Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Ida (2009)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Ida (2009) 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
DateProcessResult
April 7, 2010Good article nomineeListed
May 4, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 5, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article


Importance is low

[edit]

Until there are reports of significant damage or flooding within Central America (or elsewhere), it is best to keep the importance of this article low, as it is now set. Minor hurricanes in November are not uncommon enough to assign more importance to the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ida is geting near category 3 and has already had record rains in Nicaragua. Importance is rising. Also, Ida is quite strong for a date this late with El Niño, and therefore it is much more important than before. All2341 (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about November hurricanes during El Nino is noted...Ida is coming close to being unique in that regard. If it struck the Gulf coast at category 2 intensity, we could up the importance to Mid. Record for Nicaragua? What's the source? As far as any of us know, it is no better than the 7th wettest TC to impact Nicaragua, and that is based on incomplete information. It might not even be within the top 10 wettest. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A death toll of 91 is enough to upgrade this to mid importance. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although unless the death toll climbs into the thousands, I wouldn't move it off the date, since it is unpredictable what warrants retirement in that region. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Ida won't last that long and most likely will have a much lower death toll.All2341 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The news reports appear to be confused. Ida was hundreds of miles from El Salvador. Severe weather indirectly influenced by Ida? Sure. A tragedy? Absolutely. But deaths CAUSED BY Ida??216.80.110.88 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further on this, here's a bit from NPR's story: "Almost 7,000 people saw their homes damaged by landslides or cut off by floodwaters following three days of downpours from a low-pressure system indirectly related to Hurricane Ida, which brushed Mexico's Cancun resort on Sunday before steaming into the Gulf of Mexico." The key phrase here is INDIRECTLY RELATED. 216.80.110.88 (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now the CNN International story has been edited: "In El Salvador, at least 91 people died in flooding and mudslides, according to the government, but a low-pressure system out of the Pacific -- not Hurricane Ida -- triggered the disaster, forecaster Robby Berg of the National Hurricane Center said Sunday." I have modified the article text accordingly.216.80.110.88 (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'll go back to low importance. Those deaths need to be removed from the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its situations like these that make me think we need a Current Importance button for WPTC.Jason Rees (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my note in my edit summary about why the El Salvador damage was added back into the article Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming NHC forecasts, the deaths in El Salvador are completely unrelated to Hurricane Ida, as confirmed by satellite images that I've found. The images show another system forming over El Salvador on October 8 while Ida was well away from El Salvador: [1], [2], [3], [4]. 201.89.68.55 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record

[edit]

I don't know if it count's as a big record, but Ida reached hurricane strength in November only 1 year after Paloma did in 2008. That marks the first time that a hurricane formed in November for 2 straight years since 1985-86. I don't know if it's very important, but if anyone else thinks it's notable, could it be put in? 76.29.112.198 (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be good. If you can prove you have not done OR. (from an un-signed in ITFC+Canes=me) 86.30.174.35 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, it is the first time that happened since 1998-99, when Nicole and Lenny formed, respectively. I don't think it's that notable now. 76.29.112.198 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Image

[edit]

Rapid Fire just took a new shot of the system however I do not have the software to flatten it out like what was done with Hurricane Freds image. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to wait for an image where the eye clears out, which should happen fairly shortly. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed but if the eye does not clear out, this will likely be the best image while its entering the Gulf. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. It's good to know it's there. We may use it as the main picture in the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New image uploaded and subsequently replaced the older image, however if a better version can be made or found by all means replace this one. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found even better image from GOES East, which shows the structure better and is most current. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have an NHC image -All2341(speak) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

The storm history section is a bit choppy. We might want to look over it an revamp it with some more effective sentences. (Tropical Cyclone K (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Rainfall graphics

[edit]

They will be done by Monday. I'm going to have ignore the center jump for the graphics, but the graphics will show the track of both lows. Looks like original Ida's surface low disappeared after 06z on the 12th, which is likely the time (if not sooner) NHC will want to consider the system dissipated. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor'Ida still active?

[edit]

Ida's remnant extratropical low is still located near the North-Atlantic ridge, southwest of the Azores. Should we include some of this information or should we wait until the official NHC reports are issued? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Ida Nor'easter article?

[edit]

Since the storm did kill 6 people, affected a wide area, and caused alot of damage should someone go ahead and make an article about it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as of now, the Nor'easter was Ida so that is included in this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The remnants of Ida redeveloped" How can it be from Ida if the storm redeveloped? The Nor'easter may have been caused by Ida but it was not still called Ida in the Atlantic at that time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Hydrometeorological Prediction Center referred to the system as "the remnants of Ida" in all their advisories. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information of the nor'easter is not longer in the article due to the TCR indicating that Ida made landfall in the U.S. as an extratropical cyclone, or should I say some of the detailed have been removed. --12george1 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think an article should be made as it was millions of dollars worth of damage and 10 deaths Not caused by Ida - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then Be bold and make it :) Jason Rees (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it will take some time, I will start on it tomorrow as I just came back from NYC today and am tired. There are lots of references out there and I feel it would make a good article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind such an article would be under the non-tropical storms banner when creating the talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that a separate article would be best for it, since the TCR found that it was a separate system that was responsible (that was a combination of Ida and the front). (If Ida was truly responsbible, it would be rather ironic that the last time those areas were hit so hard by a storm was by the name Ida replaced). CrazyC83 (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what would be the title though? Should it be the same as this thread? I would start on it if I knew what title we should use. After all, I was the one that create the article for Hurricane Ida. --12george1 (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
November 2009 nor'easter? –Juliancolton | Talk 05:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about November 2009 Mid-Atlantic nor'easter? I think the region it impacted needs to be in its name. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better suggestion, now that I think about it. Nor'easters traditionally ride the coast northward and affect the Northeast U.S., so specifying that it hit the Mid-Atlantic is a good idea. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I never started the article, college crept up on me I have only time to do edits not whole articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some off-wiki discussion with JC, we found that it's probably best not to make the article until the uncertainty is resolved. Several highly credible sources have stated that Ida was the nor'easter, meaning that there is no need for a separate article. We attempted to contact the NHC about this but their response was of little help. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this suggestion is coming a bit late, but how about calling the article "Nor'Ida" since that's what I call it if I talk about the storm with friends. It was the Nor'Ida, not the "November 2009 mid-atlantic nor'easter." I've already created a "Nor'Ida" page as a redirect to the current article, but I feel like I might as well at least ask the question - should it be the other way around? Maadio (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nor'Ida is not the official name for the system, just a news created one to be catchy. Since the system is nameless, it gets the generic, month, year, storm type, region title. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful there. Many unnamed systems get assigned the name the media assigns to them, tropical or not. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Hm, I guess that does make it easier to figure out which storm is which. Since, you're the met. here, what do you think the name should be for the article DR? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was a quick find. The USGS clearly calls it Nor'Ida [5] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remnant low

[edit]

It is said in the texte that the remnant low along the East Coast was a Nor'easter. This is not true as the low barely moved and the wind were from the East. A Nor'easter develop in a strong southwest circulation along the East Coast an move from around Cape Hatteras toward the Canadian Martimes and then off toward the Northeast. This sentence reference should be deleted.

Pierre cb (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think an article should be made on the Nor'easter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone really disagrees, I think that we can sufficiently cover the nor'easter(or whatever it really was) article can be covered in this article, as the storm was directly related and mostly caused by Ida. Darren23Edits|Mail 23:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane Ida (2009). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 October 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, and left a hatnote at the top guiding readers to the disambiguation page. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ida (2009) → Hurricane Ida – It was the only storm with the name to become a hurricane N-C16 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There was a very notable typhoon named Ida in 1958, so I have to oppose this. Jdcomix (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Ida. 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) 23:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Hurricane Ida. 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) 02:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Merge Request

[edit]

There is (was) another merge request to merge November 2009 nor'easter into this article. See the merge discussion on that article's talk page for more details. By the way, the discussion has died out over a month ago with no clear consensus, so I've closed the discussion in the meantime. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Ida_(2009)&oldid=1211226022"