Talk:Pacific hurricane/Archive 1

comments
Not bad for your first hurricane article. But it still can use a lot of work. If you want some ideas on how to make your article even better, you can either talk to Hurricanehink, and/or check out the Atlantic hurricane article. Great job! Keep up the good work! íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 (samtal) 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Name - putting it back to Pacific hurricane
I am reverting the recent name change; the current title could include Pacific typhoons, which we don't really want. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Todo
For such a broad topic, much more is needed. If possible, base it as much as possible towards the article on Atlantic hurricane, but with the EPAC equivalence. By that, I mean include how most storms are formed (most storms come from TW's and ITWC), general tracks (explain why most go to the west and why it is so rare for a storm to hit Central America or California), and extremes (most intense, longest lived, furthest south for a storm formation, furthest north for a storm formation, furthest north a storm maintained tropical characteristics, etc.) A climatology by month thing would be good; the NHC has a table estimating the date for each storm that could be used. Also, be sure to mention how rare off-season storms are (only 3 since official records began, of which 2 were in May). Explain how important of a factor El Nino is. This sort of a topic might be too big for one person to handle. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is on my eventual todo list. YE Pacific  Hurricane  20:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Both sides have made valid arguments, neither is clearly more well reasoned or in line with naming policies and guidelines, and the numbers are also relatively even (though favouring oppose). As such, I'm not seeing that there is a consensus to move the article, and it remains in its current location by default. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Pacific hurricane → Northeast Pacific hurricane – The scope of this article is hurricanes that occur in the Northeast Pacific Ocean; those that occur in the Northwest Pacific and the South Pacific are covered on other articles. The term "Pacific hurricane" refers to hurricanes occurring anywhere in the Pacific Ocean, as is demonstrated by more than a thousand Google Books hits for "Western Pacific hurricane" and more than a thousand others for "South Pacific hurricane". Per our guidelines on precision and disambiguation, this article should be moved to Northeast Pacific hurricane, and Pacific hurricane should become a redirect to Tropical cyclone basins, the parent article for all hurricanes occurring in the Pacific Ocean. Neelix (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree though. From the National Hurricane Center glossary - "The term hurricane is used for Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclones east of the International Dateline to the Greenwich Meridian. The term typhoon is used for Pacific tropical cyclones north of the Equator west of the International Dateline." There is no such thing as a western Pacific hurricane, it's plain false. There is no need for the page move. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The National Hurricane Center is an American institution, not an international institution. To use their terminology to the exclusion of thousands of Google Books hits that use the term "hurricane" more broadly is Americentrism. Neelix (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose South Pacific storms are not called hurricanes, so no, that is not the scope of the article. I HIGHLY oppose the move, i'm sorry. YE Pacific  Hurricane 15:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Same reason as YE here, the only tropical cyclones in the Pacific called hurricanes are those in the Northeast Pacific, and thus Pacific hurricane would only apply to that region. -- TheAustinMan (Talk 16:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thousands of Google Books hits state otherwise. Neelix (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, but are they officially called hurricanes? YE Pacific  Hurricane  19:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neelix, you could probably get thousands of Google hits for something that isn't true. Per WP:COMMONTITLE, this really should stay at "Pacific hurricane". --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refer to our policy on official names, which states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title." If the term exists in the literature, which "South Pacific hurricane" and "Western Pacific hurricane" do, Wikipedia recognize them as valid. I don't understand what you mean by not being "true"; validity is the relevant criterion here, not truth. Commontitle does not apply here because hurricanes that occur in the Northeast Pacific Ocean are a subcategory of hurricanes that occur in the Pacific Ocean. Commontitle is about giving the undisambiguated title to the article about the entity that is most commonly intended by the term, not about giving the undisambiguated title to the article on the most common form of that entity. For example, passerines are by far the most common type of bird and are also what most people mean when they say the word "bird", but we do not call the Passerine article "Bird"; we give that title to the comprehensive entity, not the type of that entity that is most commonly intended. Neelix (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the term hurricane is only used in the eastern part of the ocean. YE Pacific  Hurricane  20:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources state otherwise. Neelix (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Same reason as Yellow Evan, Hurricanehink, and TheAustinMan. This is the only part of the Pacific in which they are called hurricanes. Just because Google Books says something dosen't mean it is true. They are actual books but it is still the internet. And this is most certainly not Americentrism. United States Man (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And to use Neelix's own words against him, the term "Pacific hurricane" refers to hurricanes occurring anywhere in the Pacific Ocean and this is the only region in which hurricanes occur. Other regions have different names, such as Typhoons and Cyclones. United States Man (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hurricanes occur in the other regions as well, and they are called hurricanes whether that is the official term or not; thousands of Google Books hits demonstrate that, and books are not invalidated as sources because they are found through Google Books. I could easily find them at a library as well. Neelix (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not use books to determine article names on wikipedia. I suggest that you come up with a better arguement because right now it's 4 to 1 and your side is losing. Sorry, but that's the way it is. United States Man (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a vote. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, google results can be used for stuff like that. With that said, I agree with you. YE Pacific  :Hurricane  20:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Books are the most primary of sources, as long as there is no known slant to their content. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that I didn't make myself clear. I know that we're not voting, I was just implying that if this comes down to whether or not you support this move (which most of us don't) then Neelix would not be able to get this page moved without a better arguement than a bunch of books. Books, although most of the time trustworthy, share the view of only 1 (sometimes 2 or 3 people) person. Since storms in the other parts of the Pacific are known as ethier Typhoons or Cyclones by official sources, it really makes no sense to change the name of this article. United States Man (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a bunch of books to demonstrate that calling South Pacific tropical cyclones "Pacific hurricanes" is valid, but no one has produced any sources to demonstrate that calling South Pacific tropical cyclones "Pacific hurricanes" is invalid. We make decisions on Wikipedia based on sources, and there are none that oppose my recommendation and plenty that support it. Neelix (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support. I think the scope of this article has to be expanded. American Samoa calls tropical cyclones hurricanes in the Southern Hemisphere, east of the International Dateline, which is recognized by the TC FAQ.  Come to think of it, this change would be needed in the season articles, too.  =O  Thegreatdr (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But does the official Fiji Meteorological Service call them hurricanes or cyclones? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters in this case. Wikipedia could care less.  The term is used regularly in the southeast Pacific, so the southeast Pacific would need to be covered.  If we cared significantly in what WMO centers reported, we would have no super typhoons in the northwest Pacific.  We have GA season articles which use that term.  Thegreatdr (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just looked that up. Fiji calls them tropical cyclones. See here. American Samoa has no say in the matter. United States Man (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we all agree that the primary usage for the term "Pacific hurricane" is for the EPAC? AFAIK SEPAC storms are very rare outside of Nadi's AOR. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we cover storms from 120-180 in the SPAC articles as they are part of Nadi's AOR. YE Pacific  Hurricane  01:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we concur that the term is used in the eastern Pacific. The term is used in both the northern and southern hemispheres though.  We have two options.  You either rename all the Pacific hurricane seasons as Northeast Pacific hurricane seasons, or you include southeast Pacific hurricanes in this article and the season article.  Your choice.  Thegreatdr (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thegreatdr, and would be quite content with either of those options. Neelix (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply renaming this article Northeast Pacific hurricanes would fit in with the first of the two options. Sorry if that was previously unclear.  Thegreatdr (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there are very rarely hurricanes in the southeast Pacific, and nor are they officially titled as such. We can clarify in the top via a dab that the article focuses on Pacific tropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere east of the international dateline. There's no pressing need to move ATM because there there is no article on Pacific cyclones in the southern hemisphere. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hink here, SEPAC don't really exist (I consider storms east of 120 SEPAC). YE Pacific  Hurricane  19:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. The last two comments reflect the slippery slope we're dealing with.  No official weather entity has defined the term hurricane is used only east of 120W.  The term is used east of 160W in the Southern Hemisphere (a bit east of Vanuatu), where they can occur, particularly during El Nino/warm ENSO years.  If any TCWC is calling TCs hurricanes, like the NWS office in American Samoa or the near-NCEP office of Honolulu, Hawai'i (where it is referred to such within their High Seas Forecasts which extend into the Southern Hemisphere), then yes, they would be included in the Pacific hurricane season article.  I believe this argument has been used to include the term super typhoon in Northwest Pacific TC season articles.  We even have a reference from an RSMC to that effect, even if they are not the responsible RSMC for that area.  Otherwise, the Pacific hurricane articles (season and otherwise) need to be renamed or their content changed in suit to their current naming.  Thegreatdr (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But are SPAC storms officially and/or commonly called "hurricanes"? If not, then there's no need to move. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The weather officials in American Samoa or the near-NCEP Honolulu office are not official RMSC; AFAIK they not even a TCWC. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hink, at least Samoa and Honolulu refers to them as such in their advisories and forecasts for the southeast Pacific. After looking it up, neither of them is a TCWC or RSMC for that region, so it's not quite equivalent to JTWC and their super typhoon wording.  And you're right...this would help prevent an article move...there would need to be article expansion to deal with the southeast Pacific.  But if we do that, then we'd need to include these systems in the Pacific hurricane season articles as well to be consistent.  Either way, it appears something needs to change.  There is no easy to enact solution here.  Either content is added to a number of articles, or the name of a number of articles needs to change.  It seems that the easiest change would be to rename nothing...but then content needs to be added to the season articles.  Luckily, this would be mainly restricted to El Nino years.  Thegreatdr (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would SEPAC storms need to be included in EPAc articles if they are not officially called hurricanes? YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  01:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

<--Yea, I don't think the wording by Samoa and Honolulu should dictate how we do this article. I think the easiest thing would be to clarify ASAP in the article (which I just did). The discussion is a tad moot without having an equivalent article for a South Pacific tropical cyclone, since the basin-wide articles cover storms and climatology in that basin, not necessarily what is exactly dictated by the article title. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be the easiest, but the current article title fails the precision standard set forth in Article titles, which implies it is a poor article title. Neelix is right...and none of the conversation on the page since then has disproven his premise.  The recent edits led to contradiction within the lead itself.  Anyone could revert the recent change since no reference was provided for that statement.  Just sayin'...  Thegreatdr (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How does this article fail WP:TITLE? YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  04:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not precise. There's ambiguity.  If there is any disagreement on where in the Pacific hurricanes are called hurricanes, then it needs more wording to add the precision to the title, and remove the ambiguity.  The content of this talk page is proof of that.  Thegreatdr (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there seems to be a general consensus as almost all sources about "Pacific hurricanes" referring to EPAC related stuff, and is thus the primary topic, so there is little ambiguity. For that one percent that is looking for SPAC stuff, a small note on the top should work. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  04:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's what is considered a good compromise, fine. Just keep in mind that note you propose will also need to be added to all of the Pacific hurricane season pages, to be consistent.  Either way, it's an edit frenzy.  Thegreatdr (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, and I am happy to make the changes, after all, I have a lot of spare time. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  05:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If by a small note at the top you mean a hatnote, that is not OK. Please see our guidelines on improper hatnote use. Neelix (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Does not look like an improper case to me. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  02:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are going to go against the Fiji Meteorological Service (which is the forcast center for tropical cyclones in that region and does not call them hurricanes) and take sides with American weather stations (who really have nothing to do with forcasting South Pacific tropical cyclones) then such might be considered Americentrism, no? Now this is what I suggest: Create a new page called either Pacific tropical cyclone or South Pacific tropical cyclone and put info about those storms on that page. It makes absolutely no sense to combine the seasons or even put a note on the Eastern Pacific seasons because this is the only region in which they are truly called hurricanes by their official forcasting center. Same with the name of this article, if Fiji called the South Pacific storms hurricanes then it would make sense to change the name of this article but Fiji calls them tropical cyclones and that is the reason why this name should remain as is. United States Man (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An article on South Pacific tropical cyclone will likely be created soon. I think a dab link on top is needed in case someone from American Samoa is viewing this article. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  17:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the South Pacific tropical cyclone article should be created, but that is somewhat tangential to the topic of this move discussion. The problem is that the term "hurricane" is used to refer to those tropical cyclones that occur in both in the South and in the North Pacific, no matter what the "official" terms are; Wikipedia does not take sides in giving more recognition to whatever might be deemed official. As Thegreatdr has already stated, "Pacific hurricane" cannot be the title for an article about only a subset of hurricanes occurring in the Pacific; either Pacific hurricane should be the title of an article encompassing hurricanes both in the north and the south, or Pacific hurricane should be a redirect to Tropical cyclone basins. Neelix (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that hurricanes are regularly used for tropical cyclones in the South Pacific. Check out some of the local summaries for Cyclone Rene. Samoa calls it "Tropical Cyclone Rene", not "Hurricane Rene". I really, really think that commontitle should apply here, considering the vast majority of storms that are called "Pacific hurricanes" are north of the equator and east of the date line. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We simply disagree about how to interpret the guidelines. As far as I can tell, commontitle says that we need to use the most common title for the comprehensive topic, not use a generally-applicable title for a subtopic. There is a plethora of sources that demonstrate that South Pacific tropical cyclones are called hurricanes with exactly the same meaning as when the term is used in the North Pacific. Neelix (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't mean that the storms should be combined into a single article. United States Man (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing a thing, there are more sources that say Pacific hurricane is used to define storms in the North Pacific than the South Pacific. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  19:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not missing that at all. Perhaps we are not understanding each other. North Pacific hurricanes are a subtype of hurricanes that occur in the Pacific, all of which are referred to as Pacific hurricanes; for this reason, "Pacific hurricane" should either be the title of an article about all hurricanes in the Pacific or else it should be a redirect to Tropical cyclone basins, which is the parent article for all tropical cyclones. It is inevitable that a subtype of Pacific hurricane is going to be more often known by that term (just as is true for almost all broad concepts), but this is besides the point when we are considering the naming of articles. Please refer to my "bird" example above. Neelix (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's take that one step further though. There are tropical cyclones in the Pacific Ocean. North of the equator and west of the international date line, they are known as typhoons when they attain winds of 74 mph, both commonly and officially. East of the international date line and north of the equator, they are known as hurricanes when they reach the same threshold, both commonly and officially. In the Pacific south of the equator, they are officially known as "tropical cyclones", and are rated categorically on the Australian Region Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale (see tropical cyclone scales). What they're commonly known as is the debate, essentially. Across Wikipedia, they are always known as "Cyclone X" (such as Cyclone Daman). In addition, all season articles for that basin are called "South Pacific cyclone season". The most recent retired SPAC storm was Cyclone Ului. A google search of "Cyclone Ului" yields 58,000 Google hits; "Hurricane Ului" gets 315. Picking an older, more famous storm, "Cyclone Zoe" gets 38,800 Google hits, and "Hurricane Zoe" gets 552. (I added "2002" to the results since otherwise articles like these popped up, since "Hurricane Zoe" was a storm exercise not related to the 2002 storm). "Hurricane Waka" gets 688, but "Cyclone Waka" gets 32,400. I think I can argue that "Cyclone X" is the more common term for south Pacific storms, as opposed to "Hurricane X". Therefore, I think it's fine to keep the EPAC article at "Pacific hurricane", and for the hundreds of people who might be looking for the south Pacific storms, we'll add a dab. Per Wikipedia's criteria for article titles, "Pacific hurricane" is recognizable (they're hurricanes in the Pacific), natural (along the lines of other basins), precise (Pacific hurricanes most commonly refer to those in the northeast Pacific), concise (much more so than "Eastern North Pacific tropical cyclone"), and consistent (it's the parent article of "2006 Pacific hurricane season", "List of retired Pacific hurricane names", whatnot). ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For an article about hurricanes in the Northeast Pacific, the title "Pacific hurricane" does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for article titles because it is not precise; the way that you gloss precision is not at all the way that the term is used in the relevant policy on the subject. If by adding a dab you mean adding a hatnote, that is an example of the improper use of hatnotes. Retaining the title "Pacific hurricane" for an article that is only about a subset of Pacific hurricanes is against both our policies and our guidelines, which have been established for good reason. Neelix (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is precise as storms in the EPAC are called Pacific hurricanes. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  21:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neelix, you completely glossed over my comparisons of Google hits for storms in the SPAC getting called "hurricanes" versus "cyclones". It is not commonly done there. However, it is commonly called as such in the eastern Pacific. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My point for some time now has been that the relative commonness of a title in referencing a subtopic is not relevant to a naming discussion when the more general concept is also referred to by that title. The Google hits demonstrate a relative commonness of the term "hurricane" in referencing subtopics, but they simultaneously demonstrate that the term "hurricane" is used to refer to all of these subtopics. The latter observation is the relevant one to this discussion. Neelix (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent reverts
I have reverted some recent changes by Ecstatic Electrical to this article and others. There is some discussion regarding those edits at my talk page, but it's getting too long for just my talk page. Regarding just this article, my points are: For these reasons I still maintain that the article was better without Ecstatic Electrical's changes. Huon (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ecstatic Electrical removed the hatnote referring to cyclones in the southern pacific which are also sometimes called hurricanes. The discussion above can be taken as a sign that this division into hurricanes and cyclones is far from universally well-known and acknowledged; people looking for storms in the southern Pacific may genuinely end up here. Thus the hatnote serves a useful purpose.
 * Ecstatic Electrical modified the hatnote linking to the current season in a way that would require yearly manual updates to not get outdated. It appears that was an accident.
 * Ecstatic Electrical added the hatnote and another hatnote about hurricanes in general; he argued that they're necessary because people might not be aware that hurricanes also happen in the Atlantic. I disagree. People who believe hurricanes are a Pacific-only phenomenon will see no need to disambiguate the term and will directly look for our hurricane article. So I still maintain there's no serious risk of confusion between Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes that needs to be addressed by this hatnote. The page title makes absolutely clear that the page is not about Atlantic hurricanes; no one who reads the title would believe otherwise.
 * This is basically the opposite of my Atlantic hurricane response. Someone who has never been to the Atlantic coast may not even know what a hurricane is, since most hurricanes in the Pacific are classified as typhoons by the media. However, even if they do know what a hurricane is, they may or may not know that hurricanes occur in both oceans because the Pacific uses a totally different name for them. As such, someone might come to the “Pacific Hurricane” article looking for information about a typhoon, or someone might come here looking for information about hurricanes/typhoons in general, or the difference between the two. — Ecstatic Electrical, 01:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a division between Pacific hurricanes and typhoons based on where they occur, in the east Pacific or the west Pacific. That is explained in this article, so someone looking for that information will find it here. Why would someone who doesn't know hurricanes also occur in the Atlantic be looking for "Pacific hurricane" instead of just "hurricane"? Why would someone who is actually looking for, or interested in, hurricanes in the Atlantic end up here? How could someone possibly confuse this article's topic with "Atlantic hurricanes"? Why would anyone not specifically looking for Pacific hurricanes end up here and not at, say, typhoon or hurricane? The only possibility I can think of that would lead to someone arriving at this page who is actually looking for something ese is that they're looking for the cyclones in the southern Pacific that are sometimes also called "hurricanes", and that is the one hatnote you removed. Huon (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Basic question
I have a basic question about which I do not know the answer, but the answer might potentially be relevant to the article. Is it impossible for a hurricane to jump across northern Central America or is it rare? If it is rare, does the hurricane get renamed after it jumps from the Atlantic to the Pacific?75.164.218.104 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic%E2%80%93Pacific_crossover_hurricanes JeopardyTempest (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Name Change (Retry)
Finding this page titled Pacific Hurricane strikes me as odd as well. Indeed in all databases, we typically call it EPac (and CPac). Since there are the other sections of the Pacific, it would seem straightforward to include (N)E to make it quickly clear to uninitiated readers that this article does not cover all the storms in the Pacific (and that storms do regularly form in the other parts not covered).

It's a practical concern as much as anything... as it took me (a degreed meteorologist who's done work in TCs) a minute or two to ascertain what region this article really covered (... I bypassed the disambiguation\about text at the top because I came here from a Wikipedia that had this link under Atlantic (as it often is)... then after arriving and reading the title, I reassessed and then figured it would instead be a basinwide-article that subdivided or sublinked into each region in full).

It seems the majority of both common users and scientists would be more comfortable with it as northeastern Pacific, and it would harm from basically no one's understanding. Indeed, if we titled a page "American soda drinkers", we wouldn't find it complete to then only document the states that call it soda. We'd either title it for the region it covers, or ensure the page fully treats all parts of the country, despite naming differences. The policy on article titles (in a nutshell) says "article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, *precise*, and consistent." Just seems unnecessarily confusing for the sake of making an obscure point to people.

To each their own on the opinion of course, and if the widespread consensus is to keep the name, so be it. But figured it might be useful to gauge the feelings again, see if those working around here these days match the position of five years ago.

Thanks JeopardyTempest (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The tropical cyclones that form in the WPAC and SPAC aren't called hurricanes though. I'm not opposed to added another hatnote, however. YE <sup style="color:#666660;">Pacific <sup style="color:#666660;">Hurricane  15:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The images ( this is about you)
Why are all the Pacific hurricane track maps (w/the exception of the ones in 1949–69) gone? Atlantic hurricane season has all the track maps, all the way from 1851 to 2020. Before Jason Rees removed all the images, there were track maps from 1949 to 2020. Why are there now only 1949-69 track maps? 🐔 Chicdat <font face="Times New Roman">Bawk to me! 11:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I dont particulary see the need for track maps on either article as it just bloat the sections out imo. I also note that Indian Ocean, Australian region or South Pacific doesnt have them or need them.Jason Rees (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's why I see the need for track maps: because they show details of where the storms were, what they did, their intensity, etc. 🐔 Chicdat <font face="Times New Roman">Bawk to me! 13:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I might move this to WT:WPTC,, because I oppose very strongly this removal of images and removal of 1850s ACE just because things back then weren't super reliable. 🐔 Chicdat <font face="Times New Roman">Bawk to me! 13:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am removing all of the ACE from the Accumulated Cyclonic Energy article and merging it with this one since ACE is used around the world and the article is not a dumping ground for the stats which are pretty much unsourced and rely on WP:Calc. As for the track maps, I feel that they are not needed on any of the overall season maps, when the majority of them are based on unofficial data and do not show the majority of the systems. They also make it hard to read the article and this article is again not a dumping ground.Jason Rees (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I really think that you should have developed consensus for the changes before making them. Also I noticed that Atlantic hurricane season lacks totals before 1990, is missing "Season peaked in MM, a rare/very rare occurrence", and the 1850 Atlantic hurricane season's place on the table is missing the number of tropical storms. Yes, I think I will move this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones after all. 🐔 Chicdat <font face="Times New Roman">Bawk to me! 10:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the hostility in this post. 🐔 Chicdat <font face="Times New Roman">Bawk to me! 11:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, okay. I won't WP:SHOUT on the talk page and I won't disagree with your changes, but I'm still not a big fan. 🐔 Chicdat <font face="Times New Roman">Bawk to me! 10:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S. Owen?
 * See WP:Silence and consensus - I had advertised my changes a month ago. AHS lacking totals before 1990 is nothing to do with me but will see what I can do later to add them in. Season peaked in MM, a rare/very rare occurrence - is a pure HURDAT record and very trivial, as it can only be verified by digging through HURDAT which is technically OR.Jason Rees (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry for all that I said in that post. As soon as I wrote it, I started visualizing Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ending with me being blocked. I take back what I said there. Also, can this please be closed? The whole discussion is just pointless. 🐔 Chicdat <font face="Times New Roman">Bawk to me! 11:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Just as a side note, thank you for this edit! 🐔 Chicdat <font face="Times New Roman">Bawk to me! 11:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Pacific hurricane
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 Pacific hurricane'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 "longshore":<ul> <li>From 1974 Atlantic hurricane season: </li> <li>From List of Eastern Pacific tropical storms: </li> <li>From List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes: </li> <li>From List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes: </li> <li>From List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes: </li> </ul>

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 ⚡ 17:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)