Talk:Hurricane Kathleen

Hurricane Kathleen 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
May 30, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
December 7, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
February 9, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 2, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that parts of California were declared a disaster area when Hurricane Kathleen* killed several people and caused millions of dollars in damage due to widespread flooding?*
Current status: Good article

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Not a California hurricane

Hurricane Kathleen was not a hurricane when its remnants affected California. It's grossly misleading to categorize it as a "California hurricane". The most remarkable thing about California weather is that no hurricane has ever made landfall here, because the offshore waters are far too cool. Tmangray 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should still be in the California category, seeing as it affected California. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A hurricane did impact California in 1858. Thegreatdr 20:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

Better intro, a summary of the impact (at the top of the section). Jdorje 02:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Do you prefer the {{ref}}/{{note}} reference format? Seems to me the <ref>/<reference> format is much easier. Jdorje 02:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Hurricane Kathleen (1976)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hurricane Kathleen (1976)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Williams":

From List of Pacific hurricanes: Jack Williams (2005-05-17). "Background: California's Tropical Storms". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-11-24.
From List of California hurricanes: Jack Williams (2005-05-17). "California's Tropical Cyclones". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-12-26.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments ahead of GA

Since I created and DYK'd this article, I am ineligible to conduct a GA review. However, I can leave comments:

Some old versions of the List of historic tropical cyclone names (eg this one) mention that "Kate replaced Kathleen in 1976". The only Kathleen this could possibly be referring to is this one. Perhaps it should be investigated as to whether the EPHC actually did retire this name and then somehow de jure "unretired", or if this was just an error on our/the sources used for that version's part(s). (I wouldn't put it past them to retire this name, as this system may not unreasonably be considered the worst PH to affect the Continental US since the EPHC era began. From an outside perspective, Tico, Lidia, Norma, Liza, Tara, Paul, and one with the same name as yours truly had as good, if not better, case for retirement, but that's an OT debate in itself). The 1977 op plan (which as of this writing isn't available would probably provide the definitive answer, unless someone else knows (I'm thinking of you).
- I have noticed thst before, but I have no evidence to back that up. Quiet interesting though. If I don't forget, Ill ask DR to comment here. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no idea. I do know that coordination was made to avoid placing the same names on both the northeast Pacific and north Atlantic lists during the same season. As Kate was introduced in 1979 on the Atlantic side, before the six year rotating multi-gender naming list was instituted in the northeast Pacific (which was 1982), this would have put a crimp on Kate's use for Kathleen's replacement. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this hurricane was from the 1970's it's remarkable that it has (rather poor-quality) damage photos. However, this system is probably recent enough to have a satellite picture, which should be in the infobox.
- I don't upload images, so someone else will have to fix this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't very much info on Mexico impact.
- Don't have access to anything other info out there, not surprising though. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 1977 op plan is now up. Kathleen is listed in the EPac name list for 1980, so I guess this proves it wasn't retired. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Kathleen (1976)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comments

lede

Should it be: "a tropical depression formed, named Kathleen"? - point at which storm was named.
- When it became a tropical storm, it was named Kathleen, but the naming itself is not important enough for the lead. It flows better without mentioning this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

background

"recurve" - could this be briefly explained without the reader having to read and understand the linked article?
- Yea, but I might have made it worse. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"These troughs" - starts two sentences in a row
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

"weakened only slowly" - clumpsy wording
- Removed "only". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"eye" - a hurricane doesn't have to develop an eye?
- No. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Kathleen weakened only slowly over California. Tropical Storm Kathleen weakened " - repeated wording
How so? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Kathleen made its second landfall" - I'm not clear where the first one was
- Clarified. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Finally, the center became difficult to locate" - so a hurricane can have a center, but not an eye?
- Yea. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

other

common words like "cotton", "lettuce" and "hay" shouldn't be linked.
why is "one and 160 year event." linked to 100-year flood?
- The article gives the basic principle of how the 1 in 100 year flood thing works. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Total damage was $160 million, making Kathleen one of the costliest tropical storms in state history" - is this still true in 2012?
yea. Have no source to back up, but according to my records, Kathleen is 2nd. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"flash flood watches were issued throughout Southern California, including the desert and mountains.[17] Flash flood warnings were also issued for parts of the state," - needs rewording as "parts of the state" is vague after previously specifying "Southern California".
Reworded slightly. Any better? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
why are some states linked and not others?
- Good call. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made some copy edits so please revert any errors.[1]

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources:

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:

B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Passed! Fine job. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

"After crossing the Piont Enegia Peninsula (the cyclones first landfall) later on the morning of September 10". What is the source for this? Monthly Weather Review, page 12 does not show it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're clicking on the DOI, not the actual URL. The actual URL is here and its says it on page 12. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly on the page. I checked the pdf before. Searching the pdf does not find a match either. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, a few lines up from bottom left. Piont Enegia Peninsula => Point Eugenia peninsula, three words are typos no wonder the pdf search didn't find it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 February 2017

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: not moved, though this should be a procedural close considering this was started by a sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 03:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Kathleen (1976) → Hurricane Kathleen – Only storm named Kathleen to become a hurricane. 219.79.227.157 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. SkyWarrior 16:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Removing the "1976" would not help clarify the title, which should represent the article subject, described by the content. "Hurrican Kathleen" is a better redirect to set index article "Tropical Storm Kathleen" than an ambiguous title to the 1976 hurricane. George Ho (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If there's only one Hurricane Kathleen, it doesn't need further clarification. Redirecting Hurricane Kathleen to Tropical Storm Kathleen seems confusing and unintuitive. If someone is looking for information about Hurricane Kathleen, sending them to the list at Tropical Storm Kathleen doesn't help much. Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been my experience throughout a lifetime of studying the weather that many people, and possibly most people, can't tell the difference between a tropical cyclone, typhoon, hurricane, and tropical storm. I'm generally fine with removing the (year) disambiguation from storms that clearly had the most notable instance of its name, but that includes storms of other ocean regions and classifications. Hurricane Kathleen and Typhoon Kathleen were both the same meteorological phenomena, and the latter is the far more significant Kathleen, having killed over a thousand people. I don't think it's implausible that people might use the phrase "hurricane Kathleen" while searching for the storm that devastated Japan in 1947. Personally, I find it perfectly useful for Hurricane Kathleen to redirect to the set index page. Given that, plus the fact that this request was filed by a confirmed sock of a blocked user, oppose. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well...on the one hand, WP:AT is clear on this: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that" unless there's a topic specific rule which I don't think there is. The year is unnecessary, so it should go. That's the rule. On the other hand, I personally am fine with "Hurricane Kathleen (1976)", I don't see the harm in including the year and it helps to quickly set the entity in context when searching etc. So IMO screw the rule, it's fine like it is. Oppose. Herostratus (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Herostratus: If we leave the year on this article, what do you think should happen to Hurricane Kathleen? Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhh.... I see. Hmm, I don't know. It depends on our best guess of what most people typing "Hurricane Kathleen" are probably looking for -- maybe it is Hurricane Kathleen (1976), or maybe they're searching for a storm named Kathleen, maybe they want Typhoon Kathleen or Cyclone Kathleen... I don't know! If I had to vote, I'd redirect "Hurricane Kathleen" to ""Hurricane Kathleen (1976)". Herostratus (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This move was requested by a sock of User:N-C16. — Gorthian (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well reason to Oppose on procedural grounds then. Herostratus (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2017 (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.

Requested move 21 February 2018

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: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Kathleen (1976) → Hurricane Kathleen – Only storm named Kathleen to become a hurricane. B dash (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose whom does removing the year of an event benefit? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's unnecessary disambiguation. Consistently disambiguating only when necessary helps reduce the number of controversial and unsettled titles we have, which helps everyone. --В²C ☎ 17:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This doesn't help the reader. Omnedon (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2018 (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.