Talk:Hurricane Dean/Archive 1

Name policy (follow up after Flossie)

I heard the discussion on Flossie, and it seems this is correct: the article should remain at Hurricane Dean (2007) (consistent with the retired 2006 typhoons as well) unless it becomes an obvious retirement case (i.e. Katrina-like damage). However, should Hurricane Dean become a temporary redirect to this article at least while active and in the news? CrazyC83 21:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just Leave As is otherwise you will have more work to do as you would have to change all the other names that are active Jason Rees 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No since such only takes place if retirement is possible. Due to the uncertainty (and with the 2006 typhoons, they were never moved until officially retired), I think that Hurricane Dean should redirect here, at least for now, without changing the official article name. CrazyC83 17:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea having Hurricane Dean redirecting here, seeing as it is predicted to be a Cat. 4 in the Caribbean. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The redirect has been completed, with Hurricane Dean (previous dab page) moved to Tropical Storm Dean. That is because it is certain there will be a lot of people looking for just Hurricane Dean as it develops (a lot more user-friendly to come straight here via redirect than to a dab page), while at the same time it allows for wiggle room should Dean fizzle. CrazyC83 23:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is where the concept of a "primary subject" should be considered. Hurricane Dean is all over the news services (including the Main page). Whilst this storm is active, and in the immediate aftermath, the vast majority of people looking for a Hurricane Dean are looking for this storm. If Dean isn't looking like a retirement candidate (I hope so), then once it ceases to be a current event and falls out of the public eye then the dab should be returned to Hurricane Dean.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why it was redirected. If it is a retirement candidate (but not an obvious one like Katrina), it should stay as such until the case is made or announced next year (using the 2006 typhoons as precedent). If it fizzles or is less destructive than expected (not expected), the dab will return to its original location. In the past, there were edit wars as this would have likely already been moved to Hurricane Dean and such a moved backfired once in 2005. There were no real candidates for retirement in 2006 in the Atlantic so there was no precedent there. CrazyC83 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

I was poking around MODIS and came across this image. I have added it for now, but as the storm gathers organization we will be able to find much better images. Feel free to replace it. Plasticup ^T/C 14:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we get the 5-day track graphic updated to correspond with advisory 19A? (I don't know how to do it myself...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halcionne (talk • contribs) 02:38:07, August 18, 2007 (UTC).

Advisory 20 will be out soon, so I'd rather wait for that. – Chacor 02:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. Halcionne 02:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 identical images on the page, the one that was shot from the international space station... shouldn't we remove one of these images? --- govigov —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Govigov (talk • contribs) 17:10:20, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Please do, if you think it is necessary. – Chacor 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some new images of dean on the NHC's Web site with the eye south-southwest of the western coast of Jamaica...NHC's satellite page - --Bdj95 03:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cat 3

I was on www.cnn.com And i saw breaking news now that Dean has sustained winds of 125 mph,.

Yep. ---CWY2190^TC 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes it a major hurricane therefore should be updated on a more then regular basis.--Daven200520 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Updates are at least every 3 hours when there is a watch or warning out. If the eye is visible on a US radar, advisories are every 2 hours with odd-hour position estimates. CrazyC83 00:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's old. It's now a Cat 4. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actully even that is old now depending on what you think 155 mph is in kts Jason Rees 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Forecast

Should a forcast of the storms headings (I.E. Noaa Computer model predictions) and how it could affect the Texas, Mexico, and Lousiana coasts? Just a thought.... --Daven200520 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we justify that without detailing all of the computer models that predict landfalls in Mexico, Cuba, Jamaica, Hispaniola, and Cayman? Plasticup ^T/C 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't put model forecasts ever. ---CWY2190^TC 02:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well We coulndt, but we could detail every noaa(nhs) model then show what every model predicts, (i.e Various styorm tracks or maybe a updated image of noaas models forcasts... <http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ssd/nwpmodel/html/nhcmodel.htm> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daven200520 (talk • contribs).

Yahoo links

Avoid Yahoo news links where possible, please, they die out quickly. – Chacor 07:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking / bad link?

Hi - just reverted the blanking. Looks like a move or link wasn't correct. Jens Koeplinger 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like 3 users have been "fixing" at the same time. I believe the article is good now. Koeplinger 14:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: Why did one person die in Florida from Dean, when this hurricane didn't even hit Florida? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.19.136.202 (talk) 16:30, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Any chance

Any chance this system could change direction and swing towards Florida like Charley or into the Panhandle like Dennis or Ivan??? HurricaneChase (talk) 2:41 EST

Please ask forecast questions here. ---CWY2190^TC 20:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

There has been considerable vandalism lately on this page. Should it be semi-protected? CrazyC83 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly for it, but not against it either. ---CWY2190^TC 20:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to. There are a lot of eyes watching the page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the anons have been quite constructive. Plasticup ^T/C 05:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It should not be fully protected because some people may depend on wikipedia instead of the National Weather Service and conceivably get killed not realizing that the position of the hurricane has moved from the location stated in the article. When there are millions of people living in an area, there's bound to be at least a few with less than optimal judgement. Polounit 06:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's evolution/survival of the fittest for you... Seriously, needing to point out that "this page may not be the best place to gather information on something which may directly threaten your life" just seems ridiculous. --62.63.37.252 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

STS-118 and Dean

I'm new at this, so I don't want to mess around with it too much yet, but is it relevant that the landing time of STS-118 (Endeavour) has been moved up due to Hurricane Dean, and should it be mentioned in the article? Trvsdrlng 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is under Texas preparations ---CWY2190^TC 00:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't read! Thanks. Trvsdrlng 03:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See the Day 11 Highlights section of STS-118 article for additional details. ^Ariel♥Gold 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That was an interesting read but I'm not sure how much of it applies to this article. Plasticup ^T/C 05:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not much , I just thought I'd point to it for the original poster to visit. ^Ariel♥Gold 06:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

when updating location, please leave it "NM" not "nm"

In the infobox at the top, where it says "Location: 16.0°N 71.0°W ± 10 NM", I changed it to NM and linked it to nautical miles to avoid confusion making it look like it said it's plus-minus 10 nanometers (first link below). This was (I think accidentally) reverted in an update to the location, size, and time of last update (second link). I just changed it back (third link), but wanted to post this here to avoid it being accidentally reverted again in another update.

my first edit changing it
it being removed in an update
me changing it back again
— Mini-Geek ^(talk) 00:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See Nautical Mile: "There is no official international standard symbol for the unit nautical mile. The symbols M, NM, nm, and nmi are commonly used in some areas." Lowercase is the WP:WPTC convention, so I say we stick with that. Besides, I think it is pretty clear that hurricane locations are not specified to within 10 nanometers. Plasticup ^T/C 05:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Latitude/longitude or a geographic distance is not going to be ± a few nanometres. Therefore, confusion with that unit is not really a justification to change nm to NM. As the choice of how to express the unit is pretty arbitrary, its worth seeing how it is abbreviated by the primary sources. NHC discussions are in all-caps so do not answer that. In reports, the NHC uses n mi; whilst the JTWC, use nm. Given the convention in the field is to use the lower case variants, it would make sense for use to use one of them in hurricane articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I relinked "nm" to the "Nautical miles article". I didn't change it, but I prefer "NM" because "nm" is widely known as nanometers. If there is no official symbol for nautical miles, then I prefer to break Wikipedia's rule. (I realize there is no big consequence, other than the occasional big laugh when thinking "wow!! How precise is the weather info!!") Enrique Vargas 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

While it's obvious that it wouldn't be nanometers when you think about it for two seconds, nm is more associated with nanometers, and nautical miles isn't a very common unit of measurement. When I saw nm there at first, I thought "huh? it can't be nanometers", so I looked up the nm article and found that it also means nautical miles, and then changed the article (my first edit, as linked above). I think that it should be made NM, even against standard Wikipedia guidelines, since nm is so commonly associated with nanometers and nautical miles is uncommon. — Mini-Geek ^(talk) 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree except that the precedent extends beyond Wikipedia. This is the convention adopted by the primary Hurricane and Typhoon-related sources. Plasticup ^T/C 01:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't care if the abbreviation should be upper or lower case, or just one letter, etc., but, why are removing the link to the "Nautical mile" article?? I relinked it. Unless there is a very good reason why not, please keep it linked. Enrique Vargas 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It must have gotten lost during an update. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mexico

There just Evaucing Tourists no resident's?...hmm I will do some research unless someone else knows... just because it says 80,000 tourist but no mention of local residents. --Daven200520 05:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The source only mentions tourists. I couldn't find anything about evacuating locals, except from Holbox. It looks as though they are just providing extra flights for the tourists to leave on, rather than actually evacuating anybody. That would explain why the tourists are going home and the locals are staying. Plasticup ^T/C 05:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jamaica

Jis I found this on JIS about Jamaica I got the general details and posted it but anybody is welcome to gather and post additional details I may have overlooked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daven200520 (talk • contribs) 06:55:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC). Newer article for you guys to use Bloomberg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daven200520 (talk • contribs) 07:17:23, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

It refers mostly to standard hurricane preparations (buy water, pregnant women to the hospitals, etc) but there were a few interesting items. Thank you. Plasticup ^T/C 22:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

hurricane dean

Well I don't know about you but I'm a MED student here for the first time in cuba and ..there might be a posibility that we might be hit giving the location that I'm in the provence of PInar del rio... all the way from guyana ... we dont know what to expect.. I dont KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT.. i do hope things arnt that bad.. as people would put them.. may god be with us!

dedon johashen med student in cuba —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimention3d (talk • contribs) 18:31:10, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Relax, the storm won't be bad in Cuba although Pinar del Río will be a little worse off than other provinces. It's the poor folks in Cayman that I'm worried about. Now, does this pertain to the construction of our article? Plasticup ^T/C 18:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

GA?

I've been keeping an eye on this article for a couple of days seeing as this has been majorly in the news, and am impressed by what I am seeing. When Dean has passed, do you think we could nominate this article for GA? Davnel03 20:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

HurricaneHink will do his magic and get the article all fixed up and then I'm sure it will be nominated for GA, and possible FA down the road. ---CWY2190^TC 20:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is likely this will need to be split into sub-articles though...one for impact in the Lesser Antilles, Hispaniola, Jamaica, the Yucatan Peninsula and its final landfall location (maybe others?). CrazyC83 21:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely agreed, and I have one already started for the Lesser Antilles. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is my first major project and I am hoping, with help from the good folks of WP:WPTC, to take it all the way to FA. Plasticup ^T/C 22:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It may take a while to do, especially if we have quite a few more important hurricanes later this season... CrazyC83 00:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

to be honest i think it may be better too wait untill The TCR is out which i can not see being until Early next year before the WMO Name Retirement Meeting Jason Rees 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Retirement (if it is retired, which it probably will be at this point) is next spring. CrazyC83 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as you said, wait until things slow down. This may be while, because from the looks of things, there will be a considerable impact, and a need for an aftermath section. That information takes longer to be compiled and synthesized. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That may take longer than we think since by the time this has calmed down, there may be other storms to focus on... CrazyC83 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

EDT vs AST

I noticed that the US National Hurricane Center uses EDT in its Advisories. I realize that EDT is the same as AST, but shouldn't we use the format our source uses (assuming the NHC reports are used as the source). New England ^{Review Me!} 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We should definitely use AST as this is not an article specifically relating to the US, SqueakBox 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The storm is sitting in the Eastern time zone right now though. Also it will need to switch to CDT as it approaches Mexico. CrazyC83 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The storm has now entered EDT longitude and the NHC has shifted from AST to EDT. ---CWY2190^TC 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes we should definitely use the time zone where the eye of the Hurricane is, and approaching mexico is still in the realsm of a forecast. IMO we shopuld sue UTC as universal, amkes it much easier for all our international readers to actually understand the time zone which specifically American terms like EDT fail to do, SqueakBox 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that in the summertime AST and EDT are equivalent, before anyone goes messing with the numbers. Plasticup ^T/C 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking! Which is why we should UTC, even editors get confused otherwi9se and its important we get the facts right, SqueakBox 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We do use UTC...the article says 5 p.m. EDT (2100 UTC). ---CWY2190^TC 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

UTC is always used. Otherwise the time used should be based on where it located is or where it is threatening next (although it should be limited to AST, ADT, EST, EDT, CST and CDT in the Atlantic and PST, PDT and HST in the Pacific). CrazyC83 21:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just to point out, folks: The NHC used AST, then switched today to EDT, as the storm changed time zones. We follow their format, appending the UTC time after the local time. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The local time is useful in that it conveys something about the situation. If we say 2100 UTC the reader doesn't know whether that is night or day at event we are describing, but if we convert that to 5 pm the reader then know we are referring to events that occurred in the afternoon. UTC is useful for comparing events across timezones. Thus we use both. Plasticup ^T/C 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Storm Information should go at the top of the page

The organization of our hurricane articles is long established. All of our articles are formatted to the conventions of the Wikipedia Tropical Cyclone Project. If you think that the article should be reorganized in a major way (such as moving the Current Information to the topic of the article), feel free to make a suggestion on the article's talk page. Plasticup ^T/C 00:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are people in danger and you don't care, you only care about your stupid conventions and formats. Of course the Current Storm Information should be at the top since it is life saving information, anyone with a grain of common sense can figure that out, it doesn't need to go to committee. On another matter non-spam edits such as mine should not be removed without proper prior debate. My opinion is as good as any of yours and should be respected, you are behaving like an ignorant clique. 190.76.7.166 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV. You deserve a good long block, imo.

"On another matter non-spam edits such as mine should not be removed without proper prior debate."

Look below the edit box. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."

The Wikipedia guideline is that you ASK before making such a major change, and not WE who needs to ask to revert it.

Further, there is a very obvious warning right at the top of the page: "Residents of areas affected by Hurricane Dean are advised to seek information from the respective authorities."

Wikipedia isn't here to warn people, we just re-disseminate what the TPC/NHC says. – Chacor 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite. Where did we decide that current storm info can't be on top? We decided that it goes Storm history -> Preparations -> Impact -> Aftermath, but can anyone point me to a link where Current storm information's position was decided? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that the anon IP literally means right on top, yes? Even before storm history? That's ridiculous, the article is about the storm not the info. – Chacor 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the history. It is ridiculous because you say so? I actually didn't think so. So, where's that link? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the storm. We are not here to warn people about the storm. – Chacor 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Though the current infobox does provide some of the current information, I would like to see watches and warnings linked in the infobox. The infobox provides the current meteorological information pretty sufficiently, and a link to active watches and warnings would help facilitate people who are coming to the article for current info. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Now, you may not be, but it is absurd to think that people are not looking here for that kind of information, and you know it. While the banners are nice, that doesn't cut it. Besides, historically, we've done differently. So I really want to know where this was decided, because I didn't get the memo. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh really [1]? – Chacor 03:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was built by dozens of precedents. It doesn't have to be written down to be accepted - you know that as well as anyone. Plasticup ^T/C 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The current formats were experimented throughout the 2005 season, and by late that season, it had been settled. CrazyC83 03:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You also know that consensus can change. So, I'm challenging the fact that it has to be at the end of everything. It can be before preparations. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing here, please stop. Get a new consensus taken if you really think it has changed, rather than just spitting words. – Chacor 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is what I'm trying to do here, because I do think that the consensus has indeed changed. You are, on the other hand, being uncivil, so please take the rhetoric down a few notches. The anon made a good point, albeit with an unnecessary degree of snarkiness. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying you're arguing for the sake of arguing isn't uncivil when it's accurate. Might I point out that accusing others of being uncivil if they aren't is uncivil too? ;) But this is too far a tangent from the current discussion, so let's leave that here and get back on topic. – Chacor 03:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really help anyone to get into a namecalling match, so I agree, let's drop that. Expanding on my point below, the storm history for an active tropical cyclone ends where the past becomes the present. So, having current storm information there also adds temporal congruence, while it currently looks like an afterthought. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So would you like us to convince you that the current format is preferable? I suppose we could. Let me start by pointing out that this current format, by placing the storm history before the current information, emphases the article's role as an encyclopedic entry rather than a news outlet. Plasticup ^T/C 03:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well, the proposed format (Current info after Storm history) maintains that, has a more natural flow, and also satisfies the issue brought up by the anon editor. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The infobox adequately addresses his concerns without turning wikipedia into what it is not. Do you feel that the infobox does not provide a satisfactory summary of "life saving information" information? I would, in fact, say that the infobox is preferable to a block of text. If 190.76.7.166 thinks that people may be checking wikipedia in the height of the storm then surely he would agree that, in their frantic state, they would much rather see information presented in a beautiful table than crammed into a dense paragraph. Plasticup ^T/C 03:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense. If that were indeed true, the we wouldn't have the current storm information section at all, because we would be including unencyclopedic information. But since we already are, we may as well include in a more natural place, no? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being unclear. The infobox gives a good overview of the current situation for anyone in need of, as 190.76.7.166 put it, "life saving information". That's fine. The more detailed information is kept at the bottom because it is less encyclopedic and will eventually be dropped from the article altogether. That lets us build the article with all of the sections as they will be post-storm, while still keeping the Current Information available should it be needed. As I said before, it is a matter of emphasis. We are trying to emphasize that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we put the encyclopedic portions of the article first and de-emphasize the "news feed". Plasticup ^T/C 04:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. OK. But then, that still doesn't answer my point: The current info is not necessarily less encyclopedic, because the current storm information will then become part of the storm history, as soon as the next advisory goes out. So, another natural place for it is there; that location emphasizes both the encyclopedic mission (as we're not leading off with the current info, as the anon proposed), but rather putting it in its proper, semi-permanent place. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The incredibly detailed data of the Current Information section is rarely incorporated into the Storm History. The Storm History focuses on structural development, external influences, internal processes, and that sort of thing while the Current Information contains precise wind speed, central pressure, wave height, and rainfall estimates. Plasticup ^T/C 04:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(...sliding back over now) Concerning current events in general, the newest information is generally kept at the bottom. Articles are also arranged in chronological order, so the most recent info would be further down. However, I would not oppose moving tropical cyclone current information upwards, since people will be looking for that information whether we like it or not. --Tom (talk - email) 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not doubt they are, but wouldn't that make our infobox redundant? Plasticup ^T/C 15:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The infobox is a summary of the information contained in the article, and {{infobox hurricane current}} does not contain everything specified in the Current Storm Info section. While I see your point, I don't necessarily agree with it. My entire point is that since meteorological conditions are specified in the Storm history section, in chronological order, the current meteorological info can be placed after the older info, and the article won't seem so disjoint. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can the see the sense in that but I still prefer the current layout, primarily because it looks like it will look after the storm. Having a huge temporary section so close to the top makes the article feel like a news story rather than an encyclopedia entry. I understand the arguments for it but I worry that it would diminish the the article's primary role as part of an encyclopedia. We have both made our points fairly clear and I am afraid that we may simply not agree. Plasticup ^T/C 19:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, from past experience, most "notorious" TC articles need to be rewritten significantly after the storm, and removing the temporary section is just a fairly-minor thing. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Dean on the Lesser Antilles

The article was over 60 kb and the storm hasn't yet had a major landfall. I have created a separate article for the Effects of Hurricane Dean on the Lesser Antilles and transfered a fair bit of information there. The Greater Antilles probably deserve their own article as well, as will Jamaica and probably Mexico. It's a lot of work, but keeping the main article tidy ought improve it significantly. Plasticup ^T/C 05:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If subpages are created, maybe we need a template like this so it's easy to navigate around the articles. Davnel03 07:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That should be the plan. Future subarticles should be for Hispaniola, Jamaica, (Cayman Islands? depending on impact), the Yucatan and the final landfall location (probably northern Mexico). Also the storm history should be moved ultimately to Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean (2007). Perhaps others if appropriate... CrazyC83 14:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have created Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean (2007). I am going to hold off on the Greater Antilles until we can tell which islands need their own article and which can be groups together. Reports from Jamaica are still pretty scarce. Plasticup ^T/C 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There should be a (2007) disambiguator in the article names. – Chacor 14:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree as long as the main article keeps it (which should be until the retirement case or official retirement unless it becomes an obvious retirement candidate like Katrina - it is a likely one now, but not an obvious one). CrazyC83 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So at the end of Hurricane Dean (in a few weeks), we should have these articles all (or most of them) created:

• Timeline of Hurricane Dean (2007)
• Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean (2007)
• Preparations for Hurricane Dean (2007)
• Economic effects of Hurricane Dean (2007)
• Political effects of Hurricane Dean (2007)
• Criticism of government response to Hurricane Dean (2007) - this is obviously if there is any
• Social effects of Hurricane Dean (2007)
• Hurricane Dean (2007) effects by region
• Civil engineering and infrastructure repair after Hurricane Dean (2007)
• Hurricane Dean (2007) disaster relief
• International response to Hurricane Dean (2007)
• Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Dean (2007)
• Media coverage of Hurricane Dean (2007)

Anyone think that some of these articles will no way needed to be created? NOTE - these are based of the Hurricane Katrina circle of articles. Davnel03 18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing half of those won't be needed. ---CWY2190^TC 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We should just write the article and split sections off as needed. Plasticup ^T/C 19:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of those will go into regional sections. Katrina was an extreme event and a Top-importance article, this is a Mid-importance at this point (may go to High-importance if it is really destructive). What we did (or will do) with Rita and Wilma will likely be comparable with this. CrazyC83 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Most intense category 4?

Latest advisory has Dean at 915mb. I know Opal's was 916, and holds the record for lowest pressure as a Category 4, but is this only for storms that remain category 4, or does it count as breaking Opal's record, even if Dean becomes a 5? WotGoPlunk 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The "record" (which afaik only has any meaning to wikipedia editors) is for storms that have not yet achieved cat5 strength. Note that wilma had a lower pressure after weakening back to cat4. Also as I recall Janet had a rather low pressure at one point, though that may also have been after weakening. In the end it'll probably be irrelevant as the post-analysis will probably conclude that Dean's 915 mb was actually at cat5 strength. — jdorje (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that "record" is still held by Janet, 914 mb as a category 4. Of course re-analysis may change that, as it may change Dean. See the best-track. — jdorje (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Now that Dean is 1) Cat 5, 2) Has already done billions of damage, and 3) will clearly do billions more, is there any objection to moving this to 'Hurricane Dean'? I don't think (but I could be wrong) that we kept Katrina at "Hurricane Katrina (2005)" until the moment it was retired. --Golbez 00:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but wait for more consensus. ---CWY2190^TC 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think if there is a time it would be now, but I am a bit hesitant to do such though. Katrina was done before the project was created though, and the 2006 typhoons that were retired (the first retired names since the project was created) were kept with (2006) until they were officially retired. Hurricane Dean is already a redirect as well.... CrazyC83 00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Katrina was moved (by you, actually) well before it made its Louisiana landfall. I completely agree, it should have the main article. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What can I say, apparently I have excellent timing. :) --Golbez 01:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Dean definitely deserves the Main Article. To be honest, if anyone was looking up Hurricane Dean, I think this is the one thier looking for. Cainer⁹¹ 01:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Move it. — jdorje (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No Objections here to Giving it the name as its a cat 5 Storm But can someone move Sepat as well since it was a 5? Jason Rees 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Category 5 storms in the western Pacific are not exactly rare, so that basin needs stricter rules on naming than simply "cat 5". But I'm not involved in the western Pacific storms so I may be wrong. --Golbez 01:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply reaching Cat 5 should not be a basis for moving the page. If it doesn't do major damage, it may be like Emily (which we moved thinking it was going to be retired but wasn't) and have to be moved back later. The numbers (up to $6B damage at least so far) should be enough to retire Dean considering what lies ahead. Jamaica probably has the best retirement case right now. CrazyC83 01:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still possible it won't be retired; the Jamaica damages estimate could turn out to be way off (as Ophelia's was) and damage in mexico could go the way of Emily. Even so this is certainly by far the most notable of all Dean storms (no others have caused over $10M in damage or any deaths), and that should be the main criteria for taking the primary name. — jdorje (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The name should contain the year identifier unless it's retired. We changed those standards a while ago. --Coredesat 03:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That "standard" is erroneous imo. There is no reason to not have it at the primary name. If it is not retired, it is conceivable that there will someday be a more significant storm of the same name - therefore the year makes sense. Reversing the redirect is trivial. The question to ask at this time is "Until the conclusions of the 2008 WMO meeting are announced, what storm named Dean are people going to be looking for when they look for Hurricane Dean?"--Nilfanion (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus a while back which determined that hurricane names don't get the main article unless they are retired - has this changed since? If so, I agree completely with jdorje. Retirement or no retirement, this Dean is easily more notable than the others. Pobbie Rarr 12:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we may be getting it backwards. Unless eminently notable (Typhoon Tip), a storm doesn't get the main name if it hasn't been retired. However, during the season, there's no reason not to give a major storm the primary name. The one case in which this supposedly bit us, Emily, was remedied with a quick move. --Golbez 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also remember that we're not talking about the Three-revert rule. While we picked some standards, they are at most guidelines, and are flexible. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone moved it back to Hurricane Dean (2007). As this is the most notable Dean, and fairly likely to be retired, how come it was moved back? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. It was moved by User:Mgunter93 earlier. ---CWY2190^TC 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is since it is not 100% certain to be retired (not an obvious case like Katrina, knowing the history of some of these countries affected in retirement cases), but it is a likely case. Such has precedent with the retired 2006 Pacific typhoons (the first retired storms in any basin since WP:WPTC was launched). Hurricane Dean should continue to redirect here though. CrazyC83 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I compared Hurricane Dean to Emily, and it turns out Dean it more likely to be retired. Emily was, I guess you could say, nearly retired. Well, Dean was much worse, so its retirement is likely. In fact, Dean killed 38 people, Emily killed 15; Dean did $3 850 000 000 in damages, Emily did $550 000 000. So, Dean is more notable than Emily, so I wouldn't object moving it to Hurricane Dean. It's made headlines in the news too, although even Erin has made about as much news because it caused severe flooding in the continental USA, and killed about 30 people, mostly while extratropical. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

I have protected this page from new and anonymous editors for a weeks time, to allow the newsworthy article to settle down in the terms of current events and affairs, as well as to keep the vandalism that has been plaguing it the past few days down. Jmlk17 01:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It was getting really hectic keeping information accurate. ---CWY2190^TC 01:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

yep, semi is a great idea, SqueakBox 01:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is a great source for information, and it is generally good policy for pages featured on the front page to be unprotected in order to encourage new people to join and edit Wikipedia. Yeah, there will be vandalism, but there will be a lot more people watching, too. Titanium Dragon 01:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I didnt know it was fron page. Try for an unprotection request, we were being bombarded by anon vandalsim but perhaps the timing is too long and it could be unblocked much more quickly, SqueakBox 01:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree as well. There were several anonymous editors that were adding correct information earlier on, and now they can't do so. I'd say that the solution here is to block the troublemakers, instead of protect the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We weren't having any trouble controlling the vandalism. This page is active enough that reverts were happening within minutes if not seconds and many anons were making good contributions. Plasticup ^T/C 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... so, I'll ask this instead: does anyone object to the removal of the protection? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a direct objection. But none of the vandals are getting blocked because we have 20 anons making 1 or 2 edits instead of 4 or 5 making a lot of vandal edits. But I don't object to removing it. ---CWY2190^TC 02:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine either way here... :)Jmlk17 04:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just wondering, I requested page protection earlier today, but then saw that many anons were making constructive edits. Was this page protected because of this, or some other request, or you just decided to protect it? Even I had to revert a user's edits, but I'm not sure if the account was new. I'll check the RFFP also to see what happened there. Is this article getting any better now that it's semi-prot'ed? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There is something I don't get here. The last action in the log was on the 20th. Today is the 21st. The vandalism from IPs is still active. What's going on? Has the page not been semiprotected? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Page warning

There is a warning on the top of the page; who made this template? Is this standard? I didn't pay much attention to Wikipedia natural disaster articles while they were ongoing. Titanium Dragon 02:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is standard for any tropical system that could affect land. ---CWY2190^TC 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And WP:NDT isn't?194.169.192.139 02:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is more of a warning than a disclaimer, sort of like WP:Spoiler. Plasticup ^T/C 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is some opposition to the warning. I support the warning. However, the storm is not as severe and has moved inland. Therefore, I will remove the warning. Others may revert if they feel strongly. Archtrain 21:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

189 MPH Winds

Chad Myers of CNN just recently announced that hurricane hunters have detected winds in excess of 189MPH making this the 2nd most powerful hurricane by wind behind Allen and Camille can anyone verify im not exactly sure if this is sustained or gusts. Kuzwa 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's likely flight level winds. Surface winds are usually much lower. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aye yai yai. Hunters found 162 kt (186 mph) at flight level, not the surface. ---CWY2190^TC 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Useing the Hurricane Hunters Flight rule of 90% flight level winds to surface winds wouldn't that mean that the winds are now 167.4mph? I think so.. Here is the Vortex Code from the Hurricane Hunters.[2] - 03:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the 90% flight rule does = 167mph. The NHC said 160mph may be conservative because of communication problems with the Hunters. ---CWY2190^TC 03:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We let the NHC do those calculations. They may want to take into account special features that cause a deflection from that 90% rule. Plasticup ^T/C 03:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What I do wonder is if something about the wind estimate being "conservative" should be added. But since there'll probably be an update once they get the data it's not worth worrying about. — jdorje (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I say add it. Flight-level data and pressure estimates support higher wind speeds and the NHC added "conservative" in their own words. As of 4:32 AST, there has been no change, if there is no change by the 5 AM advisory we should add that at landfall Dean had winds of 160, which was a conservative estimate by the NHC until the TCR post-season. Dvorak numbers and ADT also support that claim as they rapidly rose to 7.1 hours after the 160 mph declared by the NHC. The great kawa 08:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember folks that this storm was moving at a very fast 20 mph; that may have contributed to the NHC's decision to lower the speeds more than normal. If you mention it, mention it only in passing, don't say things like "the NHC was more conservative than usual." That's OR and we should definitely wait for the TCR. --Golbez 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The NHC accounted for it in the 5 AM advisory and hence any further changes of wording or whatnot should wait until the TPC is out post-season. The great kawa 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

SI units and the manual of style.

There seems to be some confusion on the use of SI units in this article. Can folks please review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNITS#Units_of_measurement

and let me know why this wouldn't be applicable here? The hurricane isn't a US event, and the MOS seems pretty straightforward on this. Popkultur 03:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the NHC gives exact figures for US (imperial units ie mph) and approximate numbers for SI units. New England ^{Review Me!} 03:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Proving my point, one user reverted my edit because the NHS uses mbar, and another reverted my edit because the WMO uses imperial. This is exactly why the MOS is so clear on this issue. Popkultur 03:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The World Meteorological Organization has designated the National Hurricane Center as the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre for the entire Atlantic hurricane basin. The NHC uses imperial units for advisories. ---CWY2190^TC 03:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The MoS also says to follow the sources method, and NHC advisories give distances and speed in imperial units first, but pressure in SI units first, so we should do the same. New England ^{Review Me!} 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thanks for clarifying this. Popkultur 03:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is untrue; the NHC gives exact speed figures in knots, which are neither Imperial nor SI. The units in the article should be (and will eventually be updated to be) knots, the original source numbers, followed by km/h and mph in parentheses. —Verrai 03:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see the speed given in knots in any advisory yet. Here is the section on windspeed in the most recent one:

"MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE NEAR 160 MPH...260 KM/HR...WITH HIGHER GUSTS. DEAN IS A POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC CATEGORY FIVE HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE. LITTLE CHANGE IN STRENGTH IS EXPECTED PRIOR TO LANDFALL ON THE EAST COAST OF THE YUCATAN PENINSULA. ALTHOUGH SOME WEAKENING IS FORECAST AS DEAN CROSSES THE YUCATAN PENINSULA...DEAN IS EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN HURRICANE STRENGTH THROUGHOUT THE NEXT 24 HOURS." -New England ^{Review Me!} 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The public advisory gives wind speed in MPH because the public doesn't know what 140 knots means. Knots are given in the actual forecast advisory and discussion. 1 2 ---CWY2190^TC 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the clarification. New England ^{Review Me!} 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Visible vs. infrared

I have been changing the B&W image captions from infrared to visible. However, on further thought, I realized that it is likely that the images reported as visible on the NOAA site (i.e. [[3]]) are actually infrared at nighttime. I couldn't obtain any confirmation in my brief search on the associated webpages. I will revert my edits for the time being...I would be interested in hearing a response to confirm or refute my suspicion. Thanks.--GregRM 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The first B&W image in the article was taken at 0315 UTC which was 11:15 local time. I think that rules out the possibility of it being a visible image. The second one has "GOES-Infrared" embedded in the image. Plasticup ^T/C 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the confirmation. I had noticed that there is a transition in the "visible" satellite loops (e.g. http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/flt/t1/loop-vis.html) around nightfall. I guess I had never really thought about it much and assumed there was some special light amplification or "night vision" feature on the satellite. (This probably isn't practical, although I suppose there could be a large amount of light reflected from the moon during certain dates and times.)--GregRM 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

907 vs. 909

Watch the Weather Channel at 4:50 am EDT, the lowest reading from the hurricane hunters was 907 mb central pressure, but its now back up to 909. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.189.185 (talk)

The 4:50 EDT segment says 906, now.

Landfall pressures

"THE 906 MB CENTRAL PRESSURE IS THE NINTH LOWEST ON RECORD FOR AN ATLANTIC BASIN HURRICANE...AND THE THIRD LOWEST AT LANDFALL BEHIND THE 1935 LABOR DAY HURRICANE IN THE FLORIDA KEYS AND HURRICANE GILBERT OF 1988 IN CANCUN MEXICO."

The 9th lowest pressure is no news. But where's the dataset that gives landfall pressures? Our gilbert article doesn't even give a landfall pressure for that storm; what was it? There should be a table template for this listing as well. — jdorje (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert was 900mb at landfall in the Yucatán. I'm surprised the article doesn't show that. I'll fix it right away unless someone has beaten me to it. Pobbie Rarr 10:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Landfall as Cat 5

"Dean is also the first Category 5 hurricane to make landfall in the Western Hemisphere since Hurricane Andrew of 1992." - I know what it means, but would it be less confusing to write "... the first hurricane to make landfall as a Category 5..." - People will be thinking "there were four Cat5s in 2005, and none of them made landfall?". Iorek85 10:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be clarified better. The media are especially guilty of blurring the distinction between Category 5 hurricanes at sea and at landfall. The latter phenomenon is notably rarer. Pobbie Rarr 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps ""Dean is also the first Category 5 hurricane to make landfall in the Western Hemisphere since Hurricane Andrew of 1992" should be changed, the Western Hemisphere part may not be entirely accurate; the article on Hurricane Linda says the storm directly over Socorro Island as a 5, but I'm not sure if it made landfall or not. Atlantic Basin would most certainly be accurate, though. 70.127.153.236 14:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I've changed "Western Hemisphere" to "Atlantic basin". Individual storms are more significant in terms of their basins I would say. Pobbie Rarr 14:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew anniversary

"Coincidentally, Dean's landfall fell 3 days before the 15th anniversary of Andrew's landfall."

Is this really significant enough to warrant mention? The most intense hurricanes are always going to occur around the same peak period each year. Pobbie Rarr 10:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not notable, and unsourced. Removed. – Chacor 10:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this right

Taken from main article page:

Track of Dean as of 11AM EDT August 19, 2007.

Is this right, or has the caption just yet to be updated? Nethetheless, if it hasn't been updated, it should be as the image is now out of date. Davnel03 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the caption. It's correct to 2300Z August 20. – Chacor 12:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed in article. Davnel03 13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Past tense, please

While we may have to use the present tense for living people in order to not offend them, it is smarter to just use past tense on Dean now. It was a hurricane yesterday. It is a hurricane today, but it is not going to get offended if we refer to it in the past tense now anyway. It is not a timeless assertion like that those that emerge in math and science (which can be referred to in the present tense as a matter of convenience). Past tense only in this article. And please do not label any information as current. That is NOT what we are doing here. If you want to use present tense, then write for Wikinews.--23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wha? For all current articles, I don't think it is a problem that we use current verbs. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a little flexible. We can use present tense on the first sentence. Everything else should be past tense. Go read the prose and you will see that I am correct.--SallyForth123 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care either way for tense, but it needs to stay Current storm information since all of our templates are set up to go to that link. ---CWY2190^TC 00:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This also has to do with whether we KNOW what is "is" doing, or only what it was doing even a few hours ago. And we do not provide "current" anything about current events. It is no wonder that we feel the need to put an ugly red disclaimer on the article.--SallyForth123 00:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be current tense when the storm is active. To say a tropical storm warning was in effect is misleading as it suggests it is not live now, the same is true of similar substitutions. The instant the storm dissipates... it will change.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x between 1 and 5)Hi. I'm not saying Dean will be offended if we call it "was". By the time it dissipates, someone will have updated that information. Therefore, we can still say that something "is". Does it really make sense to tell everyone that hurricane Dean "was" a hurricane? This may make people in its path think the storm is over and no longer a hurricane so now it's safe to go home. Wikipedia does have current topics, notice "information may change rapidly as the event progresses"? This is the English wikipedia, it is not like the other languages, which may take days to update. Typically, important breaking info is updated within a few minutes here. Notice how the infobox currently and deliberately says "infobox hurricane current" and "current storm information"? Saying Dean "was a storm, warning was issued, was in a state of emergency, was heading towards Mexico, was intensifying, etc", makes people think, automatically, that Dean is now gone and there is no more danger. Seeing was on a current topic that is still going on will confuse many people and make them not realise that the event is still happening. Also, do you really think it is nessecary that every instance of "is" on wikipedia be changed to "was"? What about the article "is"? Would you have to merge it with "was"? The point is, on a wikipedia where current info can be redily updated, there is no need to write comeletely in past tense. What about other encyclopedias covering topics that are not history, past, and gone? They probably have at least a few instances of "are" or "is". I also do not see a guideline saying that every single non-news website must write in past tense. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If people think that referring to it in the past tense means that it is over, then they deserve to die. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a news source. There's an awful lot of junk in this article that needs to go. I think recentism is a bad thing.

I don't have any objection to referring to it in the present tense as long as it is extant, though. However, please keep in mind that this page will be significantly cut down in the future when it becomes clear what is important and what is not. Titanium Dragon 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For any current event there WILL be present tense as the event develops. Once the storm dissipates everything will revert to the past tense (unless they still hold true, like estimations of damage). – Chacor 02:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Chacor and others; things happening now are present tense. Any article with any version of a current tag will generally have portions of it in the present tense. As time senensitive info in this article moves from the present to the past, it has and will continue to be deleted and replaced with more current info. This will continue to be the case until the storm dissipates. Jon 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in affecting the accuracy of the information (e.g. "A tropical storm warning was in effect for your area" versus "A tropical storm warning is in effect for your area"), as the article will undergo a detailed revision as soon as the storm passes. Also, that "If you want to write in present tense go to Wikinews" assertion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the missions of both Wikinews and Wikipedia: Wikinews seeks to provide snapshots of news stories. We can cover those news stories as well, when we provide the background, which we are doing. We are not limited to just providing snapshots, just like we are not limited to providing info about the past. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note post-degeneration, shouldn't there still be some kind of current tag on the article for a few days while new damage assement reports ccontinue to ome in? Jon 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Area preparations

Area preparations by August 19 for Hurricane Dean.

I intend putting this map in the "Preparations" section. Given the protected nature of the page, I thought I'd better float it here first. Given the ongoing discussion, I assume anybody with strong objections will manifest them quickly, so if I do not hear any "nays" within the hour I'll put it up. Regards, Anameofmyveryown 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody having objected, I will do so. Anameofmyveryown 05:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It could do with some updating... Plasticup ^T/C 06:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Plasticup, I assume your statement "...It could do with some updating..." was based on the assumption that it was a map of areas affected. I need to point out that the map is of area preparations by August 19th, not a map of areas affected to date. Doing a map *now* of areas affected would require it to be updated frequently: I prefer to wait until things calm down first. Regards, Anameofmyveryown 02:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

No, I just meant that August 19 was 3 days prior and the forecast (and therefore preparations) had changed significantly since then. Plasticup ^T/C 06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Can we use something like this next time? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Titoxd, I have changed the colors to match Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps#Map_colors and have made the map bigger: I hope that addresses your concerns. I need to point out that the map you recommended a) did not have US nor Mexican states on it, and so they would have to be drawn in manually and b) a full-world map would make the prepared areas too small to see. Regards, Anameofmyveryown 02:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Well, I was thinking more in terms of a Scalable vector graphics image, but oh, well. That works too. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Category 2

CNN is reporting that Dean is a Cat 2 hurricane again, so... Doo-dle-doo 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Second landfall

<a href="http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCUAT4+shtml/221646.shtml?">NHC</a> reports that Dean made its second landfall as a cat2. I updated the intro text accordingly.

now tropical storm

according to the weather channel, the 5 pm advisory indicates that dean is down to 70mph. 71.60.151.41 20:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We know. ---CWY2190^TC 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

can someone confirm where the Border is for the Atlantic/Eastern Pacfic oceans (I Think it is 100W but i am not sure) Jason Rees 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While over land, it is always considered to be the basin that it came ashore in until it re-emerges. However, Dean is not crossing over intact (although the remnant circulation might make it into the Pacific with little left). CrazyC83 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It does look like a remant circulation has indeed crossed but it's well below threshold and at this time doesn't look like it will regenerate into a tropical storm. Jon 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If it does, it will be named Gil and will be treated separately at the 2007 Pacific hurricane season article. CrazyC83 22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)