Isabel, similar storm with severe storm surge flooding in the Chesapeake Bay basin
 * Hurricane Paloma, similar late season intense storm in Cuba
 * List of New Jersey hurricanes
 * List of New York hurricanes
 * Superstorm

So, does anyone have an idea what we can put on the chopping block? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Once regional subarticles are all done, remove all the comparable storms - until then leave it alone IMO. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012
I would like to change the wording of "from States Florida to New England" to "states Florida to Maine" because New England is not a state but a region. Maine would represent the northern-most part of the US and will still show the vast area the Hurricane Sandy affected

Duty Honor Country 2021 (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing "from States Florida to New England" anywhere in the article, so someone must have done this. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Subarticle questions
I added one more for Maryland and Washington, D.C. as I felt there was enough information to move it over and build further. Among the remaining sections:
 * Bahamas - needs a lot more. As a direct hurricane hit, there should be enough, but where would I find impact?
 * Combine it with the GA one. YE Pacific  Hurricane  14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Florida - relatively minor, but might find enough to get an article going.
 * No. YE Pacific  Hurricane  14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * North and South Carolina - probably could go together, with most of the impact in NC. There should be enough details, especially with the ship sinking, but needs more on here.
 * Yes if they are combined. YE Pacific  Hurricane  14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ohio - enough to go on its own? or with a combined Midwest article?
 * No. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane
 * Pennsylvania - needs a lot more considering it was probably the #3 state in impact.
 * Yes. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Virginia - might be next closest to publication, some more needed.
 * Weak Yes. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * West Virginia - mostly a snow event there so could be treated partially as a winter storm article, but quite a bit more needed.
 * See Ohio's. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Remaining states from Indiana and Kentucky westward - relatively minor. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Climate change
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion has been closed. This discussion has been closed because multiple sections on this talk page were discussing the same issue, so a centralized section has been started to discuss it. Please make any comments on the issue in the new section: Climate change in the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Should something regarding climate change be said? PopSci has published a piece criticizing the article's exclusion of the term.Smallman12q (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I welcome Mr. Mampel's work, but this is obviously well sourced and shouldn't be kept out due to one particular editor's biases.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  22:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the content is in the article as the last paragraph of the Meteorological History section. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. The science of the storm must be mentioned in the article, including possible climate influences on the severity and path of the storm. Anti-scientific bigotry has no place on wikipedia and will not be tolerated. Noel darlow (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia promises a Neutral Point of View, not Mr Mampel's point of view. If Popsci's claims are true, Mampel is not acting in Wikipedia's quality ethos, despite the tremendous quantity of work he is putting in. Indeed, if Mempel is reverting and reframing the content contributions of others in a non-balanced manner he is reducing the encyclopaedic value of Wikipedia. Mrjcleaver (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 

Edit request - Global warming section - Fix Hoerlings false quote
In this diff a quote was inserted purporting to be the verbatim words of Martin Hoerling. However the source did not use quotation marks rendering this diff suspect. It appears that source was interpreting the original from NYT where his actual words were in relevant part "[T]he immediate cause is most likely little more than the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm." Those interested can go here for even deeper insight into the relevance of Martin Hoerlings words to Global warming. But the main thing is someone not so close to 3RR as myself should fix the nonquote with the real quote. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For the moment I've just removed the not-actually-a quote William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - fix WP:SYNTH re NHC report
In |this diff a conclusion drawn by the WSJ reporter (one I do not quibble with) inadvertently creates a false impression that NHC is trivializing AGWs likely increase on future storm damages. The part that was added appears to be the paper speaking but might be in the primary source too (I did not look). At any rate the text should be edited to show that both factors are going to drive up damage costs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

GW edit war
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion has been closed. This discussion has been closed because multiple sections on this talk page were discussing the same issue, so a centralized section has been started to discuss it. Please make any comments on the issue in the new section: Climate change in the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

We need to resolve the issue of the global warming mention here on the talk page and not in an edit war. While I do agree that Kennvido was politically motivated in removing the original GW section I don't think this article should imply climate change as a cause. It's bad climate science to attribute a single event to a climatic trend. That said, given that a number of scientific sources have discussed a possible connection, this article should have some mention of the degree of the discussion, though we should not keep the current wording. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The info about GW should be included in the meteorological section, mentioning that the claim of its influence is contested and only a possibility.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There was nothing wrong with the included section. It should be put back. It was well sourced. If you want to refute the claims then all a paragraph with the sources that refute the connection. Heck news sites are now posting stories about Kennvido politically based removal of the section and this whole mess. --Jzaun (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is time to stop buying Popular Science. :)  Arzel (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why, because they actually critiqued his reasons for editing the page the way he did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.193.227 (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 

Hurricane Sandy is caused by Global Warming, but is that because of man? No. Fact. And is this just another hurricane? Yes.
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion has been closed. This discussion has been closed because multiple sections on this talk page were discussing the same issue, so a centralized section has been started to discuss it. Please make any comments on the issue in the new section: Climate change in the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just want to state that as of right now, Global Warming being caused by man, is false, this has more speculative evidence against it rather fact. The planet heating up is more or less similar to the medieval era heat wave, why? Blaming anything else is just scapegoating, and further study is needed, end of. Why is this hurricane just the like the rest? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes. There is the link for you. The worst hurricane on record to hit over NY city, was agreed by many meteorologists to hit between the 13th and 15th century, saying it was twice as strong as the New England Hurricane CATEGORY 5 1938, which hit all the places Hurricane Sandy CATEGORY 2 did this year. The reason the damages are the highest ever from Sandy is because of the fact that 300 million dollars in 1930's would be worth around 10 billion today, or more. There have been a lot more fatalities from past hurricanes over Sandy, and hurricanes hitting the east coast of America? Has been happening for a long, long time, thousands of years/tens of thousands, so it is very normal. It is all over the news, why? So you'll watch it, so it's ratings will go up and more advertisers will approach them for ad break slots and give them more money. Bad news sells, good news doesn't, it is drama, people love drama, so the news will make sure that the bad news is 10 times worse than it is, sugarcoating and really exaggerating it. Anyway, just remain calm and don't watch the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyxm (talk • contribs) 11:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't get off-topic here. I hate to say this, but your rant is very uncivil and you probrably don't know how bad it really got in New England from this hurricane. Sure, it was only an extratropical-transitioning cat 1 when it hit, but that area of the world isn't used to storms like this. Sure, if you lived in a well-prepared place like Florida this wouldn't be too bad, but in an unprepared place like New England, this is one of their worst disasters in history. I suggest you apoligize, because your comments had nothing to do with improving this article and are way out of line. --Rye998 (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

After protracted doping it was impossible for Lance Armstrong to make an un-doped performance. What do you think? He only put out as much as he would have been capable of without the drugs? We all know such a belief is unreasonable. Likewise, earths climate system has been collecting lots of extra energy units (BTUs), so it is impossible for the climate system to produce any weather event untouched by the effect of all that extra energy. Today there is no such thing as "just another hurricane". Currents in the ocean (where most of the extra BTUs from global warming are collected) have changed. Atmospheric patterns have changed. Just like the air in your shower holds more water vapor after it warms up the overall atmosphere holds more water vapor - which not only produces excessive precipation but the latent heat (BTUs) given off when the water changes from vapor to precip up in the storm clouds goes into the energy driving the storm in the first place - making them larger and/or longer lasting and/or stronger. In such a context even a nice sunny day is not "just another nice sunny day" any more than Lance has two interchangeable sets of quadriceps, one just like any other racers and one beefed up on steriods. What about this RS video of a doping baseball slugger? It would be fairly ridiculous to say he could ever take a swing without the influence of the drugs right? In sum sure it is hard to quantify beyond dispute what the weather would have been without the influence of global warming but we would be foolish in the extreme to leap from that difficulty to the illogical assumption that any weather event is untouched by all that extra energy in the system. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To my mind, anyone making a blanket pronouncement that any particular weather event is caused by AGW is talking rubbish. It's speculation. Where is the evidence? Not the likelihood or the chance or the gut feeling, but the scientific research and data showing exactly how it happened. This sort of material isn't whipped up in an hour, a day or a week. It demands solid investigation. Hurricanes are relatively commonplace. Perfect storms in New England not unheard of. We can't say that Hurricane Sandy was definitely caused by AGW. We can raise the possibility and cite speculation, but seriously, if anybody has that level of certainty then they should set up as a deity and go for the tax benefits and maybe a bit of smiting. --Pete (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the concepts of influence and cause. I have been reading these threads in detail and believe the most reasoned arguments are the ones for inclusion in the article of some (well referenced) information about global warming as having some influence on the severity and nature of storms such as Sandy in the modern era. No one to date has suggested that global warming is the sole cause of Hurricane Sandy. It is somewhat disingenuous for you to imply that because a correlated concept is not the sole direct cause of something else that its possible connection should be ignored in the article. Garth of the Forest (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 

Too many refs
I believe that's why the article is so goddamn slow to save edits. (Er, I mean so goddamn slow to give you one edit conflict message after another. :) If you can remove unneeded refs when editing, please do so. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 02:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Once this article is split it should be alot better. United States Man (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(Think we can refrain from taking the Lord's name in vain.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.13.174 (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You do know that some people don't believe that its a bad thing. In my personal opinion I think it's sort of bad, but people have the freedom of speech to say what they want to say. So refraining from saying the Lord's name in vain isn't going to happen. Also, let's try to stay on topic, we are talking about a major natural disaster, not religion. STO12 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The storm is over?
I know Sandy as a hurricane has finished, but still is a storm and there are many severe weather alerts, specially in Ontario. So why the article says it dissipated today? --Pabos95 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It dissipated on the 29th when it became a post-tropical cyclone. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most editors didn't care about the impact of the storm before it hit the USA. Why would you expect them to care what happens in Canada? HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First the Halloween article, now this? Your anti-Americanism is out of hand. Please focus on improving the article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I pay a lot of attention to Wikipedia content about countries other than my own. I await your contributions on the impact of this storm in the Caribbean and Canada. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If Sandy, as an overall phenomenon, is still moving and doing its thing, anywhere on the planet, then at the stage the article should indicate that point, whether it's in Canada or not. Also..whether it's technically a "hurricane" or not.   If it still exists in any form.  But if the thing is COMPLETELY over over...and not any kind of storm, but just gone totally, then, at that point, the moving storm part of it is no longer a current event, but an aftermath situation.  So I agree...even if it left the American states, and went to Ontario, and even if it's not actually officially a "hurricane" per se (and not for a while now), it still would be "Sandy" and doing things or causing problems.   But if it completely dissipated, and disappeared, from all parts of the planet, then that's different. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The storm have reached Greenland not with hurricane effect, but it have an impact. One is that it is going to rain this week in Nuuk - not snow. I havent been able to find english references, only greenlandic and danish ones. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for new section: Political Impacts
The impacts sections currently focus only on physical impacts like storm damage. Sandy has had a huge political impact in the U.S., particularly on the presidential race. That's arguably going to be its greater legacy so I think it belongs in this article. Most notably it appears to have led NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg to endorse President Obama. It has also led to significant political commentary and discussion in the U.S. from leading commentators. I would like to include that information. Given the structure of the article, I would think a new top-level section entitled Political Significance would make sene (Section 4). But if others think it should go elsewhere please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackabean (talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's enough even for its own article. See Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. The tricky part is that someone would have to make it, but I think it should be made. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose -Undue weight. One endorsement and a few discussions is not enough. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Whole section to "politics" would be undue, and in the short term, a spam magnet. If there are actual factual political ramifications, rather than posturing, they can be added as needed, for instance, the decision to go ahead with the NY Marathon, the outrage over the diversion of emergency resources throughout the 5 Boroughs, then the cancellation. This is a political event that has happened, is clear, has a defined, objective effect that has happened, and therefore CAN be included. Rest is speculation.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Insufficient Info I have yet to see an RS that says Bloomberg was (((not))) thinking about AGW before Sandy; and I have not seen an RS that says he would have endorsed anyone else if Sandy had not come along.  The other part of the proposal was to include in this section something about (in the OPs words) significant political commentary and discussion in the U.S. from leading commentators.  I have no idea what that part of the proposal means. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above. United States Man (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Partially approve - Michael Bloomberg revently switched from Romney to Obama because of Sandy influenced by GW : "he had decided over the past several days that Mr. Obama was the better candidate to tackle the global climate change that he believes might have contributed to the violent storm" . In other words; "Hurricane Sandy has influenced the presidential campaign". Source . That is notable, and should be included either in this article or its own, or both. Time and timing may weigh against inclusions, as WP is NotNews, and Wikipedia's influence may stretch to public opinion and therefore politics. If one endorsement is not enough, what amount of influence from Sandy to politics would be sufficient? TGCP (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As seen in the section below, one user says that it violates WP:NPOV. United States Man (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Split away and keep it on its own article. Move all the comments about global warming to such an article as well, and keep it off this main article. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support adding a political effects section.
 * The mayer of New York, past Republican, and public figure who didn't endorse a candidate in the previous election now supports the current president as a result of Sandy.
 * The governor of New Jersey praised the president for his early handling of the storm. Although not an endorsement, it caused a stir among conservatives such as Rupert Murdock during the final week of the presidential race.
 * Voting will be effected as a result of the disruptions and many may not even vote.
 * I am, at this time, skeptical to creating a separate article on this. I doubt there is yet enough information to create a proper article more substantial than a subsection, the.political repercussions (ultimately large or small) are still developing, and academic analysis (establishing WP:Notability) still needs time. — Sowlos (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait - Wikipedia is not news. History will tell if there are long-term political effects and whether these effects warrant including in this article, in another existing article, or in an special article for the political effects of this storm.  Here's an example of an effect that need not be listed in this article but almost certainly will be listed in numerous other relevant elections: Some NJ residents displaced by storm can vote by email or fax in the November 6, 2012 elections.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wait. It is too soon to include any information on this possibility until, at very least, well after the U.S. presidential election, and any other pending political events in other countries that were impacted by the storm. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Full protection
Right. Lots of arm wrestling going on here. Let's get some consensus on the talk page before more reverting. I am happy for another uninvolved admin to unprotect if I am not around. Can someone lay out the bones of contention below (or above) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat of an important article so let's develop some consensus quickly (at least a temporary one) so that the page doesn't stagnate. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  23:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I will place some notes elsewhere. Can folks please !vote on appropriate places on this talk page in the meantime? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cas. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk   00:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Q: Why not give each side to this argument a VERY short (i.e., 5 lines or less, preferably measured in characters) section to lay out their arguments and cite as many sources as they want. Since I tend to agree that global warming can have an effect on weather patterns, I respectfully invite someone who disagrees with me to have their section first, and to name it what they want without interference from the other camp. Unless they feel their side would be better represented by going second, of course. The name could be something like "Liberal Media/Science Conspiracy to connect Hurricane Sandy with Global Warming".Pär Larsson (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well here is an attempt at a summary. "There is little doubt that the storm was unusual.  While storms have struck the US late in the season and in the north, the combination was unique, as was the size, the accumulated cyclone energy (largest ever??) and the transition to a northeaster just at about the time of landfall. Respected climatologists (insert names here) with a theoretical meteorology focus pointed to factors associated with climate change as having been possible sources of this.  First, unusually warm sea surface temperatures kept the storm strong and growing on its path north, second a weak jet stream as a result of record sea ice melting in the Arctic during the summer caused the left jab into New Jersey and the transition to a northeaster.  This was not accepted by climatologists whose focus is historical (insert names here).  Adding to this, the damage caused by Sandy mirrored predictions in the peer reviewed and gray literatures, helped no doubt by the arrival on a high tide.  While it is almost impossible to assign a cause to a unique climate event the controversy soon spread to the public, the media and Wikipedia editors."Eli Rabett (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason for this article to be fully protected until November 8. If there are ongoing edit conflicts, block the users for breaking the 3RR, don't block the article. Please reduce the protection back to semi-protected. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the way to go about this is by making sub-articles and in a few months, summarizing them over here. This is what we are doing; however, I feel another sub article or two can be made. Sorry TAWX, but I agree with full protection. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  03:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, block the edit warriors, not the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Yellow Evan, keeping the entire class for detention is not an effective discipline technique, it is a method used by lazy teachers. Block the disruptive editors, and those who fail to heed the rules of editing, not the entire community. The article is current events and needs to be semi-protected only to be effectively managed.Garth of the Forest (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)