Talk:Hurricane Beta

Hurricane Beta has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 16, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
January 27, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 2, 2009	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved
July 24, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

Central America

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America articles

Duplication

One of the last paragraphs about Beta states "Earlier that month, the Category 1 Hurricane Stan devastated Central America, causing floods and mudslides that killed thousands of people in Guatemala, El Salvador, and the Mexican state of Chiapas." my goodness, I had never heard of hurricane Stan until now, although it killed thousands, I guess because it did not impact on the USA then it never made headline news. Shame on the USA --MarkA 20:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're sorry we invented global warming :( --Golbez 21:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

separate article

Great, so we're copying info from the main hurricane page and putting it into its own article AGAIN. Do people not learn? Oy. Mike H (Talking is hot) 04:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a typical starter when it comes to the initial building of a new article - it has always been that way. It quickly changes though. CrazyC83 04:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agreed with CrazyC83. Which is better, starting out of nothing with a basic intro, or having everything ready to expand upon? saves alot of trouble, I would say. --Revolución (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. If this storm doesn't do anything (...please God!), I'm putting this article up for deletion. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete an article which will be created later? --Revolución (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second E. Brown; if this storm does nothing, it should be merged back into the main article. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category 2 storms don't just do "nothing" --Revolución (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it won't do anything, but I doubt it. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No deaths or damage have been reported. Perhaps we should be more optimistic. 200.124.33.78 21:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's damage. No deaths have been reported (fortunately), but several injuries on the island of Providencia have. [1] But the threat of mudslides still remains. --Revolución (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not much damage. Some flooding. A small village got washed away, but there was nobody in it. I'm not saying that doesn't suck, I'm just saying that that's not unusual with storms hitting places like that. Plenty of storms have done stuff like that and not gotten their own article. Destroying thatch huts is sad, but not all that notable. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

check the "Impact" section again. --Revolución (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The damage does not seem exeptional considering the area which Beta hit. 200.124.33.78 22:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First with Greek Letter?

What about Alpha?

Alpha didn't strengthen into a hurricane, nor a major hurricane, thus it was merely the first tropical storm named using the Greek alphabet. --shuttle debris 19:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Tropical Storm Alpha (2005)

landfall

an earlier version said it made landfall in "La Barra". The intro says it made landfall on the Mosquito Coast in the north of the Nicaraguan Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur. And one of the news articles I read said it made landfall at Karawala, 100 kilometers south of Puerto Cabezas. --Revolución (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

Shouldn't this article be named Hurricane Beta (2005), as the name has not yet been retired, and I don't suspect that it will be retired. 132.205.46.167 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike with Alpha, there has never been a Beta before, which makes the modifier unnecessary, and as for retirement, information is slow to come from Central America. It basically depends on how high the death toll goes (hopefully stays low). Besides, the storm is not over yet, and it was the effects in the mountains from the remnants, not the coastal landfall, that was expected to do the most damage - and that is just starting. Remember with Stan we didn't even start the article until numbers started to come in...(although the strength of Beta gave us extra ammunition to start earlier) CrazyC83 02:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Local emegency officials

One thing you have to do here: give them extensive awards for preparations. I guess even the Nicaragua and Honduras emergency officials learned a lot from Katrina...despite the extensive damage there (although we'll likely never get an exact dollar amount; if that was in an American region, it would likely be in the billions of dollars), NO ONE lost their lives.

My view on retirement: had it been a normally-named storm, it would be retired, but I think the WMO will be very hesitant to retire a Greek letter. CrazyC83 17:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Especially with little or no fatalities. --Holderca1 19:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although the damage warrants retirement for a normally-named storm. Even if there were some fatalities, unless the death toll climbed into the hundreds or thousands (which it very well could have if they didn't do the amazing preparations), it would be a hesitant case. The article should be kept, though. CrazyC83 07:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this article?

What's the point of really having this article? All the information that's here can be found in the main article. This storm is not that notable. So there's some isolated heavy damage. That's gonna happen when a storm hits Central America, that's a part of life for them. This storm did not cause unusually high deaths or damage and I'm considering a merge proposal. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main article does not contain all of this information. To do that would make it even bigger then it already is (which is quite big). That page has basic info on this storm, and this article elabroates greatly. There is no reason to merge. Rangeley 23:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking from a notability standpoint it doesn't fit. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the storm that reached farther into the alphabet than any before is inherently notable. BD2412 T 15:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From a notability standpoint Beta is surely more deserving of an article than Hurricane Ophelia. From an article quality standpoint, while I'm not entirely happy with the quality of the article it would be ludicrous to merge a 4-page article back into the season article. Jdorje 17:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better Image

Anyone have a better image of Beta? --24.83.117.65 00:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should use one at max intensity, if possible. The current one is at max intensity. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

I shortened the intro greatly. There were certain things that are not notable or were wrong, and a compact introduction is better than a 3-paragraph one that rambles. Information removed includes:

Extended the record for most active season - so did 6 other storms.
First use of the name "Beta" - dozens of hurricane names have been used only once.
The 1969 season - this is a record of the 2005 AHS and does not warrant mention in the intro.
Second storm to be named with a greek letter - true but not worthy of mention in the intro.
Exact things that people were afraid the hurricane would do - since it did not do that, a general mention of them is enough.
Reference to Hurricane Stan - that information was wrong.

Jdorje 05:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHC report finally out

Here's the link.

Nothing really new to report on, except for the unbelievable confirmation of no fatalities. Zero people in Nicuragua were killed when Category 2 Hurricane Beta made landfall. That's an amazing success story.

I was very surprised to read about how small the storm was: tropical storm winds extending out only 50 nm (60 miles, 95 km). — jdorje (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That ties it with Cyclone Tracy for smallest, doesn't it? —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 02:17 UTC

Tracy was gale-force winds only 48 km out, according to that article. --AySz88 ^-^ 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Beta

is this still in development? --71.62.4.205 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Salvador section is a stubby section

The options you have are expanding that section, or combining it with another section. Otherwise, this article should fly though GA. I reworded some of the lead and body, so I shouldn't officially review it. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I combined it with Panama and Costa Rica since the three of them are basically outliers. Thanks for the little bit of rewording :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If retire...

What if this retired? What will happen? Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be, as we would have already known by now. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if a greek alphabet storm retire... Hurricane Typhoon Cyclone 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good explanation. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Year in article name

Not to reopen an old discussion, but isn't it convention to only give a non-disambiguated name to a retired hurricane? Since "Beta" can't be retired (being a Greek-letter name), and thus can be used again (as for the argument that it hasn't been used again since, see Hurricane Igor (2010)), I propose that we add the year back to article name. Just my opinion. -Happy5214 (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, it's the only storm to receive a Greek letter name and will likely remain so for quite some time. There's no harm in keeping it without the year, worst case scenario, a second Hurricane Beta takes place in the future, we just move this article back to Hurricane Beta (2005) during that event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually being discussed at WT:WPTC as well, and you may want to voice your opinion there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Hurricane Beta. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Hurricane Beta (2005)

There's about to be a new Tropical Storm, possibly Hurricane Beta, and so this should be moved back. In fact, since the Greek letters will never be retired, it seems better to preemptively disambiguate all such storms by year. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]