Talk:Hurricane Luis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Template:Annual readership

Todo

External links section Jdorje 08:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Better? Hurricanehink 01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Come on! This can't still be a stub. Hurricanehink 02:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Obviously not. I was just busy editing the article! Jdorje 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah, just checking. Good work with the little things, especially references. Hurricanehink 02:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Categories

This article needs some "Hurricanes in XXX" categories for its caribbean strikes. But there are so many caribbean locations, I find it hard to make all these categories work together properly. — jdorje (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

More Deaths

My school nurse lived somewhere in the caribbean durring this storm and she claims she say hundreds of people dead, it is posible they never learned of these deaths?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Silence Knight (talkcontribs)

I doubt it. It's been a long time since a hurricane caused hundreds of deaths in the eastern Caribbean. In addition, FEMA is usually very good with death totals. I doubt they would miss a few hundred people. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
FEMA? What would they have to do with it hink? I suspect that your nurse was talking about was a different storm.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Isn't FEMA the agency who inspects damage on the U.S. Virgin islands? That is where a lot of Luis's damage occurred. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
A lot of Luis's damage was in the Virgin islands? Not according to the article or the TCR... Now you've got me confused Hink--Nilfanion (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Whoops, I thought more islands belonged to the Virgin islands than there actually are. OK, so I would guess the respective countries' governments wouldn't miss 100 people from the death tolls. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Substandard grammar and improper or unsourced writing

Script error: No such module "Unsubst". Somebody edited with dubious claims on Hurricane Luis, one claimimg a 98 foot monster wave happened in connections to Hurricane Luis. Also, whosoever edited this article was using questionable grammar, and some of the edits may be vandalism or dubious edits at the least. Can someone please cleanup Hurricane Luis-the grammar, substandard edits and unsource claim are unneeded and are making this article appear nonreliable. 173.26.80.178 (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can personally attest to the tidal wave. My submarine was coming out of Halifax the night the thing rolled over us. It knocked us 150 feet underwater with our upper sail hatch open. We took on about 10,000 gallons of water. I've never been so seasick in my life. It was a miracle no one died.Daveamee (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)daveameeReply

Re-rate

Can someone re-rate this article. I doubt this article is really a stub, it too long to be a stub and it also has too many references to be a stub. Anyone agree to re-rate the article? --12george1 (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article is still severely short. There is really no way it can be considered a start-class article until more sections are expanded. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

1,000 people drowning

I removed the second part of the sentence:

"The hurricane killed nine people (two in the French side and seven in the Dutch side), and possibly 1,000 people drowned in the lagoon according to some sources."

The statement is vague, there is no source given, and it contradicts the death toll in the article. If there is a source, please feel free to put it back in the article. Kachyna(talk) 00:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Winds

Hello. I was wondering about the original intensity of Hurricane Luis. There's this site called "Stormpulse" that I go to often, and I was going through Luis' track. The intensity they have is 150mph winds and 935 millibars pressure. I just wanted to make sure that y'all knew about this, because I don't like Wiki to be wrong. Thanks, --Ryder 03:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC) talk

Nope, the TCR has 140 mph as the peak. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Excuse the extremely long revival, but he’s actually correct. Luis’s TCR does indeed state it was 150/935, and we were oblivious to the fact for several years. That link is botched and I don’t think that was the correct one. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Template:Ping That used to be the correct TCR link but NHC decided a few years ago to change them all the TCR links to PDF's from HTML. Anyway, I am agreed that 130 kts is the correct intensity, but I am pinging Template:Ping since it seems very odd that he would make such a mistake.Jason Rees (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Err Template:Ping.Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I spoke to Hink offline and he was shocked and couldn't quite believe that he had made above - nice catch Template:Ping.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Template:Ping I just double-checked HURDAT2 and it gives 120 kts as Luis's peak winds, contradicting the 130 kts given by the TCR. Which should we treat as correct? --Dylan620 (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
The best track trumps the TCR, so looks like I was correct all along! Until the best track is updated when reanalysis gets there, I think we should go with 120 knots, unless Template:Ping can shed some light. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
The BT only trumps the TCR at certain times and in this instance, after reading the TCR and several discussions, I don't think it should. This is because the 120 kts was the operational peak while the NHC justifies 130 kts in the TCR.Jason Rees (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Fair point (and I wish I could've included some emojis in my previous comment, was only having fun) - I emailed NHC about the issue, we'll see what they say. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I could e-mail Chris about Luis and see if it's a transcription error of some sort. The TCR should not be at odds to HURDAT2. When this occurs, the TCR is normally correct. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Luis. 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:

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

Template:Sourcecheck

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Luis. 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:

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

Template:Sourcecheck

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Luis. 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:

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

Template:Sourcecheck

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Intensity at landfall

Hi, I noticed that the storm track image and article text appear to be contradictory. The text says that the hurricane made landfall in Newfoundland at category one intensity, just before extratropical transition. However, the track image appears to show Luis making landfall at category 3 intensity as a extratropical cyclone. Can anyone verify which is correct? Thanks, Gex4pls (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Colours of the track

As you can see, the colours don't match the storms info. Seeing as Hurricane Opal has the new colours on its track, why not have Luis's track have the new ones? Thanks in advance! 86.144.36.38 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template:Ping, Template:Ping, Template:Ping, do any of you know by chance? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’ll get around to updating it soon when I can. I do wish though when we made the switch we had a more coordinated effort (Jasper Deng did a good job initially IIRC, but there hasn’t been a coordinated effort to do everything back to 1851. Also, just a side note since you pinged Support, he has said he doesn’t support the new scale and has stuck with the old one for other language wikis. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe I could probably do the track with the new colours and show it? It's ok if you say no. 2A00:23C6:4B67:501:75DF:450E:48A8:A53C (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed merge of Meteorological history of Hurricane Luis into Hurricane Luis

Template:Atop

I don't believe that there should be a met history article about a storm that doesn't meet the recommended size of splitting. The main article, Hurricane Luis, is only 3 615 words. While it did generate the largest recorded wave in the Atlantic (which is pretty much the only significant record that was not surpassed), it does not justify having a separate, short article from another short article, neither of which come close to, let alone exceed, the recommended size for splitting. After doing some calculations, if the information worth keeping in this met history article was properly merged into the parent article, the new size of the main article would be around 4 182 words. The met history article is a GA while the main article isn't, so the main article would improve in quality and comprehensiveness. ZZZ'S 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose at the time - this article is pretty bare bones at the moment, and almost every impact section can be expanded. I worry that merging in the MH now would make the article seem a lot more complete than it is. Since the MH is already a GA, it's already stable where it is, and I don't think the main article would be improved much by merging the MH in, not when so much impact is missing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I'll withdraw this proposal until the main article is expanded. ZZZ'S 21:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template:Abot