Talk:Hurricane Isabel

Languages

There's an article in spanish about this: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huracán_Isabel_(2003) but it doesn't appear in that "other languages" box... i would add it myself but i don't know how... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilorojas (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Katrina

Know lets not keep talking about what happend 3 years ago. lets deal with what happend about3months ago. Remember what happend,Hurricane KATRINA.It brought devistation to alot of people lives.WHat if happend to us? Think about it. By:Shaniece

This was a notable storm though and definitely deserved an article (it reached Category 5 and affected an enormous area with over 65 million people from South Carolina northward, matched only by Floyd in recent memory). If it had developed in the 2005 season, it would be a very long article in itself. CrazyC83 04:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "Shaniece" needs to learn proper english, and learn how to communicate in a sensical way. Just a typical uneducated black person from the south. Anyway, I think this article could use some expanding as to the formation and duration of Isabel, it really doesnt say anything about the storms chronology. Weatherman90 00:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point her to the beast of an article called Hurricane Katrina. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Shaniece, to prevent future problems please sign your comments by typing four tildes. (~~~~) juan andrés 22:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Todo

Content here is stellar but overall disorganization is the main problem. There is no real storm history; the impact section runs on and on without structure. And isn't forecasting a part of preparation? I suggest using the same structure as in Hurricane Ivan: Storm history, Preparations, Impact. Also, references are needed. Jdorje 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed if I remove that huge, ugly death table and replace with a one by state? Hurricanehink (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Effects by region

In case anyone is interested, I am planning on creating articles for Isabel's impact by each state. Having it all in here would make the article unnecessarily long. I already started effects in New Jersey in my sandbox, which means there's enough info for North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and possibly New York or West Virginia. I also put a todo list on the top for what would be needed to get this article to a potential FA class. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize Isabel had that much info on itself. Well, I see if I can help in my spare time! íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 12:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it was a lesser version of Katrina in terms of the wide area of impact and the amount of information. I finished the Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New Jersey, BTW. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Subpages: a template to move to individual regions in Impact pages

This is an experimental template I made up. The centerpoint is New Jersey in this example (for the long article created), but it can be shifted. The storm is also completely flexible and the category is based on the peak in that region listed.

{{Hurricane path
|storm=Hurricane Isabel
|category=storm
|Current=[[Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New Jersey|New Jersey]]
|Northwest=[[Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Pennsylvania|Pennsylvania]]
|North=[[Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York|New York]]
|Northeast=[[Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York|New York]]
|East=Atlantic Ocean
|Southeast=Atlantic Ocean
|South=Atlantic Ocean
|Southwest=[[Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware|Delaware]]
|West=[[Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Pennsylvania|Pennsylvania]]
}}

CrazyC83 06:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the best way to organize the Isabel articles (someone else made it). Both of these templates have their own problems. Neither could address an article such as Meteorological History of Hurricane Isabel or other non-storm effects articles. The ideal template should list all territories, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week?

Should we put this up for Collaboration of the Week? I'm thinking we should bypass GA on this one and aim straight for FA. CrazyC83 16:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think it would be better as tropical cyclone editors working together. CotW, IMO, should be for long articles that need major reorganization. Isabel mainly just needs more info. The same thing happenend with Katrina. It helped re-organize it, but it wasn't ready for FA because it needed more prose. A CotW for a tropical cyclone article might be better for Rita or Wilma, which have a lot of info but not a lot of sources or organization. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points; the lack of any locally extreme destruction make this a rather difficult to organize storm (as opposed to Rita and especially Wilma), and that is also the reason this is Mid-importance rather than High-importance. CrazyC83 17:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Damage from Isabel was fairly moderate throughout its path, whereas other storms have peak areas of damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is ref #47

And what was it supposed to be?--Rmky87 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, it's supposed to be for the HPC rainfall data. I thought it was sourced already in the article. I added it, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that.--Rmky87 23:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GAC

I have graded this article on the following criteria:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: PassCongratulations, it passes! You guys as WP:TROPIC are crazy good at this, you know? Not sure what to say, other than to push this forward for FA. --PresN 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

FT box

Can someone merge this into the {{ArticleHistory}} box please? Tompw (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignore that, I've done it now. Tompw (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

source problem

I have found a problem at source:

National Climatic Data Center (2003). "Event Report for Virginia". Archived from the original on 2012-02-23. Retrieved 2007-02-23. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

The original link is dead almost two years ago, but I try to find it at web archive, the earlist capture is at May 11th, 2008, with another 3 captures later. But the problem is: this source is not what's should be, this is not the "Event Report for Virginia", actually is for California, some strong wind begin at Febuary 3rd, 2004 2:00 PM PST.

And I have already check the source at another article Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Virginia, also had same problem.

Can anyone help me out?--Jarodalien (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This is good!

I love how the article was organized and good HD pictures, and for support, I have a Picture of Isabel to show support! https://cdn.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/1210/758282/1000w_q95.jpg

I hope you like it! LuigiIsSuppreme989 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

• Lots of duplicate links
• Needs alt text
• Some references missing first names
• Plenty of academic literature that needs to be added

Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. CCI check not done. Noah^Talk 23:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to merge Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New Jersey, and Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel. There is a consensus against merging Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware at this time. I will leave the implementation of the merge to persons familiar with this topic. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

---

The articles can be merged into Hurricane Isabel as subsections since they are pretty short. Pennsylvania is a bit larger than the rest, but since the destination article doesn't mention Pennsylvania often, it wouldn't significantly increase the article's size and can be summarised. _ZZ^Z'S 08:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane Isabel/workpage - here is a page showing what the proposed merger would look like, including Delaware. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, I was thinking of these the other day actually. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose re: Delaware. This is a WP:Featured article and is better written than the target. Before it is merged, add the info to the more general article first, and then we can review it to see if you manage to keep the best parts of the Delaware FA article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'd be fine merging without Delaware at first. Isabel right now is only about 4,000 words. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The target is also a featured article. Its assessment alone, as well as the method of merging and how well it's written, isn't a solid reason to oppose it. Numerous featured articles have been merged into the appropriate target, despite their assessment. The article's slightly over 1000 words, and the preparations, impact, and aftermath are pretty small, so each section can be merged with its appropriate section without being excessively large. Also, the state wasn't significantly impacted by Isabel, and its casualties and damages are very low compared to states like North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.. The same can be said for the other articles. _ZZ^Z'S 19:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, Zzzs, that is not correct. It is a GA, not an FA. That is a very basic error. Your argument is not mostly about the Delaware article and doesn't substantively address my objection to the merge of that one. You have not given me any assurance that your merge will preserve the FA quality material, which I *do* think is a "solid reason to oppose". Now, let's stop repeating ourselves and see what other editors think about your proposal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the Delaware sub-article is a FA, and so is Isabel. And also, the Delaware article probably would not be created nowadays, so I'm not sure it would even pass FA, given the lack of unique information to the Delaware article. Much of that impact is similar to what happened in Pennsylvania, NJ, NY, and PA. Also, we've had situations in the past where FA's were merged. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the target is Hurricane Isabel, and so I apologize to Zzzs. Still, it would be nice to see the merge/proposed merge executed so that it would be clear that any noteworthy information that is unique/better written in the Delaware article is moved into the target. After the move, what will happen to the "featured topic" on the hurricane? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think much would happen. The merged articles would simply be removed, and the topic would still follow the criteria as there's still three articles remaining and more than half would be featured articles. _ZZ^Z'S 16:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Delaware as there is so much unique information it would trigger undue weight. Alternate proposal: why not just merge these lackluster articles into Effects of Hurricane Isabel in the Northeastern United States, similar to Effects of Hurricane Ida in the Northeastern United States, so we can cut down on excessive subarticles without bloating the main article. 108.58.51.130 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, I have removed Delaware from the articles proposed to be merged. The Northeastern United States proposal sounds like a good idea, and I'm fine if the proposed articles are merged into one. _ZZ^Z'S 23:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Given the short size of this article (only 4,000 words), it could be twice the length and still barely hit the point where a sub-article is needed. I don't think the few additional paragraphs need to be in their own article, I agree that NY/NE, PA, and NJ can all be merged quite easily (and honestly Delaware probably, but let's wait on that). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Support alternate proposal - I support creating one article regarding the northeast us effects, though if this proposal falls apart merging these into the Hurricane Isable article would be fine by me. Shmego (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In general I feel like we should prioritize the main articles over sub-articles, especially when the main article is under the size limit of ~8,000 words. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

That risks bloating the main article, especially if more information on Isabel can be found in these regions. Delaware definitely should stay separated; I wouldn’t outright oppose merging PA/NJ/NY into the Isabel article but I think we can find less extreme solutions first. 108.58.51.130 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The boating is from the section summaries in the destination article, both the impacts and aftermath, are ridiculously short, which should not be the case for such a devastating storm with many deaths and damages. I disagree with keeping Delaware seperate because the impacts and aftermath section can be easily summarised, only keeping the important parts. A 17k byte-large article should be merged into its main article for its shortness. _ZZ^Z'S 14:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I made a test page merging in the proposed sub-articles, including Delaware, and it's still only 7,121 words. Add in a bit more for NC, MD, and VA for balance, and you're still under 8000 words, and that's without doing any kind of editing, such as streamlining the same kind of information in multiple states (like states of emergency, FEMA declarations). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Taht article gives WP:UNDUE weight to the northeast and doesn’t give enough weight to the southeast. If anything, we do a Hurricane Charley situation and merge something like Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Virginia and keep the smaller subarticles, because by merging these articles into the main article, some relatively important information will have to be cut out. And I disagree with Zzzs because summarizing the information might leave some relatively important information out, like we saw with Hurricane Dennis. 155.190.18.43 (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, these merge proposals are getting excessive again - do we need another moratorium? 155.190.18.43 (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Many of the merge proposals are outdated ones that need closing. _ZZ^Z'S 15:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why we need to expand the summaries for the article because they're way too short for a tropical cyclone this deadly and damaging. One paragraph is nothing compared to 40k bytes of information. Also, I'm only saying the minor, trivial information be left out in Delaware because it is not important. The article only needs information on the main parts, not insignificant ones. Do we really need to know the storm surge for a county that did not get the maximum height? _ZZ^Z'S 15:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea, to the anon user above, I suggest creating an account and joining the WPTC, we could always use more writers. As to Isabel, I did say that with the articles merged, that there would still be room for expanding NC, VA, and MD sections. And like the Dennis article, there will be some redundant info, or some minor info that can be streamlined. However, I don’t believe any important info will have to be cut in the mergers. Also, no to the moratorium on mergers. If the proposed target of the merger is under 8,000 words, then there is room for expansion. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm also going to add that this article is another example of having substantial, unnecessary, and short articles like Hurricane Georges, Hurricane Irene, Hurricane Katrina Hurricane Floyd, and formerly Hurricane Dennis, which is possibly the reason why the impact subsections are short paragraphs. Many of the subarticles have no reason to exist since the areas mentioned weren't significantly affected, having very little information to write about. They're usually created for most, if not all areas that were affected and shortens the hurricane the subarticle is written about. For the information thing, the point of merges is to move the content from an article to another and not simply turn the article being merged into a redirect. The only thing that changes is where the information is stored in, which doesn't remove the information unless it's already mentioned in an appropriate section. I don't see how that removes "relatively important information." _ZZ^Z'S 23:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow up

Here is the temporary page for the Isabel article with the merged articles, similar to what I did with Dennis. Seeing as Isabel is featured, I didn't want to fully merge the articles yet, since there are a lot of NCDC links that are dead, and with Helene having knocked out Asheville and the NCEI, we're gonna have to wait until those links are back up. I also realize that with the articles being merged, there is a lot of information that is redundant between states, so don't need to be explained in as much detail. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I also suggest expanding the sections whos main article(s) did not get merged and they are ridiculously short. I suggest a bare minimum byte size of 10k for each section, which should be enough to cover the main info of the topic. _ZZ^Z'S 01:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)