Talk:List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes

Tips
All this needs is a name change, nothing else. Maybe "List of Atlantic Hurricanes that peaked at Category 4"? Then all will be well, at least in my opinion. May I also suggest adding some pictures of Cat 4 hurricanes?

&#34;Nova Scotia&#39;s biggest train person&#34; (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment
Come on, only start class? Juliancolton 13:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The text in the sections only state how many Category 4 storms formed in each time period, nothing else. The list lacks substance. Also, the lede is vague - it says all storms that reached Category 4 intensity. This inherently includes all Category 5 storms, which already have a list of their own - this should be changed to show that this is a list of storms that reached Category 4 at peak intensity. Much work needs to be done; the list needs to say more than "this is what they are, here they all are". It needs much work to reach B-class. --Core desat 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I did note that a category 4 that later intensified into a category 5 is not included in this analysys. Juliancolton 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes you did. And since all Cat-5 hurricanes will be Cat-4 at some point this was a stupid decision, albeit very similar to such stupid decisions which pervade Wikipedia. HTH. Jamesdowallen (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Better?
I added some more info about the most damaging and deadly storms by time period. Still start class? Juliancolton (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO it is worse than when it was copyedited when it was first published. There are many grammatical and spelling errors, the damage info is not really needed (the article is a list of storms of a certain strength, thus meteorological details are more important than the effects), and in general quite a few problems. Unisys shouldn't be sourced (since it just uses the official data from Hurdat), the rounding of numbers is wrong, and the linking to storm articles is wrong (and for earlier articles just bad in general). I, for one, don't see the need for such an article (seeing that the category handles it and that Category 4 status isn't terribly notable; plus, this could lead to the creation of other lists made from existing categories, which is a bit pointless, IMO), but if others believe it should be kept, then it is need of some serious copyediting. The article should be formatted more like the List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i was planning on leaving it the way it was when I first created it, bu there was complaints about there not beinx enough information, just the tables. If you think I should get rid of most of the storm info, than I will. Other than that, I don't know where it could be improved. So, I will do my best to improve it, and if anybody else wants to help out, they are more than welcome! Juliancolton (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And what does IMO mean? Juliancolton (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There, any better now? Juliancolton (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First, IMO means In my opinion. I'd like to see some of the tables from the Cat. 5 article, but there are 96 of them, meaning that'd be a lot of space. Maybe combine the information into one sortable table. Also, I think landfalls (as used in the Cat. 5 article) should be added, though for obvious reasons the Category 5 section should not be included. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused. When you say you would like to see some of the tables from the cat. 5 article, do you mean you would like to see the list of cat 4's listed by strength, minimum pressure, and other orders, like in the cat. 5 article? And about the landfall section, I guess I could put a table of all of the cat 4's to make landfall as cat. 4, but other than that, I think that section would be somwewhat short.

If you have any more suggestions, please say so, I need suggestions on this article, and I hope to get this up to at least B class, fro the time being, and after that maybe FA. Juliancolton (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Could this get to B? Juliancolton (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's getting there. I'd like to see each of the tables expanded by including minimum pressure and total time as Category 4, and a knots header should be included as well (since both mph and km/h are converted from knots). Yes, a landfall table should still be included, as it'd be a nice addition, and it wouldn't be too short if you followed the table from the Cat. 5 article. Be sure to do both of these. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok be sure to do that. And you think I should list all of the cat. 4's in chronological order, and by minimum pressure, and again by wind as in the cat. 5 article? Juliancolton (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, just have everything in the one table (except for the landfalls). --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so like a table that lists minimum pressure winds and time as a cat 4. Wouldn't that be kinda long? Juliancolton (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea. The tables would be the same length, just a few columns wider (which wouldn't be too much of a problem, since the tables aren't that wide to begin with). --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, I will get right on that. Juliancolton (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done with the pressure...What next? It is really hard to find how long a storms was at cat. 4 status, so I might have to do that for the more recent storms. Juliancolton (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fix Wikilinks (Hurricane is a completely useless link; for newer storms, they should either be linked to the season article or the storm article, not the dabs, as you did with Hurricane Karl). Add knots to the table. To get the hours for how long a storm was at Cat. 4 status, you'll have to do some research through Hurdat. The landfall table should still be added. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will get right on that. Juliancolton (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that landfall table. I just couldn't fiqure it out before. Now that I have the table design should I work on the rest of the years after 1949? Juliancolton (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

B-class yet?
I did some more work on it. It's got to be close. Juliancolton 21:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Todo
Assuming this article does not get deleted (which I'm rather unsure of, seeing no reason for its existence myself), there's a number of things that need fixing.


 * First of all, and this is really not a matter of opinion, it has to include category 5 storms in the list. To not include cat5 systems is like making a List of people who have run a 4 minute mile but excluding someone because they ran a 3 minute mile...or a List of 15-win NFL football teams but excluding the patriots because they won 16 games.  It also skews the statistics you give (listed by month and climatology sections).  And statements like "In the years between 1976 and 2000, 23 Category 4 hurricanes formed in the basin" are flat-out incorrect and must be fixed.
 * Secondly, hink is right that you need some tables that summarize statistics on these storms. Listing them by damage, intensity, and deaths is a good start.  As these tables would be rather long however it  might be better to make a single table with all statistics that is sortable.
 * The existing tables need to be improved. You use inconsistent naming for the unnamed hurricanes, and the name includes the year even though the year is given in the next column.  Look at other articles for examples on how to keep naming consistent, and don't bother with the year.  You also don't (IMO) need to say "Hurricane" in every name - as it's a category 4, the fact that it's a hurricane is implied.  Also for storms whose wind speed or pressure is incomplete you should use &le; or &ge; to show that.  Again, see the Category 5 article.
 * Lots more copyediting. There's a lot of places that need improvement.  One specific point is your capitalization of "Category" in "Category 4" which is inconsistent; wikiproject standards say that this should be capitalized.
 * "Category 4 storms are considered extreme hurricane" - what's an extreme hurricane? This sentence is meaningless as is.
 * You repeatedly use the term "this analysis". This is wrong as it implies original research which shouldn't be taking place.

— jdorje (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Those are good ideas, and I will get on those after I get done with my current project. Juliancolton (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this article, and whether or not it should be deleted/delisted. If it were kept, I agree with jdorje that you would have to include category 5 hurricanes within the article. Not counting a category 5 hurricane as having gone through category 4 first makes little sense to me. I saw a passage about not including tropical depressions in one of the table due to data issues. Considering typical NHC error on intensity (about 1/2 a hurricane category), that comment could disqualify any of the storms listed within this article, and related hurricane category lists within wikipedia, let alone tropical depression inclusion in a certain table. While I don't see a strong reason for this page to exist, I don't see a strong case for it being deleted either. There are lists on wikipedia that are less useful, in my opinion. If you included category five storms within this list and rename it something like Atlantic hurricanes which have reached category 4 strength the usefulness of the article would increase. I could imagine people finding the article useful, if modified in this fashion. I don't think it should be deleted merely because it does not focus exclusively on landfalling tropical cyclones. If deletion is being proposed because the article is considered original research, any of the project's ACE pages would also be up for deletion on similar grounds. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability
A Southern Region NWS hurricane webpage calls major hurricanes "rather rare." If I find any other NWS/NHC references that state this, I'll post it on the talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?
I can imagine a page about category 4 or higher. But for the life of me, I have great difficulty guessing what a user might be doing that would make him want to look up category 4 specifically.

I came to this page as a step toward manually constructing my own list of category 4+5. I'd be delighted to hear the scenario where a user would want this page but not the category 5 page. (Silly scavenger hunts don't count.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.123.1 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070607165932/http://www.eol.ucar.edu:80/rtf/facilities/dropsonde/ to http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rtf/facilities/dropsonde/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222053816/http://www.weather.com/newscenter/specialreports/hurricanes/vulnerablecities/index.html to http://www.weather.com/newscenter/specialreports/hurricanes/vulnerablecities/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HURDAT": From 2009 Atlantic hurricane season:  From 1910 Atlantic hurricane season:  From 1950 Atlantic hurricane season:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Chronological lists wrong
The hurricanes are split up by date range: 1850-1900, 1901-1950, and so on. HOWEVER, hurricanes from 1920's are included in the 1850-1900 list.

Those hurricanes are correctly(??) omitted from the 1851-1900 subtotal, but incorrectly(?!!) omitted from the 1901-1950 subtotals. Hence the subtotals don't balance.

Solution? SIMPLY provide one single list. Do NOT break it up into date ranges. The Wikipedia fetish for splitting up lists like this is only that -- a stupid counterproductive fetish.

Thanks for your attention. Hope this helps. Jamesdowallen (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The idea is to bring it into one single list similar to List of Category 5 South Pacific severe tropical cyclones as and when time allows.Jason Rees (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)