Talk:1991 Perfect Storm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Minnesota Storm

The Minnesota record blizzard, I believe, was a completely SEPARATE storm that just occured at the same time as the no'reaster did. # The sattelite image confirms this.

Todo

Too-long intro, bad article organization. Jdorje 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This should be fixed, finally. Thegreatdr 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

De-linking names

I've de-linked the names of Walter Drag, Senior Forecaster at the Boston National Weather Service and NWS Boston Deputy Meteorologist Robert Case, as I think it's unlikely that Wikipedia is ever going to create separate articles on them. If I turn out to be wrong, we can always re-link later. -- 201.78.193.119 11:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Move request

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move. Jafeluv (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

---

1991 Halloween Nor'easter → 1991 Perfect Storm — Far more well-known by the proposed name. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support: Rename as per suggestion. It would seem that "Perfect Storm" is the more common name for this storm. It is even the title of a book about the storm: The Perfect Storm. The current name is a localised New England term for the storm. Woollymammoth (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• [TYPE HERE]

cool. --24.108.140.237 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Request declined. No specific fix requested. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I feel that the existence of the 1991 Unnamed Hurricane article is redundant. Three quarters of the meteorological history discusses the system before it became a tropical system, there were no actual effects from this hurricane. Having two articles simply reduces the effectiveness. Most articles link to the perfect storm article and most of the link to the hurricane article are simply template links. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%, and I was against the existence of the other article from the beginning. The fact of the matter is that they were the same cyclone. Both articles use the storm path! --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree on this one too. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)