Talk:List of retired Atlantic hurricane names/Archive 1

Template
There should be a Retired Atlantic hurricanes, similar to Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Jdorje 20:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The list would be too long though - as of 2005, it will have at least 70 names! CrazyC83 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. In theory, it is a good idea, but there's way too many. Maybe have them by deades, like there could be a Retired Atlantic hurricanes of the 1990's, which would include only Diana, Klaus, Bob, Andrew, Luis, Marilyn, Opal, Roxanne, Cesar, Fran, Hortense, Georges, Mitch, Floyd, and Lenny... 15 names. The Cat. 5 hurricanes has 28, and that is huge on its own. 2000's would have 13 (Keith, Allison, Iris, Michelle, Isidore, Lili, Fabian, Isabel, Juan, Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, and 2005's), 1980's would have 8 (Allen, Alicia, Elena, Gloria, Gilbert, Joan, and Hugo), 1970's would have 8 (Celia, Agnes, Fifi, Carmen, Eloise, Anita, David, and Frederic), 1960's would have 11 (Donna, Carla, Hattie, Flora, Cleo, Dora, Hilda, Betsy, Inez, Beulah, and Camille), and 1950's would have 9 (Carol, Edna, Hazel, Connie, Diane, Ione, Janet, Audrey, and Gracie). Those numbers are a little more managable than around 70... Hurricanehink 21:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Once you add the 2005 names (Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan and Wilma), the 2000s list will likely have 19 names - and there are still four hurricane seasons to get through! I'm sure there will be at least 30 names retired in the decade at this rate... CrazyC83 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Emily hasn't been retired though, since it's due to be used again in a few years. Guy1890 (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Todo
The list is complete, but the text is nothing to write home about. Jdorje 20:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Links
Every AHS season should have, in its retirement section under the XXXX storm names section:. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See 2004 AHS as an example. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Colors
What is the reasoning for using landfall strength for the storm colors in the table? In my opinion it would be more appropriate to include the maximum storm strength here. Maximum storm strength is often more indicative of damage than landfall strength, since a weakening storm will in many cases do just as much damage as a full-strength one. Additionally, it avoids problems with questions of landfall - a storm may do damage without making landfall and often does damage while at a higher intensity than its landfall intensity. Hurricane Mitch is the best example of this, but someday there will probably be a storm retired that didn't make landfall at all. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If the color thing stays the same, (with the whole landfall thing) and one didn't make landfall but caused enough significant damage to be retired, the background color would be the strength at it's closest approach to land. Hurricanes Iwa and Fabian are perfect examples. neither made landfall, both were retired. Cyclone1 02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Colors for retired hurricanes
Rather than doing the color representing the strongest landfall, I changed it so the colors represented the storm at the strongest point. The previous system was a little weird, like having Mitch as a Cat. 1. To specify which ones made a Cat. 5 landfall, I put (Cat. 5) for the landfall locations. If this is not OK, you can change it, though I think it should be talked about first. Hurricanehink 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight...
Edna's Color is based on landfall. Dora's Color is based on Peak. So, whats the deal? Is t landfall or Peak? —Cyclone1 02:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait no itrs not!!! NEVER MIND!!! NEVER MIND!! I was wrong. I like this whole peak thing Better. Cyclone1 02:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

2005 Names
What storm names do you think will be retired? Evan Robidoux 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been discussed at many other places here. Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma will certainly be retired. Emily and Stan will likely also be retired. I wouldn't expect any other names dropped though. CrazyC83 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What about Ophelia? $1.6 billion storm. Maybe... Cyclone1 15:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, in post-analysis, Ophelia was found to have caused only $70 million. Hurricanehink 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's correct. That number makes retirement highly unlikely based on its intensity and low death toll. I'd say Ophelia will be back in 2011. CrazyC83 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ophelia will NOT be retired; the US is not requesting it and no one else would have a case to be made. Dennis is also being left to Cuba. No word on what the other countries' requests will be. Here is the site CrazyC83 04:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: Don, Katia, Rina, Sean, and Whitney. What a lack of imagination in the new names! However, looking to 2006, with "Kirk," I'm just hoping we don't all boldly go there. Mkieper 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Emily hasn't been retired, since it's due to be used again in a few years. Guy1890 (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Klaus?
Hey, whats up with Klaus? I have several questions about this. Hurricanes that have done FAR worse damage (Edith - 1971) and killed FAR, FAR more people (Gordon - 1994) weren't retired, but Klaus was. Klaus killed eleven WITH HELP FROM MARCO!!! shouldn't they both be retired? or better yet neither? Whats with this call? Cyclone1 02:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See the Klaus article. Storm names are retired by the request of the individual nations, and Martinique requested Klaus's retirement. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ill do that. Thanks. 152.163.100.74 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's correct, and the WMO approved it. Gordon was overlooked by Haiti (had they made a case, it surely would have been accepted and retired), and Edith was in an era when retirement was less strict. Even so, the name Edith shouldn't have been retired despite it's strength, because although it caused 25.4 million dollars in damage, only 380,000 dollars of this (1971 USD) were attributed to it's category 5 landfall, which is very low; virtually all of it's damage was attributed to it's U.S. landfall, and it only killed 37 people, which isn't so much. CrazyC83 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Retirement of Anita
The name Anita was retired after 1977, but is there a reason why that name was retired? It only killed 10 people, a very low number considering it's intensity, and damage is unknown, but was not extreme, due to the scarce population of the struck area. Was it retired for unknown reasons? The Mexican government did not request retirement of the name, or at least it doesn't say this in the main article, so why was the name Anita retired after 1977? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Retirement of "Hilda"
In this article and in a few others it is stated that the name Hilda was placed on the list of names for 1973. According to one source, a book by Ruth Brindze, the name of the H storm for the 1973 Atlantic hurricane season was Helen. --65.24.223.243 08:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Retirement of Gracie
An anon just removed Hurricane Gracie (1959) from the list. I was about to revert it as vandalism, but I decided to take a look at Gracie's article - which says that it was retired. So again I was about to revert it as vandalism, but I decided to take a closer look at the external link http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/retirednames.shtml - and here it is not listed. The 1959 Atlantic hurricane season also lists it as retired. So what's the deal? — jdorje (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting. Well, this site, another Government site by some NHC officials, does in include Gracie. I'll e-mail the NHC, and perhaps it was a typo? Hurricanehink 00:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this WMO Newsletter Gracie is retired. PenguinCDF 06:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems most likely the first link is a typo and Gracie was indeed retired. However the fact that the WMO page includes links to wikipedia makes me suspicious that they got their list from here as well.  I'd still like some explanation from the NHC. — jdorje (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There were no retirements technically until 1969. My guess is, you'll have to find a reference that states its retirement around the year 1969.  Thegreatdr (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm back 3 years later. I found this WMO document and on pages 87-88 it shows Gracie as not being retired.  Edna's also not listed as retired, and Greta IS retired. PenguinCDF (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Page naming
Shouldn't this be List of retired Atlantic hurricane names? The names are being retired, not the hurricanes themselves. æle ✆ 03:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But the article is a list of storms, not a list of names. It doesn't list "Carol", it lists "Carol (1954)" with a summar of its effects. — jdorje (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The storms are what caused the names to be retired, and they should of course be listed. However, the World Meteorological Organization would have a hard time retiring actual hurricanes :), so the title is misleading. æle ✆ 11:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my first thought after happening upon this page. If a hurricane can be said to retire, then all hurricanes retire eventually, at least on Earth so far.  I'd add names to the title.--J Clear 13:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Never be used to name a hurricane again"
Many articles on Atlantic hurricanes say something like "Never be used to name a hurricane again". Now, from here: "Retiring a name actually means that it cannot be reused for at least 10 years, to facilitate historic references, legal actions, insurance claim activities, etc. and avoid public confusion with another storm of the same name." (my emphasis). This isn't official, but consider: The "unretirements" of Hilda, Dora, and Celia are all ten years after their Atlantic retirement. Who knows? Maybe it's true. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I added that text when I added the "seealso" links. Mostly I added it so that the retirement section would be a full paragraph long, and note it should always say "never be used in an Atlantic hurricane" again.  However if it's untrue, then of course we should fix the text.  However we should first fix this article and explain excatly what retirement entails (right now it just says its "removed from the rotation of naming lists"). — jdorje (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC) It makes sense to say this because the retired Atlantic name could be in use for the Pacific basin; for example, the name Hilda was retired after 1964, but was put on the first, not second, Pacific hurricane name list, and remains in use today.

After looking through the references I've been adding to the List of historic tropical cyclone names article, it appears in the early days of naming the procedure was to wait 10 years after a significant storm before reusing the name. This led to Carol showing back up on the list. However, a 1969 article seems to indicate this 10 year waiting period became indefinite within the basin the storm occurred, which is still the NHC/WMO practice today, despite what is said officially. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Jose, Charley, Hilda and maybe Allison?
Why isn't Allison one of those storms retired after a previous storm caused significant damage as well? '89's Allison poured freakishly torrential floods across the South East, where as the 2001 Allison caused heavy damage in Houston. Should Allison be there? Cyclone1 02:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean Juan, not Jose. Agreed, Allison should be there, though that should have been retired in the first place. Other storms I think should have been retired include:
 * Hurricane Bonnie (1998)- $834 million in damage
 * Hurricane Erin (1995)- $700 million in damage
 * Tropical Storm Alberto (1994)- $700 million in damage and 30 deaths
 * Hurricane Gordon (1994)- 1,145 deaths
 * Tropical Storm Bret (1993)- 184 deaths
 * Hurricane Gert (1993)- $218 million in damage, 76 deaths
 * Hurricane Juan (1985)- $2.71 billion in damage, 12 deaths
 * Hurricane Kate (1985)- $533 million in damage, 15 deaths
 * Tropical Storm Beryl (1982)- 115 deaths
 * Tropical Storm Claudette (1979)- $1.1 billion in damage
 * Tropical Storm Amelia (1978)- 33 deaths in Texas
 * Tropical Storm Doria (1971)- $700 million in damage
 * Hurricane Edith- $120 million in damage, 30 deaths, Cat. 5 landfall
 * Hurricane Francelia- 100 deaths
 * Hurricane Alma (1966)- 90 deaths, $1.23 billion in damage
 * Hurricane Hilda (1955)- 300 deaths, $824 million in damage


 * Hurricanehink 03:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know why we have that section. It lists three hurricane pairs of which the first is "just as significant", but significance is POV so this isn't encyclopedic. However, I don't think anyone would claim the first Allison was as significant as the retired Allison. — jdorje (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That section could be replaced with a section entitled, "Damaging but not retired", and could list those I named above. Hurricanehink 03:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But why would such a list belong in this article? It should be over in List of notable Atlantic hurricanes. — jdorje (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I like that idea! Will do. Hurricanehink 15:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah i meant Juan. Lol. Wasn't Jose in 99 fairly damaging too? Cyclone1 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree fully, Hink and Jordje. That should be a section in the Atlantic Hurricanes Article. Cyclone1 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually was going to do this, but because many of those are on the costliest Atlantic hurricanes, I denoted those that weren't retired with a *. Hurricanehink 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. —Cyclone1 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, wait what the?
Whats happening to the page!? Whats with the way theyre organized now?? I disagree with listing them by weakness to strength!!! Are you (whoever you are) gonna put in a new list similar to the old one?! Cyclone1 01:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, oh oh ! the whole page is being revamped. Ok. I see its still underconstruction. Please disregard this comment. Cyclone1 01:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do tend to agree the "by strength" list should go from strongest to weakest; you may feel free to reverse it I imagine. — jdorje (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to put them in the reverse order; I like it better this way but wouldn;t fight a reversal. — Cuivi é  nen , Tuesday, 28 March 2006 @ 02:27 (UTC)


 * Maybe only one of us should work on the page at a time. I'll leave you to it, as I have other work to do as well. — Cuivi é  nen , Tuesday, 28 March 2006 @ 02:46 (UTC)


 * I'm done for now. Good idea, though, for the future. Hurricanehink 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Only one person should work on each section at a time; use inuse if you're afraid of conflicts (it can be used on a specific section, though global edits will still cause conflicts; underconstruction may help there). I picked the deaths section just because it was the last one and least likely to be edited by others I figured. — jdorje (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you gonna put the prices in order. The total cost list is still weakest to strongest. If no one can do that now ill do it. Maybe. Cyclone1 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Damage totals
Good news, I found Anita's total, which before the re-write would be the last storm damage total. However, I didn't add Juan or Connie because I couldn't find a source on that. Anyone who can can add it, provided they list the source. Hurricanehink 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists, sorting, and data
The purpose of a separate list is to be able to control the sorting. But each list should include as many fields as are relevant, without becoming too wide or overloading the content for the user. — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

By wind speed
This one's pretty straightforward. I guess there's some indecision about the order of sorting. My only problem, though, is that the windspeed is a poor indicator and the list should be done by intensity and therefore by minimum pressure; the problem with this is that many storms have incomplete pressure readings. — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

By damages
This should be sorted by damage in current-day dollars, but it should include damage in storm-day ("at the time") dollars as well. I guess it should also include a primary location of damage field too. — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't need a source for every damage given in this article. The sources should all be given in the storm articles.  However, we should use this list as an opportunity to improve the damage entries for each of the storm articles.  There is...a lot of work to be done here. — jdorje (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know not every source is needed, but I figured it couldn't hurt, especially if the hurricane articles don't have a source for the total. I found Juan's correct total (200 million), though I can't seem to find Connie. That's pretty ironic, too, considering in the old list, the last few to get done were Diana, Anita, Cesar, and Michelle. You'd think that Connie, a US cane, would have a total. Too bad Diane struck just days later. Hurricanehink 04:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And also, why are the references in their own separate sortable column? I think it would be better if they were in the "at the time" column, or, as jdorje suggests above, remove all of these citations entirely. GunnerJr (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This list is closely related to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones. — jdorje (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * After some consideration I changed all present-day numbers to be inflated using the CPI. This means, for instance, that Andrew's info in the table is different from what the Andrew article says!  The same is true of all U.S. hurricanes.  However using a consistent method of conversion is the only way we can realistically make an ordered table...and (as discussed in the link above) using the GDP deflator for non-US storms makes no sense anyway. — jdorje (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The dollar figure sorting doesn't work. $9 million and $8 billion are sorted wrong. Is there a wikipedia sorting method that doesn't look at the FORMATTED value but just the underlying figure? Paulc206 (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently not, that's what I just looked up. The template Formatprice adds in the "million" or "billion" automatically. Suggest using the template Formatnum instead, with the column heading saying: "in Millions of USD". Then numbers that are in the billions can be written as thousands, for example 9 billion = 9,000 million. GunnerJr (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

By deaths
This should obviously be sorted by deaths. It has a field for primary location of deaths; note this is often not the same as the primary location of damages (Hurricane Opal and Hurricane Jeanne are easy examples). — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This should be sorted by direct deaths. We could also add a field for indirect deaths, however.  For older storms only direct deaths are available, so the indirect field is just a "bonus" piece of information. — jdorje (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thiking of adding "indirect deaths" and "primary cause" fields. Indirect deaths is pretty obvious; the only problem is it will be very hard to find for some older storms (but may be quite revealing for some storms like Rita).  Primary cause gives the primary cause of the deaths - generally "storm surge" or "inland flooding" or "wind-related", but occasionally can be a lot more precise like "tornado" or "boat sinking". — jdorje (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

By landfall
I'm not sure how this one should be sorted. I'm also not sure why it's in a separate top-level section while the others are in their own section (except that's how List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes did it). — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I set it up that way because it isn't a list per se. I intended to use the same format as the Category 5 Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes pages. — Cuivi é  nen , Tuesday, 28 March 2006 @ 15:41 (UTC)

Posibble new lists?
The problem with adding new lists is that each of them is really long. But there are lots of things it might be somewhat interesting to sort by. Date in season would be somewhat interesting, the problem is do you use the formation date or landfall date or dissipation date? Chronological order should surely have its own list; it can be pretty short I imagine (see Retired Atlantic hurricanes). — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Landfall date sounds interesting. That problem would come if the storm had more than one important landfall, but we could discuss that. The only ones that have that problem is Klaus (Martinique landfall would be needed due to lack of exact S.C. landfall), Agnes (Florida works), Jeanne (Haiti deaths or Florida damage?), Isidore (Cuba, Yucatan, or Louisiana?), Inez (Cuba, Florida, or Mexico?), Janet (which landfall), or Gilbert (which landfall?). Based on that, I say use the formation date. Hurricanehink 03:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather than making a table listing storms by date, I think it would be better to make a climatology or statistics section listing the number of storms by month, strength, alphabet (maybe), etc. — jdorje (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I like that idea, but I ,too, dont know how to list it. I kinda like the formation deal. Cyclone1 15:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Should it look somethin like this?
All storms are listed by formation date. The formation of the storm is when it was first noticed.

Hattie was missing. It might be missing in the others, too. Cyclone1 18:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem is this adds a page and a half to the article, and what actual useful information does it give? I don't think it's worth it. BTW hattie is present in the other tables; however, someone should count all the storms and make sure there is the right number. I'm fairly sure every storm in the deadliest list is retired (pending gracie), and there are no duplicate entries. — jdorje (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, All of them are pretty long, cool concept i think though. I think we need Deaths, Price, and Chronological order.—Cyclone1 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The landfalls section goes in chronological order. — jdorje (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the landfalls layout! Cyclone1 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

By alphabetical order
I think there should be a alphabetical and season year list on this artical. &mdash; Hurricane Devon  (  Talk  ) 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

2005 retirees
New entries for potential 2005 retired storms (presumably we'll know these within a week). — jdorje (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised if Stan is retired. Hurricane Diana and Hurricane Cesar were not too different from Stan without the extra system, and I would bet that Guatemala requests retirement (they may not agree with the NHC regarding the cause of the 1,500+ deaths). Also, I did the landfalls by nation with the exception of US states and islands such as Antigua (vs Antigua and Barbuda). I know that may be somewhat POV, but US states are universally recognizable while Mexican states are not - and, if we include Mexican states, we should also include Cuban provinces. — Cuivi é  nen , Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 01:06 (UTC)
 * I expect stan will be retired...I just wasn't as familiar with its numbers so I didn't bother filling it out yet. — jdorje (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of using Mexican states...I don't think that mandates using Cuban provinces, as each mexican state is approximately the size of Cuba. But I don't care that much. — jdorje (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added Stan and reordered the lists to the order used in the article. — Cuivi é  nen , Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 17:37 (UTC)
 * Stan and Rita were the reason I wanted to add an "indirect deaths" column to the deaths table (I wanted to add a "primary reason" column too). However, I gave up because too many storms have no available information on either of these fields. — jdorje (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Did anyone see this news article? Seems Emily isn't being considered for retirement... "The WMO is looking at retiring the names of Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan and Wilma because of the damage and deaths associated with those storms in 2005." - JVG 17:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They said "possibly more". The only way I can see Emily staying put is if it was completely overlooked (which is possible) by all the nations affected. I can't see the WMO rejecting it. CrazyC83 21:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Emily isn't being retired, since it's due to used again in a few years. I'm not sure where all this speculation about what names will or won't be retired is coming from, since it takes a lot for a name to be retired from the tropical cyclone lists. Guy1890 (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All off the so called speculation was from seven years ago, when the 2005 season had ended and the WMO hadnt met yet.Jason Rees (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Here it is, the new names for 2011: Don, Katia, Rina, Sean, and Whitney. What a lack of imagination in the new names! However, looking to 2006, with "Kirk," I'm just hoping we don't all boldly go there. Mkieper 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wind Speed vs Intensity
The listing by strength has just been reordered from by peak winds to by minimum pressure. I believe that this should be changed back, primarily because minimum pressure has nothing to do with damages while winds do, and damages are directly linked to retirement. — Cuivi é  nen , Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 19:12 (UTC)


 * I disagree wholeheartedly. Pressure is the sole measure of hurricane intensity; the NHC does not have a list of highest-wind hurricanes to strike the U.S., they only have a list of the lowest-pressure ones.  As storms like Katrina and Floyd showed, pressure can be a better measure of destructive potential than wind speed because most damages and deaths are not caused by straight-line winds - if two storms (say Katrina and Camille) have about the same pressure, the larger and slower (winds) one is roughly as destructive as the smaller and faster one.  Further, the list shows only peak intensity not landfall intensity; since most storms reached their peak while away from land their wind speeds at that point don't matter - but their peak intensity does matter since it affects the size and duration of a storm as it weakens (again, Katrina and Floyd are good examples).  Finally, wind measurements are pure estimates that - especially for older storms - can be inaccurate, while pressure measurements (with the odd exception of Rita) are all measured directly and are considered accurate. — jdorje (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pressure should be used to maintain the order, with ties broken by wind speed, then actual impact. CrazyC83 22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect the current tiebreaker is wind speed. There are not very many ties however.  I also think the list should be reordered so the most notable storms are at the top (as the other 2 lists have). — jdorje (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The caption for the Hurricane Gilbert image says "Hurricane Gilbert was the second-most intense Atlantic hurricane." I can't figure out what that means, as it clearly was NOT the most intense by pressure (and the article says "the intensity of tropical cyclones is measured solely by central pressure"). It also wasn't near the worst with respect to wind speed. Perhaps the caption really means it was the second-most intense Atlantic hurricane THAT YEAR?--192.68.228.4 22:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gilbert was the second most intense Atlantic hurricane with a recorded pressure (the most intense hurricane was Wilma). Those two storms had a minimum pressure of 882 and 888 mbar respectively, and the more intense a storm the lower its central pressure.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does the article make explicitly clear that the lower pressures are more powerful, although with some careful thought a reader should come to that conclusion. This is exacerbated by the ordering of the table from weakest retired to strongest, which is counterintuitive (this isn't a top-ten countdown; people are generally more interested in the stronger storms). I suggest opening the section like "This lists all retired hurricanes by their peak intensity, which is determined by measurements of the minimum central pressure (the lower the pressure, the more intense the storm)." Also, the table should be sorted from most- to least-intense storms.--71.125.122.86 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Images
I've added four images to the article: Gilbert at its peak (intensity), damage from Andrew (damages), flooding from Jeanne (deaths) and an animation of Charley making landfall (landfall). Look good? — Cuivi é  nen , Tuesday, 4 April 2006 @ 02:42 (UTC)


 * Very.—Cyclone1 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hattie
The article had a Mexico landfall listed for Hattie. EBrown pointed out that that landfall was as a ts as Simone. However, a landfall by Simone doesn't belong here so I removed it. (Actually this may not be a factuality issue but more a question of the scope of the article. Note that Cesar-Douglas does not include Douglas in the intensity section.) — jdorje (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Katrina
The article lists 1604 deaths for Katrina. However this is wrong since those include both direct and indirect. The table is for direct deaths only. — jdorje (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is NO source that is breaking that number down - it is almost impossible at this point. Best to stick with the 1,604 and treat it as a direct count, even if it obviously isn't. CrazyC83 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek letter procedure
Max Mayfield said it right: if a Greek letter is retired, that letter is simply skipped over in future seasons. Had that subtropical storm been noticed initially, Wilma would have been Alpha (imagine that, the strongest storm ever being named after a Greek letter!) and that would have been an issue. The article says: Also, the hurricane center would have had to retire Alpha, meaning that if there are more than 21 named storms this season, the first letter to be used after the main list of 21 names is exhausted would be Beta. CrazyC83 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WHAT THE..!!
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LANDFALLS!? It looks weird now! Cyclone1 20:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverted it back to how it was. Hurricanehink 20:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Oh, and if anyone hasnt noticed, I tend to overreact. LOL—Cyclone1 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for deaths/damages locations
The deaths and damages table give locations where the deaths and damages occurred, but we don't seem to have consistent criteria for these. Take for instance Jeanne: 93% of its fatalities occurred in Gonaives and 99% in Haiti, but the deaths have been changed to "Haiti, Florida" which is incredibly misleading (more people died in PR and DR than in Florida but these are not mentioned). Similarly, Hilda caused over half of its fatalities in the city of Larose, but mention of this was removed. Perhaps giving a city name is too specific, but in the case of Jeanne and Gonaives I do not think so. In my opinion we should say that a location can be mentioned if at least 1/3 of the deaths (or damages for that table) occurred there. For instance with mitch, about 63% of the deaths were in Honduras, 34% were in Nicaragua, and the remaining 2-3% were mostly in Central America; thus the table entry says "Honduras, Nicaragua, Central America" (though removing Central America would probably be fine here). — jdorje (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. After all, it says primary location. Hurricanehink 11:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Article name change?
Considering Allison was never a hurricane shouldn't the article be renamed from "List of retired Atlantic hurricanes" to "List of retired Atlantic Tropical Systems"? I know it would be anoying but Wikipedia wants accuracy! :) ~Silence_Knight


 * If anything, it should be List of retired Atlantic hurricane names. Allison is a rare anomaly that doesn't need to affect all of the other storms, though the "names" qualifier should be on the end. The hurricanes weren't retired, their names were. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Going along with your point I feel it should be "List of retired Atlantic Tropical System Names", sure Allison was a rare amomaly, but it still happend. Silence_Knight


 * True, but everything else on Wikipedia is against the title. We have the List of notable Atlantic hurricanes, List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes, and Atlantic hurricane. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that the EPAC is now List of retired Pacific hurricane names, I agree this should do the same. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Fabian?
This article says Fabian never made landfall, the the Hurricane Fabian article says it made landfall in Bermuda. Which is right?  Jamie | C 09:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fabian directly hit Bermuda but did not make landfall. The centre of the storm missed the island; but its eyewall hit.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Some people on the west end of the island experienced the eye, but I don't have an offical reference. If someone wants to dig around I'm sure they'll find something.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

unopposed move. Patstuarttalk 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Move
As I put on the talk page and at WP:RM, if we moved List of retired Pacific hurricanes, we need to move this one as well. However, I don't want to do it then to be reverted because it was done without consensus, as this page is linked from a ton of places. So, I'm bringing this up for discussion. Do we move it to List of retired Atlantic hurricane names, or do we move the Pacific page back? Tito xd (?!?) 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. The "hurricane names" titles are more specific and accurate.  —taestell 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Taestell. -Patstuarttalk 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Unless the elderly hurricanes are all sitting round the home for retired hurricanes, it is the names that have been retired. -- Beardo 02:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intensity listing
The intensity list should be flipped; having the most intense at the top, and the least intense at the bottom of the list. &mdash;ScouterSig 03:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Stan?
In the death toll section of this article, it says Hurricane Stan caused over 2,000 direct deaths. That is incorrect; Stan caused ~2,000 deaths when it combined with a non-tropical low pressure system over Guatemala. Only 80 of these are "directly" Stan's. Should this be changed? Rye998 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't technically say that a specific number is related to Stan and the rest are attributable to the non-tropical low. If there was a bunch of flooding from rain from both storms, how can you say one storm is at fault and the other isn't? I personally believe you have to go by the official report of their respective country, whether science states otherwise because that's the requirement of sourcing data in Wikipedia. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sortable table
In the "Listed by total damages," is it better to remove the sortability for the cost of damages? The table doesn't sort the numbers correctly.--72.19.95.124 (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the table needs to be renamed because the hurricanes are NOT listed by total damages, they are listed by the year they occurred (in chronological order). Yes, their damages cost is listed but they are not sorted in this way. The paragraph above the table needs to be rewritten so as it states that the damages cost for each hurricane is listed and it is listed BY year occurred. Anyone who doesn't understand this - I can explain it again differently. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a rewrite of this article currently being performed.Jason Rees (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Igor+Tomas
Now Igor and Tomas need to be on the retirement list. They were retired.72.184.184.55 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to list of retired TROPICAL CYCLONE names
Allison wasn't even Category 1 at peak so do we move this to list of retired TROPICAL CYCLONE names to avoid people moving tropical storm Allison to hurricane Allison?(would be quite a case of vandalism) 76.124.224.179 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only one storm, though. In general, they're known as "Atlantic hurricanes". You know, the "Atlantic hurricane season", "National Hurricane Center", whatnot. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sandy is not retired
Sandy is not officially retired and won't until next spring.

It is highly likely that it WILL be retired, but hurricane season is not over and one can come along which also gets retired making that one the "latest" retired name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.45.158 (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That is correct, people need to stop adding Sandy. It is almost certain the name Sandy will be retired, but the WMO needs to do the required process at their meeting next spring. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)