Talk:List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes/Archive 1

Table changes
I changed the table to one that is easier to edit, in my opinion. The other was too code heavy. Also, while Americans will abbreviate the date as M/D/YY, any Europeans reading the article may be confused since they abbreviate dates as D/M/YY. So I changed it to the longer form. Also, this way the dates can be wikilinked if someone feels that it would be beneficial to the article. And finally, I linked the storms to their respective pages. Dismas 04:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Landfall definition
The National Hurricane Center has a definition of landfall that is a little different from most persons' assumptions. Essentially, landfall occurs when the center of circulation/center of the eye of a hurricane first passes over land. By that definition, Ophelia didn't have landfall as a tropical cyclone and Rita didn't have landfall in the Florida Keys. B.Wind 22:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Move
A better name would be list of Category 5 hurricanes. Hurricanes also form in the Eastern Pacific. There are at least 4 Eastern Pacific Category 5 tropical terrors, and they don't really need their own list. So, if no one objects, I will move this to list of Category 5 hurricanes. Michelle T 18:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Mixing Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes in a table muddies the message. If it must be moved (and I don't recommend it), it would be best to keep the two separate.

B.Wind 22:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The correct name should obviously be List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. A separate list could be created for Pacific hurricanes, Pacific typhoons, etc.  I don't understand why it was moved to List of Atlantic Category 5 hurricanes, since these are all Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes we're talking about here. Jdorje 08:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this is a case of semantics making much ado about nothing (making trivial a trivia article?). Let it be as the redirection article is in place. B.Wind 19:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well that's true, but it is obnoxious that the article was renamed away *from* a correct title to an incorrect one. So I changed it back to an even more correct one. Jdorje 07:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

ACE
Anyone know the ACE of these storms? I'm dying to know what Hurricane Allen's was, probably incredibly high. Higher than Ivan's I'll wager. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. Ivan had the second-highest ACE ever, behind only San Ciriaco. Allen was faster-moving. -- Cuivienen 01:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What was Allen's ACE? It spent a long time as a Category 5. A long time also with winds above 145 knots (165 mph). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a comment
I don't usually say this, but this article just looks cool. Very well presented. Love having the tracks included. Well done! :) --Patteroast 05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm sure the others are grateful too. The tracks for the 2005 storms do not represent the best track, but the advisory positions while the storm was active. These have often been inaccurate. I trust that our track man Jdorje will change them once the best track is issued from the National Hurricane Center. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Todo
Probably it needs more text...excerpts from the TC article on what makes a cat5 article. It's not too far off from being pretty good, but right now it's just a table. Compare to List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes (which has different problems). Jdorje 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Date attained
There is no time zone given for the date attained, and this is a problem. There was some confusion about the Labor Day hurricane - it attained Cat5 at 0000 September 3 UTC. But in any reasonable timezone (i.e., EST) this would be considered September 2. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of landfalls
Elsewhere the number of Cat5 landfalls was given as 9. This is because the 2 Bahamas landfalls were discounted. According to the NHC those bahamas landfalls did happen. IMO any island landfall is not as impressive as a mainland landfall. But it is still, technically, a landfall. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Old Version
The old version before my rewrite is located here. Sorry but there was no room for the track images. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks fine, although the images make my browser show too much white space on some sections. However, this paragraph sounds a bit unclear:
 * Three Atlantic hurricanes–Allen, Isabel, and Ivan–have reached Category 5 intensity on more than one occasion; that is, by reaching Category 5 intensity, weakening to a Category 4 or lower, and then becoming a Category 5 again. Such hurricanes have their dates shown together. No Atlantic hurricane has reached Category 5 intensity exactly two times or more than three times. Hurricane Allen holds the record for most overall time spent as a Category 5. 1950's Hurricane Dog holds the record for most time spent consecutively as a Category 5.
 * If a hurricane reaches Category 5 intensity, then weakens to Category 4 and reintensifies to Category 5 again, wouldn't it have reached Category 5 intensity exactly twice? Or what does the second part of the paragraph mean? Tito xd (?!? - help us) 22:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm noot sure that there's much I can do about the whitespace. One of the reasons I added so many pictures was minimize it.
 * The second part of the paragraph means that of all of the Atlantic hurricanes to reach Category 5 intensity more than once, none of them reached it twice; ie. All Atlantic hurricanes to reach Category 5 intensity had all of their time as a Category 5 in one continuous chunk or in three seperate chunks; none have their time as a Category 5 in two seperate chunks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So by that sentence you mean that no hurricane has reached Category 5, then weakened to a Category 2 or something due to landfall, and then return to Category 5? Tito xd (?!? - help us) 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean that no hurricane has formed, reached Category 5 (first time), weakened, reached Category 5 (second time), weakened and dissipated. In other words, no hurricane has reached Category 5 intensity, weakened and reached Category 5 intensity for second time and then eventually dissipated. All of the hurricanes that reached Category 5 intensity, weakened, and reached Category 5 intensity weakened and reached Category 5 intensity for a third time. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understood now. I'll try to make it a bit clearer in the article. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Historic Category 5 hurricanes
It is quite likely that this is not the complete list - I think that several older storms, such as 1899 Hurricane San Ciriaco, were quite likely Category 5 over open waters, but the lack of technology made those measurements overlooked. Unfortunately, we will never know for sure... CrazyC83 19:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As the NHC re-analysis continues it is likely that some storms will be upgraded or downgraded. But since the NHC is generally conservative in their estimates, it is likely that for many storms we will never know for sure.  I suspect that a large fraction of older hurricanes that struck as Category 3 or Category 4 storms were probably stronger at sea.  One could do an analysis of modern hurricanes, and I suspect about 50% of modern landfalling Cat4s were actually Cat5s while at sea. This was no doubt true of older storms as well...but there's no way to know which ones. — jdorje (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Title repetition?
First sentence, IMO, should be anything but "This is a list of Category 5 Atlantic Hurricanes." The "Chicago" article doesn't begin "This is an article about Chicago" and the "Sigmund Freud" article doesn't begin "This is an article about Sigmund Freud," and, well, you get the idea. It's grammar school writing with that repetition. It should at least expand the hed, maybe: Listed below are all hurricanes in which sustained winds exceeded 155 mph (Category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale) at some point in the Atlantic basin. Anybody else? -- DavidH 20:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten it slightly, based on your suggestion. Is that better? Tito xd (?!? - help us) 22:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I bolded part of it... the lead is now fine, I suppose. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. Not sure "list of" needs to be bold, but the MoS is vague about title repetition and bolding. There's also the issue of calling it "a" list (articles like this and Volcanoes, which says it's "a list" but actually contains dozens of lists). Anyway, looking good, thanks. DavidH 19:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Landfalls
The landfalls section is very iffy. The problem is landfalls outside the U.S. are not well tracked and it's hard to say which hurricanes actually made landfall where. Did the Okeechobee Hurricane, for instance, make landfall in the Bahamas and Guadeloupe? Sources say that it "struck" these locations, but there is no mention that I can recall seeing of a landfall. Similar problems exist for all hurricanes from before the NHC TCRs became complete enough to list all landfalls. And even for more modern hurricanes I believe the list is mostly assembled from memory, as EBrown and I both went through and made numerous fixes to it. I suspect it is still incomplete. — jdorje (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points, an explanation like yours would be a good addition. Avg. reader could always use concise explanation of strike vs. precise landfall terminology. DavidH 19:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethel
I don't think it's a good idea to use Ethel as an example of anything on this page, because we all seem to think that Ethel probably wasn't a cat5 and the re-analysis will downgrade it sometime in the future. That said, Ethel's entry in the best-track can be seen here. The 981 mbar pressure is from 9/15 0000Z, which also has 110 knot (cat3) winds. This is only accurate to within about 3 hours however since there is only one entry per 6 hours...and Ethel supposedly strengthened and weakened incredibly quickly, so this isn't definitive. — jdorje (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed faulty links
Fixed the references to Cat5 fish hurricanes Cleo(1958) and Easy(1951) here. The links had led to 1950's Easy, a Category 3 storm, and 1964's Cleo, a Category 4.

It also just occurred to me that the more famous Hurricane Easy probably merits an article. Same for Hurricane King. --SomethingFunny 09:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, aren't we forgetting Hurricane Dennis of 2005? After re-analysis, it was upgraded to Category 5.


 * Wait, aren't you forgetting that Dennis was not upgraded to Cat. 5? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew...
...was a Category 5 twice! Overshadowed by the revelation that Andrew was in fact just the third Cat 5 to make landfall in the US in recorded history was the fact that it had two stints as a Category 5: midday on the 23rd of August (when it was at its strongest) and its sudden deepening just before landfall on the 24th. The second stint was so brief that it doesn't show up on the best track, it was between the 0600Z advisory and landfall at 0905Z on the 24th (see NHC addendum). I don't know what parts of the article need changing but clearly somewhere it should be noted. That second stint lasted just over four hours but they were the longest four hours Florida's ever experienced. -- E. Brown 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call, some changing needs to be made; for example, the "no hurricane has been cat 5 exactly twice" bit has to go. --Golbez 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not Quite *All*
Just visiting this excellent page, and something in the first sentence jumped out at me: This is a list of all Atlantic hurricanes that have reached Category 5, the highest classification of tropical cyclone intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. This is a great article, but it does not cover *all* of the category 5 Atlantic hurricanes - there must have been quite a few before 1900! Perhaps all since sometime in the early 1900's? Or all since data has been kept by someone-or-other, which began such-and-such year? I don't know enough about the subject or the work that has been done here to make an accurate revision myself, so I'll leave it to you experts to hash out the details. Again, nice work overall. --Stargirl7 12:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the qualifier known. That makes it more accurate. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Labor Day Hurricane vs Felix
Felix reached Cat. 5 at 0100 GMT on September 3. Data for the Labor Day Hurricane is not as accurate, but apparently it was also confirmed as Cat. 5 at the earliest mention on September 3 (as confirmed in HURDAT).

Which came first calendrically? Unless conclusive analysis proves otherwise, I will put the Labor Day Hurricane before Felix (given that it is older). Pobbie Rarr 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The best track data is UTC. That datapoint for 892 mb (landfall) is from 0000 UTC on the 3rd, i.e., evening on the 2nd in EST.  BTW for human consumption I recommend the "easy-to-read" version of the best-track here. — jdorje (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah and for more HURDAT goodness check out this page. — jdorje (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those Jdorje. Never knew they existed. :) Pobbie Rarr 23:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Time spent as a Category 5 (Felix)
First stint = 15 hours as per NHC advisories. No question there.

Second stint = officially upgraded at 6:40am (AST), reflected in the 8am intermediate advisory and downgraded for the 11am full advisory. But how long did this second stint last? It just seems a bit weird to include that 20 minutes added on. I've currently added the three hours from 8-11am to make a total of 18 hours as a Category 5, just to be on the safe side of things. Pobbie Rarr 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, make that 18 hours for the first stint and 21 hours overall. Pobbie Rarr 15:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Other hurricanes have this information taken from the best track which is in 6-hour increments. If you want to go more fine-grained with this based on the forecast advisories, be careful.  One example of comparison might be Andrew, it was a cat5 for a reasonable time over the open ocean then weakened before restrengthening right at landfall - but the landfall cat5 is not even reflected in the best track. — jdorje (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

km/h
All this shoud be is km/h. 217.136.121.243 19:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Both mph and km/h should be displayed -- mph for the US, km/h for the rest of the world. B.Wind 22:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

yes.-- Juliancolton (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

155 mph hurricanes?
Should we include hurricanes that reached 155 mph? That is only 1 mph off, and likely had winds just a little bit over the estimate. Here's a list of 155 mph canes, in reverse order.


 * Hurricane Emily- 2005
 * Hurricane Lenny- 1999
 * Hurricane Floyd- 1999
 * Hurricane Georges- 1998
 * Hurricane Betsy- 1965
 * Hurricane Cleo- 1964
 * Hurricane Carrie- 1957
 * Indianola Hurricane of 1886

Here are some pre-1850 ones that might be Cat. 5, based on here
 * September 25, 1848
 * Great Havana Hurricane of 1846
 * 1837 Racer's Storm
 * 1821 Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane

Hurricanehink 23:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually had an idea that since I'm sure the 155 mph estimate is downgraded at times, we change the Saffir- Simpson scale to make 155 mph hurricanes Cat 5. Fableheroesguild 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of those storms listed, Emily (if not upgraded), Floyd, Carrie and Indianola (1886) were probably Category 5 (in my view) but the strongest winds were not measured. Lenny was originally 150 then upgraded so it was likely in the low 150s; Georges had a lot of land data to work with and the central pressures of Betsy and Cleo are too high to really warrant upgrading. CrazyC83 05:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So many different sources say a category 5 starts at 155 mph, and others say 156. i have even seen a source that say a category 5 is 154 or higher. Whic is correct? -- Juliancolton (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cat. 5 is 156 mph and above. Also, I disagree with the statement I wrote above. Listing them would be a bad idea. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Makeing sense
The intro doesn't make sense.... change it please.. i don't understand it well enough to change it Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what's wrong with it... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, just telling us it doesn't make sense but not telling us how it doesn't make sense doesn't make it easy for us to change it... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This list is "at risk" of demotion
Hello. This list needs updating to meet current standards. Below is an initial list of issues to be resolved. Failure to resolve these will result in the list being taken to WP:FLRC. I hope this can be avoided by addressing the concerns. These may seem like minor changes, and they probably are, but it would be preferable to fix them instead of seeing the list go to WP:FLRC. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk)
 * Lead should no longer start with "This is a ..."
 * Avoid bold links in the lead per MOSBOLD.
 * Lead is too short, by far.
 * Titoxd sorted out the lead last night please let us know if it is satisfactory or not.Jason Rees (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it's much improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Various sections list the hurricanes against different criteria, this can now be merged into a single sortable list.
 * I took this on myself last night, and will be chucked into the article once an issue with the convert templates is resolved.Jason Rees (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, good news. Let me know if you want me to pass it through Safari (which normally has problems with sorting!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed sorting in one of the cols, but the "Dates as a Category 5" col is sorting in total date order (i.e. incorporating the year) which is counter-intuitive since the column only has day and month in it. You may need to use the sort template to force the sorting.  Let me know if I can help The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I took care of that. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out the redirects (e.g. compliance with WP:DASH in Saffir–Simpson) and disambiguations (e.g. Hurricane Dog).
 * Fixed. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Landfall intensity table is pretty grim, I would force col widths to be the same, put year next to the hurricane name, and sorting is completely broken because the header has a colspan in it.
 * Great Zo link (a) is it reliable? (b) is no longer where it used to be.
 * It probably aint reliable but if we want easy to read sources then that would be an ideal ref since its both correct and up to date.Jason Rees (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So I guess it has to go if it ain't WP:RS I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference author name needs to be consistent format, i.e. last, first throughout.
 * References should have consistent date formats.
 * In response to these final points - I have started to have an overhaul of the referencing which will incorporate these two points.Jason Rees (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All done.Jason Rees (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Jason, thanks for your actions (and the other contributors from the project) in helping to resolve these issues. I'll keep an eye on the article and as long as it's being improved, it'll go nowhere near FLRC.  Much appreciated.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not far to go
Only comments I had outstanding from above, I think:
 * Landfall intensity table is pretty grim, I would force col widths to be the same, put year next to the hurricane name, and sorting is completely broken because the header has a colspan in it.
 * Im not 100% sure on how to make the colwidths the same but the other parts were already done.
 * Sorting doesn't work for the hurricanes whose names are in quotation marks... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorted - they just needed to be told how to sort.Jason Rees (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference author name needs to be consistent format, i.e. last, first throughout.
 * DoneJason Rees (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Likely HURDAT demotions mentioned in a recent document: 1947 Fort Lauderdale and Donna not Cat 5s.
. Any ideas? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We wait until HURDAT is actually updated.Jason Rees (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)This paper also suggests that Dog 50 and Easy 51 were not C5's, but they should be taken with caution before their approval into HURDAT. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It also seems to add three new named storms for 1950's best track (including the lost Mike). Ah well, many to look forward to, and thanks! Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pressure for Matthew
Should the lowest pressure for Matthew be listed as it is an exceptional case where his lowest pressure was actually reached as a Category 4 and not as a Category 5, or should the pressure be listed while he was a Category 5. Thanks. --Kuzwa (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If we choose to list the pressure while at Category 5, then we'd better make it explicit that we're doing so and provide a note on why we're doing it. Personally I think there isn't much reason to do so because of just one storm.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Category 5 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 5 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 "costliest": From List of Florida hurricanes (1900–49):  From 2004 Atlantic hurricane season:  From List of Florida hurricanes (1975–99):  From 2003 Atlantic hurricane season:  From Hurricane Isabel:  

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 ⚡ 04:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Landfalls table
This could use some work on how it defines areas, specifically with Mexico. It is almost always mentioned as "Yucatan Peninsula" or "Mainland Mexico." First of all: Yucatan *is* on the mainland. Second of all, Mexico is a large country, and deserves more than a blanket mention, when the Bahamas can have individual island mentions, Florida can be as defined as "northwest Florida", and what not. The specific state of Mexico should be mentioned. This is especially egregious for Emily, where it's written as making category 3 landfall in "Mexico," but Andrew is specified as having made landfalls on Eleuthera and the Berry Islands. --Golbez (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel that the format of the article should be gutted, with areas affected introduced instead of landfalls for example. By doing this we could also show how deadly or damaging category 5 tropical cyclones are. We do this with other lists like the Off Season one so why not here? Jason Rees (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Landfall intensity of the storms is a major point of interest for many readers. Let's not also make it harder for readers to verify claims like "only in 2007 did more than one make landfall at Category 5 strength".--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of Category 5 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/20060718065833/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G1.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nemo.org.bz/cgi-bin/nemonews/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=285
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/20140401_pa_reanalysisCamille.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.em-dat.net/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104020243/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1979.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1979.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051219111541/http://www.iadb.org/regions/re2/consultative_group/backgrounder6.htm to http://www.iadb.org/regions/re2/consultative_group/backgrounder6.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051026083640/http://www.iadb.org/regions/re2/consultative_group/backgrounder4.htm to http://www.iadb.org/regions/re2/consultative_group/backgrounder4.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http:///
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http:///
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://smn.cna.gob.mx/ciclones/tempo2005/atlantico/wilma.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://reliefweb.int/report/cuba/hurricane-wilma-exacts-losses-704-million-dollars-cuban-government
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122094329/http://impreso.elnuevodiario.com.ni/2007/01/29/especiales/84368 to http://impreso.elnuevodiario.com.ni/2007/01/29/especiales/84368

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) 06:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Category 5 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/20110611220124/http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/rnk/Research/NC_Tropical_Cyclone_History.pdf to http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/rnk/Research/NC_Tropical_Cyclone_History.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Two cat5 in one season

 * Only five times—in the 1932, 1933, 1961, 2005, and 2007 hurricane seasons—has more than one Category 5 hurricane formed.

Harvey and Irma both made category 5, though Harvey was downgraded before landfall, and Irma is still out over the ocean. No idea about José. 73.71.213.123 (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Harvey was a Category 4, not a Category 5. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Category 5 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nemo.org.bz/cgi-bin/nemonews/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=285
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.em-dat.net/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717103126/http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/mitch/mitch.html to http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/mitch/mitch.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) 05:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Irma's duration
NHC seems to count the 13 Category 5 6-hourly best track points of Irma (so not including nonsynoptic points) as only 72 hours since the first 11 are only counted as a "60-hour" period. This is significant because naively counting it our usual way yields 78 hours, which would tie for the longest with 1932 Cuba.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Rounding
Per WP:BRD I am starting a talk page discussion. First, it's not true that no other storm has non-integer hours; Hurricane Maria's duration is also rounded. Second, we also follow this convention in the eastern Pacific list. Perhaps we should state more clearly that we are rounding to the nearest full hour, but the table looks much cleaner without decimals.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So if it's done elsewhere, then why? Rounding to one hour falsely doubles Michael's duration as a Cat 5, which I consider unacceptable imprecision when the only justification for it is aesthetics (and I'm not convinced it looks worse, anyway – there are decimals and commas all over the place, along with footnotes, stacked references, inequality symbols... it was never a particularly sleek table). –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Julian. We should be as accurate as sources provide, and not round falsely. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur with not rounding the units. There's absolutely no reason to round these figures when we have more exact values. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then how do you propose dealing with other rounding cases that do not have finite decimal expansions, namely Lane's case in the eastern Pacific? Also, this implies false precision for most other storms. I just want consistency here. I think a much better alternative is to use a < symbol before the 1 hour to avoid implying that we know the intensity's timeline to within a few minutes, which we most certainly do not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * An hour is exactly 60 minutes, so any false precision premise should apply to one hour as much as one half hour. Luckily, we seek verifiability, not truth; by our most authoritative sources, Michael was officially a Category 5 from 17:30 to 18:00 UTC. There's no valid reason to deviate from our sources, and to suggest any duration other than the official 0.5 hours would be OR. In that respect, Michael's case is pretty straightforward as far as I'm concerned. This doesn't come up that often, and the handful of related cases can be similarly dealt with on an individual basis. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. Saying half an hour implies a much greater uncertainty than the hourly, and especially the synoptic six-hourly, increments, since it implies knowing within a few minutes versus a few tens of minutes, an order of magnitude different.
 * If we are going to not round, then we should use mixed-number representation (integer part plus fractional part in fraction notation) to avoid problems with things like two thirds of an hour (as with Lane). The false precision problem becomes readily apparent with storms like Maria: its duration of 28.25 hours would imply knowing the storm's intensity timeline to within a few hundredths of an hour, which is obviously false precision. The presentation 28¾ is much cleaner and avoids that implication.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Dean
I think it's become perfectly obvious that this storm will be Category 5 VERY soon, it is currently at 150MPH and in warm waters, in the same area where many very strong storms such as Allen, Gilbert and Wilma have formed. We better get ready to add it! Knowitall 06:10, August 18th