Talk:Hurricane Gustav/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hurricane Gustav

Is now forecasted to be a Category 3 in the Gulf. —Preceding usigned comment added by (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's 96 hours away, and this upcoming interaction with Haiti could change things considerably. Plasticup T/C 11:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sky News is saying its a 5 now...Mcdonaldo (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The NHC Havent upgraded it Yet and their who matters Jason Rees (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Just thought they were using the NHC as a reference anyway... Mcdonaldo (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Records and naming

This unsourced "record" was in the "Storm history" section.

Gustav also went from a Tropical Depression to a Hurricane in 15 hours, beating Hurricane Humberto's record of 18 hours.[citation needed]

Plasticup T/C 11:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree..... Itfc+canes=me (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
An IP just added a similar "record", so I am putting them both into a "Records and naming" section. Hopefully we can cite them. Plasticup T/C 12:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Lorenzo took 12 hours as per NHC from TD to C1. --Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1000 edits!!!' 13:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Lorenzo's TCR says 50 hours. The best track is on page 4. Plasticup T/C 13:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Humberto has the fastest from it's first advisory to Cat:1, Lorenzo has fastest from TD to Cat:1. Also, looking at the [running best track], It seems Gustav took about 24 hours to go from TD to Cat:1. We'll have to wait for the official confirmation when the TCR for Gustav is released to be sure. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It was probably a tropical storm at the time of first advisory and may have been as early as 0600Z yesterday. It probably will go down as a hurricane starting at the 0000Z point yesterday in the TCR based on satellite appearance. That would be 18 hours. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably, but until the TCR comes out we have a secondary source that says otherwise. Plasticup T/C 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuba preps

Cuba usually evacuates 300,000+ people (yay for big communist governments!) so keep an eye out for sources to that effect. Plasticup T/C 16:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume they will be some US preps within the next couple days, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the models are predicting a Cat 4 in New Orleans. We all remember how that worked out. Plasticup T/C 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. This is looking like a deja vu. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
GFDL is still predicting a Cat 4 off Louisiana, and in the last few runs the HWRF has started to agree. NGP too. Plasticup T/C 13:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In Cuba's eastern provinces, authorities Tuesday moved trucks and buses into place, preparing to repeat the mass evacuations of people and livestock carried out for Fay. They readied to shut down tourist facilities and campsites and began setting up temporary shelters and food distribution centers at hotels and schools source. These are preparations that Cuba is getting ready to carry out. Preparations for the preparations. I say we wait 12 hours and just write about the actual preps. Plasticup T/C 13:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Does anybody think that the recently added 'forecast' paragraph should be created into a new section? It just seems that it doesn't belong in the lead section, that's all. Chris1193 (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it should be included at all, but if it is to go anywhere it should be in the "Current storm information" section. Plasticup T/C 16:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've put it in there for now, but lets see if anyone else thinks the same first before we delete it. Chris1193 (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, its already been deleted! Chris1193 (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Juliancolton moved it into the "Storm history" Plasticup T/C 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I still can't read properly!!! Chris1193 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added sourced information about the forecasted path (there was already some, but not with a cited source). I don't think the heading of the section it's in is consistent with what the paragraph is about, but I'm going to leave it to editors with more experience with the standards for articles on hurricanes to decide where it goes. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

27-Aug-2008: I have re-added the short "Forecast" paragraph, which is a text description of the nearby tracking map: hence, it is the textual equivalent of the graphic (information on maps can also be described in words). A textual description of a map should not be interpreted as a shocking new concept that "their little minds" cannot comprehend. Because it is tied to the map, the text is physically formatted nearby the map; hence, it is similar to an image caption, without being inserted into the storm infobox and changing the layout of that infobox. I have made over 357,000 edits to Wikipedia articles, and I noticed that many people have tried to severely limit the information in Wikipedia articles: but trust me, the readers are quite intelligent, and will not be totally unable to comprehend what "Forecast" means at that point in the article. Note that the text is a factual statement of a forecast issued on the stated date, not an original-research projection, nor a historical statement of the actual storm path. Sorry if the concept has upset some people. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but the forecast has no place in the lead. I am moving it, per the consensus of dozens of WP:WPTC editors. Plasticup T/C 19:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fuel Price Concerns

Pundits on all of the News outlets claim that this thing will cause gasoline prices to jump dramatically. (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We already have a few sentences about oil prices. Plasticup T/C 00:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

During the Katrina aftermath, ( wikki personal knowledge or exp guideline used), fuel went up in the south by dollars a gallon over nite. Deisel was in short supply literally stopping transportation in its tracks. Truckstops were not getting there deliverys and imposed 50 gallon limits on fuel purchases. Law enforcement was diverted to cover areas that law enforcement was direrted from to support disaster assistance. This diversion left many areas as far as Georgia vastly understaffed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

US preps

Here's a few links that I can't add, as my laptop is running out of battery, but somebody else can:

Several of the sources hint at the similarity between Gustav's forecast track with the track followed by a particularly notorious hurricane, as well as the proximity of Katrina's 3-year anniversary. We probably have to include that somehow in the article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Katrina come from the other side of Florida? From the Atlanic, not the Caribbean Sea. Plasticup T/C 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
True, the two storms are coming from different directions of origin, but once Gustav get's into the Gulf, it should start to look very similar. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I have added those sources. Lots of good info there. Plasticup T/C 11:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

New Orleans isn't ready. At all. 3 years and we aren't ready. No matter what they say. If it comes up the mouth of the Mississippi. No More New Orleans. Sure they'll repair the French Quarter and Downtown. And save a small area of residence for workers and what not, but that is the end of a that city. Maybe Gustav will turn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchick08 (talkcontribs) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Information like that would be very useful to this article. Do you know of any reliable sources that say this? --Elliskev 18:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's a matter of opinion, and doesn't really belong in the article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
On every internet article that I have read the first 10 feedback posts are residents of the gulf coast bemoaning their states' lack of preparedness. With so many anecdotes there may well be reliable secondary sources backing it up. Plasticup T/C 19:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
For instance, the Virgo New Moon cycle, indicates strong potential that Gustav will affect Louisiana, New Orleans, and southwestern Mississippi. :-P Plasticup T/C 19:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
To Juliancolton: Of course it's a matter of opinion. There are no absolutes regarding what is appropriate content for any article, only guidelines and consensus. My opinion is that the states of preparedness for areas which may be possibly impacted, as reported by reliable sources, is relevant and useful. This talk page is for discussing these things. --Elliskev 19:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Gulf ports unprepared source Plasticup T/C 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Contraflow source Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Inmate evacuations Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Loop Current

Time to mention the Loop Current again. Simesa (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And the eddy off the coast of Louisiana, as well... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Data Buoy 42003 shows the water temperature at only 89-degrees-F recently. If it's still anywhere close to the Loop Current now, that's very good news. Simesa (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Quickly skimming all the significant data buoys of the National Data Buoy Center, it looks like the whole Gulf of Mexico and Cayman Islands vicinities (south of Cuba) are well below 90-degrees-F, the water temperature that seems to be some kind of threshold for hurricane formation. Simesa (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: The data buoys near Florida have taken a beating, and several are not currently operational (such as 42014, 42080, 42408...). I'm not sure how warm the deep water in the Keys is. Simesa (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Generally, water has to be warmer than 26˚C (79 ˚F) to be conducive to tropical cyclogenesis. The water is unfortunately still warm enough. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see a Loop Current in Map. Simesa (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I do. Plasticup T/C 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: some of the Upper Level winds "boys" are down.... they are on land... so we a limited clue about what shear is impacting Gustav Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The news media is now saying that Gustav is heading right for the Loop Current. I'll try to find a map of its current location. Simesa (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added some text about the current state of the Loop Current - things could be a lot worse, there's "cold" water between the tip of the Loop (which is half of what it could be) and the storm should be mitigated a little. I used simple refs because we're sure to be using better ones after this is all over. Simesa (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As of 4 pm Aug 31 it looks like Gustav has crossed the short and relatively-cool Loop Current without increasing strength to a Cat 4 - it has cooler water to cross now before it gets to the Louisiana coast. Got lucky this time. Simesa (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Upgraded infobox with image sizes or captions

28-Aug-2008: I have just now, today, upgraded and extensively tested the hurricane-current infobox to use "class=infobox" and provide new parameters: image_width, track_width, image_caption, track_caption, for setting image widths/captions as in other more modern infoboxes. See more details at the infobox talk-page, under:

I also fixed some bugs from the original coding, obscured because there had been no programming comments in the template to explain the coding to other people. The parameter "1sustained" now will show the value (when used).

I will expand later, but my IE browser just crashed (again) losing all the details I had written here (the crash also erased the clipboard copy of that text). I will save this portion, in case IE crashes again. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, I saved the above message without IE crashing again. You might wonder why the hurricane-current infobox was outdated, considering the notability of hurricanes: well, there are only a relative handful of people focusing on the major notable articles in Wikipedia. Those skeleton crews of people also upgrade old templates, but the MediaWiki parser language (for templates) is a convoluted grouping of 3 language types (positional, keyword, and boxifying indented text), so template bugs and outdated coding are difficult to fix (even for typical Java or HTML software developers) without breaking the fragile, error-prone template coding. Somewhat like draft articles, the MediaWiki software has been in a neophyte, draft-like state of early technology, which generated many problems when trying to use/modify the templates. Please note: templates didn't even allow parameters when first implemented! ...that's how elementary the MediaWiki software has been. ... ... Progress depends on individual people, who focus on major notable articles & their infoboxes, to overcome all the problems in every direction. If you have ideas to improve current-hurricane coverage, please let people know. Only by everyone working, together, can the past problems from years ago be overcome. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Should we now add one of those banner boxes warning people not to get their primary information from Wikipedia? Simesa (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a precedent for doing so in cases like this, but judging from Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, I would think a disclaimer shouldn't be used here. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That was deleted for the reason mentioned by Pyrospirit. -CWY2190(talkcontributions) 23:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm sure I've seen such in the distant past but not recently. Simesa (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

NHC rounding versus convert

29-Aug-2008: I was able to get the Template:Convert auto-conversion of kilometers into miles to match the distance-rounding used by the NHC 2-digit figures (nearest +5 miles):

  • {{convert|95|km|mi|sigfig=1|abbr=on}} west of Kingston.

So, Template:Convert gives "60 miles" as the rounded conversion of 95 km (to 1 significant figure). However, when using a 3-digit distance (sigfig=2), the Template:Convert amount did not match the NHC rounding:

  • {{convert|415|km|mi|sigfig=2|abbr=on}}

Here, Template:Convert gives "260 miles" as the 5-mile rounded conversion of 415 km into 257.7 miles, which was incorrectly rounded as "255" in the NHC advisory 17A data for Gustav.

Note that Wikipedia's Template:Convert gives a correct rounding for 5-mile rounding, while the NHC figure is off by 5 miles. I would consider the km amount to be the primary/leading measurement, and then convert to rounded miles correctly, regardless of any NHC rounding problems. Therefore, retain the Template:Convert mileage results as an accurate reporting, based on km distance as the primary unit.

If NHC begins favoring "miles" as the primary unit, perhaps near the USA, then the conversion can be reversed with "km" as secondary, not necessarily matching the NHC km figures, as long as the mileage numbers match the NHC advisory data. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My solution is even simpler: I don't use {{Convert}}. All the mph and km/h figures are being rounded from knots anyway, so there is no way that you can get the right answer by converting miles to km or visa versa. Plasticup T/C 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand your opinion, but the issue is not about a "right answer" but, rather, that Template:Convert generates an accurate conversion, regardless of whether the NHC data shows internal inconsistency errors. The converted units from Template:Convert are "close enough" to be acceptable. Also, when an NHC advisory fails to show converted units, then Template:Convert already provides the converted amounts. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, simply do not use {{convert}}, as the "accurate" measurement is whatever the source (in this case the NHC) says. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 12:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand the opinion to parrot the source; however, Wikipedia relies on multiple sources: not just accepting NHC data as an authority, but also running a sanity check on numbers and contrasting with other sources. It is dangerous to use "quoting authority" as the sole reference for information. In this case, Template:Convert provides a simple sanity check to question the NHC data, and then provides converted units which are accurate for use (but not always the exact NHC figures). If NHC data is suspect, then prior NHC advisories can be compared, perhaps showing the change in "km" distance is logical, whereas the distance in "miles" might be a typographical error. Those are also key reasons to use Template:Convert. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a more authoritative source on tropical systems than the National Hurricane Center... --Winger84 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The error here is that you're rounding previously rounded numbers and calling it "correct". Both reported numbers are already rounded to the nearest multiple of 5. By applying rounding to a rounded value, you introduce error that did not previously exist.

Yes, 260 miles is a more accurate conversion of 415 km than 255 miles, but that does not mean that 260 miles is the more accurate measurement of the distance. Nobody said which way the 415 km was rounded. For all we know it was measured as 413 km and rounded up, making 255 miles more accurate than 260 miles.

The only way to know the correct answer is to make the pre-rounding measurements for the official reports. The only people who are able to do that are working at the NHC. -- Cyrius| 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Radios and Flashlights

You guys in the affected areas will need to get to both Wal*Mart and Radio Shack to get both the Self Powered Radios and the Self Powered Flashlights. I and family have at least five of these. Batteries will be unavailable, and for those that have them, will "run down". You'll have to get these right now. (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I have stated this is that you would have light, and information while others have nothing but darkness at night and lack of information. Do NOT use candles either, use light sticks, which are a LOT safer, will not set off damaged gas mains, explosive, flammable gas. (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


The edits are starting to get out of hand. Is it now appropriate to semi-protect the article but not Discussion? Simesa (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No... although i wil be on hubble quite often so i will try and revert all bad edits with a warning and a Vinegar flavoured cookie XD Itfc+canes=me (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't like having "current events" articles protected. They get so popular that they often become the face of wikipedia for a while, and it's nice to keep them "free to edit" for as long as possible. Obviously it may become necessary, but I don't think it's there yet. Plasticup T/C 13:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If within the 1/2 hour it does become the first Cat 5 Hurricane anywhere in the world this season then i would recommend semi protection Jason Rees (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Do'nt protect. NOT all IPS are idiots. (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Do not semi-protect. There are enough eyes watching the article (no pun intended), so things are under control. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nit picking

Re: ^ Barrow, Bill (2008-08-27). "Gov. Bobby Jindal declares pre-storm state of emergency (and Lake Charles' dominance)", New Orleans Times-Picayune. Retrieved on 2008-08-27.

This article doesn't have anything about Lake Charles in it, nor is Lake Charles in the title as this implies. Was it so when it was retrieved? (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Source advisory ref-tags

30-Aug-2008: I noticed that the NHC advisories have been specified in footnote ref-tags ("<ref>") named with "publicXX" as the tag name (where "XX" is the advisory number). The general format of the ref-tag is as follows:

<ref name="public22">{{cite web
| author=Blake/Avila | publisher=National Hurricane Center
| date=2008-08-30 | accessdate=2008-08-30
| title=Hurricane Gustav Advisory Number 22
| url=

Note that "author=Blake/Avila" (or "author=Knabb") is from the names at the bottom of the particular advisory webpage. I put a 2nd URL as the live-advisory webpage, until the archive webpage exists. The live advisory link is:

The advisories coded as "xxA" are named "Intermediate" compared to the other advisories (named as just "Advisory"), so the titles are:

  • title=Hurricane Gustav Advisory Number 22
  • title=Hurricane Gustav Intermediate Advisory Number 22A

Intermediate pages are in folder "public_a" with URL for 22A as:

I hope this helps people to add ref-tag footnotes to the article text; however, just stating "NHC advisory 22A" would be technically a "verifiable" statement within the article text, to meet the Wikipedia requirement for verifiability. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the confusion is. All advisories (and discussion, etc) are stored here, and published there within minutes of their release on the "Home" page. Or are you just trying to make the current standard explicit for new editors? Plasticup T/C 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


I haven't seen much info (here or elsewhere) on preparations/impact in western Cuba. The NHC is predicting a Cat4/5 landfall there, you would think that there would be tons to write about. Is the western peninsula only sparsely inhabited or are we missing a whole lot of info? Plasticup T/C 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot of info found yet. I think they were caught off guard by the rapid deepening (shades of Charley). CrazyC83 (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone keeps changing the province which got hit - it's Pinar del Río Province!!! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The Isle of Youth I think has been made landfall, but Pinar del Rio has not been landfalled yet I don't think. Anyway, we need a new citation for the "85 deaths". We will probably have to do a lot of updating so be on the lookout for new news sources. ~AH1(TCU) 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See This!

Satellite image
Storm track
Dean and Gustav

--Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1000 edits!!!' 22:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it has made landfall in Pinar del Rio. ~AH1(TCU) 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Each country has its own section

Some one already tried to mass the whole Impact area into blob. I think its clearer with each country having their own section and in the US - each state having its own area.

I haven't noticed yet from Florida - but TWC has already reported waterspouts off Key West...Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That will come into play as subarticles will likely be needed once the page gets to about 70 kB (the Caribbean most likely grouped together unless more is found from individual islands). CrazyC83 (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably - but why do Americans trivialize every other country??? This is hurricane is not an American owned one. To bad our wikipedians to give (or find) more info on the already affected countries.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't have anything to do with whether Americans want to own the hurricane or any other nonsense like that. WP:GTL exhorts, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since these can inhibit the flow of the text. By the same token, paragraphs become hard to read once they exceed a certain length." These sections are tiny, so they should be combined until they can be expanded. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Each country's section really needs to be expanded. Details about damages (ok in US$) and still needs to be added and expanded. This is what impact is all about. I was hoping our Spanish and French friends could expand The Dominican Republic and Haiti with a bit more info. But since 99.44% of the folks entering here are Yanks then what is to be expected???
I agree about it being expanded; the question is what do we do until those sections are beefed up. I don't think anyone is arguing that those sections be left condensed permanently. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

New NOAA Picture

of the projected path, which I would upload but I don't have a username for Commons. - (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Me, too - I should learn that skill, but practicing on this article is out of the question. Simesa (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In affected area

I'm in the affected area. So far, NOAA claims I will have potentially servere storms, incl. tornadoes. (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Although the Loop Current isn't bad right now (relatively cool, and only extends halfway to Louisiana with cooler water inbetween), the high-altitude shear isn't there and this could be a record-size monster when it makes U.S. landfall. Simesa (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


We now have some Forecast text. Should we have a Forecast section? Is there a policy against such in a situation such as this? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? Simesa (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We do show the map of the expected path already. Simesa (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I can't believe that the 4 am map shows Gustav now hooking westwards! Is there some "sensitivity" to showing it pass right over New Orleans? Simesa (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As long as the text indicates (and sources) predictions as past statements from the referenced sources, then okay; however, if the text is worded like an ongoing projection (not reporting a sourced prediction), then IMO the section would be crystal-ball writing. It is only acceptable as a report of someone else's prediction, at a past date and time, as I interpret the crystal-ball avoidance. - (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not it should be included, I think we can all agree that it does not belong in the lead. Plasticup T/C 11:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Consolidate everything lower at the next forecast? Simesa (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I split section "Forecasted events" under header "Current storm information" and linked that new forecast section from the top. Eventually, most of the top forecast can be moved down to there, to allow room for expansion, without cluttering the lede with a "forecast edit-war" as I suspect might happen soon, plus allowing room to cite prediction reports rather than list just opinions about the forecast. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

NHC 4am/Aug31 map hooks to west

It does seem bizarre that the NHC forecast path (of 4am on 31Aug08) is not in the center of the warning areas, giving the impression that if the eye of Gustav crossed Galveston Island, then it wouldn't be a "hurricane-zone" danger. The article just shows the map, as is. Perhaps the NHC map writers are just pressed for time to update all the wind-speed charts, as well as the forecast path, and became confused enough to forecast an eye-path into an unwarned Galveston. I can't say NHC is avoiding New Orleans paths, because they haven't even considered a Camille-style Mississippi path, either. Basically, it looks like NHC is not changing their early prediction at all (and the storm might be going more NNW rather than true northwest), and also perhaps a path-map change requires numerous signatures from NHC managers, that's why I also look at the hurricane-model forecasts outside the NHC bureaucracy. However, it does look like NOLA might get a real hurricane (mostly inside the city) this time, not 50 miles east.

As for describing the map in the article, I think we might need to find someone to quote, who judged the map as "hooked to the west" or perhaps just state that Galveston/etc. is not in a warning zone (just in the eye-path!!!). -Wikid77 (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Storm history

"In the early hours of 31 August Gustav entered the Gulf of Mexico with maximum sustained winds of 135 mph and minimum central pressure of 958 millibars.[25]" It had already left Cuba by 11 pm [1] - does that not count as entereing the Gulf ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Its hard to say exactly that happen because of the closing eye wall. I changed the wordage to be "By the early hours"... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cat 4 probability?

End of lead section: "29% probability of reaching Category 4 before landfall expected on the Louisiana coast."

I'm not finding that figure anywhere in the supporting citation. And I see (second column of numbers) that there is only a 12% probability that it will be a Cat 4 at the time of expected landfall (1 p.m. Monday), which seems to me the most important figure in the table. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because the reference is dynamic, and the number changed. I'm not really sure why we're putting probability statements of that kind in the lede... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: data buoy perhaps lost

The National Data Buoy Center's Data Buoy 42003 has gone silent after registering near-35-foot waves. It was the closest buoy to the Loop Current. Simesa (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Category status?

At some point, we will probably want a distinct category for Gustav. Any comments on when that should occur? KConWiki (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

When it's no longer current, in about 5 or 6 days. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Political Impacts

Very peripheral to the issue here. After all, we gave the very-real impact on oil prices one short sentence. When something solid happens, like the President rescheduling his speech to fly to Louisiana that would be noteworthy. Simesa (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

New report that Republican Convention may be postponed, so left section in after rewriting and trimming. Simesa (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If it gets postponed, it should be added in the aftermath section, otherwise it is just speculation not really related to the storm (directly). CrazyC83 (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It may be peripheral for YOU, but do you think the rest of the America cares more about a wet New Orleans, or do they care more about the joy of seeing Republicans shamed at their convention and of Barack Obama becoming the next President of the United States? Schadenfreude and karma and a naughty librarian! Wheee! (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Since President Bush and Vice President Cheney are actually missing the convention, a rarity for a sitting government, it is noteworthy. They even suggest the nominee the party may not be there because of this storm. That is noteworthy.
What if very little happens, I wonder.(sorry to say) (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I dislike the gossip about someone that made the predictable joke that god is on the democrats side, how he needed a rev. to get on the idea makes it even more improbable and inappropriate? why is it in the article? (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That joke is not noteworthy. It has noting to do with the storm. At least with respect to the Presidential candidates, one of which will run our country in times of natural disasters like Katrina, this is relevant. The idea that Senator Obama may be able to send thousands of volunteers to the area when the storm passes to help with the reconstruction is probably noteworthy, only because it can provide information to people in the article about how to help those affected. Evinem (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


You think this name will be retired I know wikipedia is not a crystal ball but do you think it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The luigi kart assasions (talkcontribs) 03:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It very well might, it has a decent case so far but if the forecast becomes reality it will likely be retired. However, we cannot assume such until it actually happens next spring. If we believe it will be retired, the Hurricane Gustav link will redirect here, but the article name will not change. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to the high coverage and potential for a major storm, I decided to make the redirect - at least for now. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced, but I'll let that lie for the next few days. When you change a redirect, you should also change the redirect on the associated talk page. -- Beardo (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The Weather Channel has claimed that that this name will be retired from the Hurricane registry. Re.: Map, is that the latest there is on this thing? I'm IN the affected area! (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
They don't make that determination, and it is too early to tell whether that will be the case (although it is likely). Updating the map... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That map shows it trying to encircle Shreveport and Dallas. Is there a front, another pressure cell (a H cell or another L in the area) that will cause that? (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Move to Hurricane Gustav

I am usually the guy railing against this sort of thing, but I think this article probably deserves the "main" Gustav name. The other two Hurricane Gustavs both failed to make landfall and, between them, killed one person. This Gustav just made landfall as a Category 4 hurricane. The article at Hurricane Gustav already redirects here, and I propose we move this page over that redirect. Thoughts? Plasticup T/C 01:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed. It already has a strong case for retirement (Cat. 4 landfall in Cuba, many deaths), plus U.S. impact. I'll do it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you forget to move the talk page too? Plasticup T/C 01:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Since it will likely be an obvious retirement case, I can support it here, but not on borderline cases. If it fizzles before landfall, then it should be returned to its original location IMO. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - If we move Gustav then we need to move Fengshen as that is an obvious retirement case with over 1000 deaths which is as i write at least 10 times more than Gustav. Jason Rees (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It was already moved... and the thing is, whether Fengshen is moved or not is not really a matter for this talk page. It's better suited to Talk:Typhoon Fengshen (2008). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Local Events

Why is Gustav's impact on Southern Decadence mentioned here and not on the Southern Decadence page? It seems to me that if the author was truly trying to disseminate information about Southern Decadence they would have updated Southern Decadence as well, if not before this page. Without that update this feels to my paranoid brain like the author is trying to link the hurricane with Southern Decadence. (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No slight intended, but people are too busy trying to catch up with all that's going on. You can also edit the Decadence page yourself... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The author (me) was not trying to link Gustav and SD. At least, not in any type of way you should be paranoid over.. I just thought it was worth mentioning with the other canceled events. And I didn't put it on the Southern Decadence article because I thought it would steer that article too slanted towards recent events.  — AMK1211talk! 23:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'm paranoid, thanks for clarifying. (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

International Response: UK Not sure how best to incorporate it, I'm not much good with the reference tags. - JVG (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Think I've managed it myself... - JVG (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

International response

Why is the Canadian response (which I added) the only one relegated to the international response section? Wouldn't all countries count as international? NorthernThunder (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because the other countries listed seperately have all been hit already by this? Canada seems the only one mentioned not in the path. Well, til the UK link above gets added. - JVG (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
They are for countries not affected. Once an aftermath section is created, they will be moved there. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Content Disclaimer

Just a note... WP:NDA. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Residents of areas affected by Hurricane Gustav are advised to seek advice and information from local authorities. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your area. DO NOT decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on information from Wikipedia.

I applaude the disclaimer. I can see why the guideline was written but this is an important guideline. Disclaimers for situations where life is at stake is a notable exception. 903M (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion about this on WP:AN. The standard current disaster template has been modified and I, for one, think it should be re-posted now for various reasons discussed there. Weigh in at the debate please. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a strange and dangerous template, one might figure in most cases wiki gives a usefull idea about wether or not to leave a car etc. Also it is dangerous at points wiki advises to get out of the car (dont do what wiki says) or stay inside(but dont do what wiki says). "People struck should not rely on wiki as their principal source of up to date and accurate local information" sth neutral like that seems possible. (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:NDA. Also, that looks tacky and unstandardized too. I did make {{Current disaster}} a bit more bold, making the text bigger and adding an option to make it red instead of blue. ViperSnake151 16:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense in infobox

The info box presently says "As of: 10 p.m. CDT August 31 (0300 UTC September 1)" " 200 knots | 390 mph | 400 km/h sustained (1-min mean) gusting to 125 knots | 145 mph | 360 km/h" Where does this stuff come from? CNN is reporting 115 mph. Wikipedia does a disservice to the public by posting unsourced nonsense about a major crisis. There should be a link to the source or it should not be posted. I will delete it as unsourced and unverifiable. Edison2 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the vandalism and posted an "only warning" on the talk page of the IP vandal who changed the wind speed from 100 km/h to 200 km/h and posted an "Only warning" on the talk page of the IP editor that he/she will be blocked for any additional vandalism. Please keep an eye on the article and revert any similar vandalism. It is highly contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia to post false data or disinformation during natural disasters, and such vandals should be promptly blocked. Edison2 (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection in force

Due to the vandalism going on I swung on in to apply semi-protection, but someone had beaten me to it. Regardless, the page will remain semi-protected until the edit pace slows down. If this semi-protection causes any issues for any editor please contact me and I shall assist you.Manning (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the section in this very talk page where we had discussed this already. There is no need for this semi-protection, and I'll remove it unless a very good reason is given. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem - I tend to prefer semi-protection for these sorts of articles, but if the main editor body feel they have the situation in hand then that's just fine by me. PS WP:AGF. Manning (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Good faith assumed, but annoyance still had to be expressed. Thanks. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Please remove the semi. Vandalism is quickly reverted here. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There clearly is a need when IP vandal idiots put nonsense about the wind speed being 390 mph into the article, as noted in the previous section, and it stays there until I find it and remove it quite a while later. Semiprotection decreases the likelihood of vandals putting in incorrect information about the storm path or its effects, such as possible levee failures or flooding, or evacuation routes, which might have public safety consequences despite our boilerplate about not using the article for immediate situational information. A vandal at IP put in a hoax wind velocity of 390 mph at 3:25 and it took until 3:51 for me to notice it and restore the correct wind velocity of 115 mph. Not nearly quick enough for a natural disaster affecting millions of people with projected damages of over $30 billion. Edison2 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
So monitor the article. I was gone for a few hours, and I reviewed all the edits made to this page as soon as I came back. Every single act of vandalism since midnight UTC was reverted, except for that one. I was about to revert it when it got changed back due to the comment in this talk page. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
In the time that a vandal's hoax information is posted in the article, it could lead to incorrect decisions affecting life or property. "Woulda-coulda-shoulda reverted the vandalism" is an inadequate response. Semiprotection is required until this storm is history. Edison2 (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
So maybe we do need the big freaking red box that was being added/removed several times during that period. And yes, vandalism from new / unregistered editors can cause wrong decisions, but so can outdated information, which is being countered by new information added by non-autoconfirmed users. The sword cuts both ways there, so no, this article should not be protected. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A major ongoing international story is monitored by sufficient editors who have had accounts for over a week that we need not rely on IP editors or newly created accounts to add the storm data soon after it is released by the government weather bureau. See how long it takes for the next position and speed info to get posted. Without IP/newbie assistance. Edison2 (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not just about the weather info. It is the information about local impact, such as closures of local universities, bridges, and such, that are added with poor prose and unformatted refs, true, but are added nonetheless, that make this article fleshed out. The "weather editors" usually have no idea where to look for that kind of information, but the people living in these regions, and who often have not edited before, are the ones who would be affected by this protection. Thankfully the article has been unprotected now, and I thank the original admin for doing that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to file this with ClueBot at angryoptin? (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 :This is not a storm blog where people are encouraged to add their person experiences to say what areas are flooded, what levees have failed, what roads are open, where there is looting, where people should go for refuge, all without any references. The local newspapers have such blogs. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, where information is verifiable via reliable sources, not "Blogapedia" or "Hoaxapedia." Edison2 (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we redo the semi now and sensibly leave it up until the hurricane is past?

Like it says, really now. There is no net benefit to leaving ultra high profile articles exposed. rootology (C)(T) 06:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Like somebody said above, not all anons are idiots. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No, but by that argument let's unprotect Barack Obama and John McCain. 2-4 days max of semi isn't going to be the end of the world. Probably even get some people to register. rootology (C)(T) 06:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so... vandalism is quickly reverted here. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As the Admin who originally applied the semi-protect, let me say that if the editors working on this page are confident they can respond to vandalism/inaccurate edits in a timely fashion (and they have clearly expressed this), then I personally am perfectly happy to leave the page open. If things get out of control then the various admins floating around here can reconsider, obviously, but until then, play on.Manning (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. rootology (C)(T) 06:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Category 3 or Cateogry 4

I understand that the hurricane is currently a Category 3 hurricane. But when it hit Cuba it was a Category 4 hurricane. When the hurricane has passed maybe the hurricane could be listed as a Category 4 hurricane? This would make this article less U.S.-centric. Also this was the worst hurricane to hit Cuba in 50 years according to local authorities. Rammer (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

After the hurricane passes, {{Infobox hurricane current}} gets removed, and {{Infobox hurricane}} (or the technologically-complex {{Infobox Hurricane}}) gets added with the peak intensity info. That one will say that it was a Category 4 at maximum strength. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Forecast Link

Our NHC forecast/advisory link is [2], yet it's 0900 UTC now and it hasn't been updated since 0300 UTC despite the public advisory having been updated. I've noted a distinct lag in updating it before, but not like this. Is there a better link for getting forecasts? Simesa (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just not out yet. It's 0800 UTC, and the forecast/advisories are updated every six hours. Only the public advisories are updated every three hours (two hours when there's an imminent threat to land). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New satellite image

I've uploaded a copy of the newest satellite image here, but I can't make it fit into the infobox without breaking the template. I invite somebody else to try because I don't seem to be having much luck. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried as well, but couldn't. The new changes to the infobox substantially broke it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In re: the ref on the Fowler statement, that's technically still a blog, but since it's run by ABC News, I'll defer to their better judgment. Thanks for getting that. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's hard to know what to do with blogs that belong to reliable sources. They're blogs, but they still have their reputation on the line... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have linked that Gulf-Coast satellite image, setting image_width=150px & track_width=160x. The infobox parameters are:
| image=Gustav.A2008244.1645.1km.jpg <!--was Gustav08onCuba.jpg-->
| image_width=150px <!--max 150px-->
| track=2008 07L 5-day track.gif | track_width=160px
| track_topcaption=<small><br /><br /></small>
| track_topcaption=<font/><!--for wide satellite photo-->
I had added new parameter "track_topcaption" which allows placing a text caption above the forecast-map, but also affects the up/down vertical alignment. In a few days, I'll see if I can auto-align the 2 images, perhaps in a "150x150px" type of sizing, but for now, the alignment must be done by manually setting the above infobox parameters. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN has declared landfall

CNN just declered landfall. Simesa (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Hurricane Center is the body responsible for making these declarations, which they just did. Plasticup T/C 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Began text about Greater New Orleans

01-Sep-2008: I have begun expanding information about the entry into Greater New Orleans; however, the text has been removed 3 times, like many entries that get completely removed in the current status of article "Hurricane Gustav" as a hacking free-for-all. The text I inserted is as follows:

On September 1 around 5 a.m. CDT, the eye of Hurricane Gustav began entering into Greater New Orleans, with the eyewall rain bands crossing east of Grand Isle, Louisiana[1] (the peninsula there reaches farther southeast, to meet the eye traveling northwest). The 6 a.m. NHC advisory posted the sustained wind speed at 115 mph (185 km),[2] and then the 8 a.m. CDT advisory posted wind speed at 110 mph (175 km), just 4% slower, but crossing the threshold down to a Category 2 hurricane.[2][3] Wind speeds inside New Orleans were affected by levees, with some rising 23 ft (7 m) above sea level, so that similar winds can register as faster in taller buildings and skyscrapers above whichever levee is deflecting the wind. Because Gustav traveled northwest to the U.S., and the Louisiana coastline there also slants partly northwest, the technical landfall was much farther west than the initial contact with the northern eyewall winds, as the eye traveled partly over land more than 4 hours before making a technical landfall, along the Louisiana coast near Cocodrie[3] 9:30 a.m CDT (1430 UTC) as a Category 2 hurricane.[4]

I realize that current-news articles are awash in numerous hacked and partial edits, so having information axed within an hour is to be expected, numerous times. Hence, methods must be used to preserve detailed entries, beyond all the wild slashing and hacking of the article's content. Long term, I would re-implement wiki software so Wikipedia articles could have protected sections (as in Access control lists), such as for storm stats, to deter wild edits to some parts of articles: for article "Hurricane Katrina" the Mississippi landfall time got botched for 11 days during a flurry of other edits that concealed the hacked landfall time. We are all hindered by wiki-edit software that cannot lock parts of articles, or warn of unexpected changes, where text should rarely be changed. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Storm history - is about "GUSTAV" the storm, NOT New Orleans, its levees or what Greater New Orleans emcompasses. Read your entry and see that it is not in the correct place in the whole Gustav entry nor the geographical explanation which is beyond trivia. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That section needs to be massively pruned if it is to stay there at all. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

100% in agreement! (Reference or not!) Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
For clarity a day by day account of the storm would be very infomative. At the moment its a mass of reference points that are blobbed into 1 paragraph. I think that suits one of our wikipedia who also likes to "condense" all entries. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Those replies clarify the situation immensely: I did not realize that article "Hurricane Gustav" was being intensely edited according to severe attitudes about the subject. I had thought, in good faith, that since the description of the Haiti landfall spanned about 180 words, including the island plus mountainous terrain, the USA landfall could also span 180 words including the coastline and elevated levees. I did not sense that it "needed" to be massively pruned. However, now I comprehend the severe editing of the information, according to predefined opinions, and I realize the force of why the USA landfall description was axed so quickly. Thank you for being honest as to the true motivation behind the rapid, severe pruning of the article; it is much more severe than I had imagined. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should re-read what they wrote. You added this description of impact to the section on meteorological history. It is sort of like how you added the forecast to the lead: decent content in the wrong place. And please try to avoid sarcasm—it doesn't foster a cooperative attitude. Plasticup T/C 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

add to links at bottom?

should this be added to related links at the bottom? it has 5 news stations —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so.... and no it can't be a reference before anyone asks. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There are way too many links to people's blogs, personal photo albums, etc etc already. The section needs to be cut down rather than expanded. Does your link add anything that is not already provided? Plasticup T/C 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

American Red Cross Map

Is this map OK?

This says that Gustav will go WEST after impact. (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Found this when I Googled "Gustav/map". (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The link is broken. Plasticup T/C 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
fixed link - and yeah, it is forecast to stall and meander westward. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Corrected link:

Had a BS error. (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NOAA maps from Hurricane Center

Are these OK?

Forgot sig. (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this, say hello to IKE. It just formed. Also got three more tropical waves as well to deal with. Keep this map around guys. This Hurricane season will be one hell of a ride. (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Insured damage claims estimates out

There is already an estimate on the insured damage dealt by Hurricane Gustav, $9 billion, and if I remember correctly the property damage is roughly double that so the damage estimate is around $18 billion. Most of the losses is from the offshore oil rigs ($2 billion insured). Source Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Another source to back that up Source 2 Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

any injuries or deaths in Haiti?

Hi. If none have been reported, please cite this and add the info. If some have been reported, cite and add this info. It might be too early to tell, howerver. ~AH1(TCU) 01:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How are we going to write and source what we don't have? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

11 now confirmed dead in Jamaica

Derek Ortt (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

66 dead in Haiti according to this article AP is also reporting 66 deaths in Haiti

Derek Ortt (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • 76 dead in Haiti, per MSNBC, but no details as to how: [3]. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I added a reference today for Haiti and the deaths inflicted. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Complaints about writing

This article contradicts itself. In the articles, it has alot of diffrent wind speeds that Gustav is supposedly going at, above the 120 mentioned in the info-box. Also, claims of it being higher then a Cat. 3 (Look at the opening paragraph for god sake ' It intensified from a tropical storm to a Category 4 hurricane in less than 24 hours.' and right below that in the info box 'Current storm status Category 3 hurricane ') Could someone try to re-write this article, because it seems it has no idea where it is going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statement "'It intensified from a tropical storm to a Category 4 hurricane in less than 24 hours." from the opening paragraph because I think it's both irrelevant and confusing. I added a statement about current category and category development probabilities instead. Offliner (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The statement needs a bit of a tweak... and The user above Offliner.... that could be taken as a personal attack... do not do it again or i will issue you with a warning Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Lol.. calling a writer a 'Retard' is considered a personal attack.
Only he didn't actually criticize anyone in particular, but rather lambasted the poor prose of the article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
A valid (if poorly worded) criticism. But I think we all have to accept that articles on current events will be rough until the event is over and the prose can settle into a comfortable style. Plasticup T/C 19:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is so up-tight. It was a joke. This article is TERRIBLE. Last time I checked, the '2008 Hurricane Season' article has diffrent wind speeds. (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

no .. its not a joke its a serious discussion. no jokes. uptight? tough shit. a good article for the reader. btw ... albert einstein was retarded ... big deal. i read the article and only looked at the discussion to say how quick this one looked like a WP:GA. (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to category 2

Advisory 31B says that Gustav is back to Category 2 - clearly another non-event. [4] --Lumidek (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is already reflected in the article. Plasticup T/C 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It is still very dangerous and capable of major damage. However, if damage is much less than expected and the importance lowered to Mid, then I recommend a move back to Hurricane Gustav (2008) at least temporarily so we don't do a guessing game. CrazyC83 (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Did you miss the Category 4 landfall in Cuba? We didn't move it because of its expected damage, we moved it because it was already a beast. Anyway, the storm surge has yet to arrive, and that is the real threat. Either way, there is no sense in moving this back and forth. Let's just keep it here for (at least) the rest of the week and re-evaluate it then. Plasticup T/C 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't miss the Category 4 landfall in Cuba but I also didn't miss that there were no casualties in Cuba whatsoever. [5]. This hurricane is another non-event and should be added to that page, next to the Y2K problem. --Lumidek (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I would support a move back to Hurricane Gustav 08 untill the name is retired if it is retired that is also i wouldnt want it moved untill the HPC start issuing advisories either later tongiht or tommorow (even if it is the 2nd strongest Cyclone of any type this year in any basin) Jason Rees (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I say that you should keep it at Gustav (2008) because another storm, Doria from I think 74 has a article and did 500million but is not at main article --Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1000 edits!!!' 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Non-event"? Gustav has caused nearly 100 deaths, while other storms named Gustav have done nothing of interest. Not to mention it broke the record wind speed on Cuba at 212 mph. There's absolutely no reason to add (2008) to the end of the article because this Gustav is the most notable. --Tom (talk - email) 15:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, I personally support this "Gustav" to be given the article even without 2008. It's the most damaging hurricane Gustav. It is also the most spectacularly overhyped non-event among all of them. Gustav has caused 100 deaths but they were predominantly in places where naturally caused deaths of this type are frequent. --Lumidek (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The Cuban landfall was catastrophic. When this hype dies down and the editors start filling in the non-American sections we will see how horrendous it was. Plasticup T/C 16:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Lumidek, you are inferring that if 100 Americans had died (an area where such deaths would be "less natural"), the storm would be more significant than if 100 Haitians/Dominicans die (where it is "more natural")? Besides being a gross violation of WP:NPOV, just... wow. --Tom (talk - email) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tom, it's you who wrote it that explicitly, not me. But yes, certainly the media - and probably also Wikipedia - count it in this way. (And politicians and economists probably have to make similarly unequal considerations.) At, there are about 50,000 articles about the U.S. hurricane that killed 5 people or so. The floods in Bihar, India have killed thousands of people but you will only find about 3,000 articles via That's how it works in the real world. Ideas about equality are as POV as ideas about reality. Yes, it is more natural to die on uncivilized islands than in civilized cities: that's one of the reasons why civilization (and technology) was invented. If this were POV on Wikipedia, then all of science and all of reality would have to be eliminated from Wikipedia. --Lumidek (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As Stated above this should be put back to Gustav 2008 as this storm has not been retired yet and if we do not move this one back we need to move all the others that are obvious retirement candiates including Fengshen which has caused move deaths than GustavJason Rees (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


Should we make an archive? I can't but if someone does i'd be happy. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not needed yet. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
How is it not needed... its got 42 subjects.... the 2008 atlantic hurricane season has a total of that AND it has 2 archives.... Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Its set for the next time the bot runs. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Its happened... where are they? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here Jason Rees (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Storm history useless rhethoric

Why does this individual continue to place this useless explanation in Storm History? It might be Louisiana impact - but Storm History Givmeabreak?Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wind speeds inside New Orleans were affected by levees, with some rising 23 ft (7 m) above sea level, so that similar winds can register as faster in taller buildings and skyscrapers above whichever levee is deflecting the wind. Because Gustav traveled northwest to the U.S., and the Louisiana coastline there also slants partly northwest, the technical landfall was much farther west than the initial contact with the northern eyewall winds, as the eye traveled partly over land more than 4 hours before making a technical landfall, along the Louisiana coast near Cocodrie[3] 9:30 a.m CDT (1430 UTC) as a Category 2 hurricane.[4]
  • 02-Sep-2008: The reason "this individual" (me) put that "useless rhethoric" in the Storm History section was to explain the storm being partly in the USA, over 4 hours before landfall, as information for general readers. At the time, I did not realize the article "Hurricane Gustav" was being intensely edited according to severe attitudes about content: instead, I had imagined various text was being deleted (each time) to shorten the article for more recent events. This is elaborated below, under "Please be civil". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tornado event sandbox

Since an outbreak is possible, I created a sandbox article (which is not warranted yet but might be depending on what happens in the days ahead). It is at User:CrazyC83/Outbreak0901. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of ref-tags

02-Sep-2008: REMINDER: I noticed that the NHC advisories have been specified in footnote ref-tags ("<ref>") named with "publicXX" as the tag name (where "XX" is the advisory number). The general format of the ref-tag is as follows:

<ref name="public22">{{cite web
| author=Blake/Avila | publisher=National Hurricane Center
| date=2008-08-30 | accessdate=2008-08-30
| title=Hurricane Gustav Advisory Number 22
| url=

Note that "author=Blake/Avila" (or "author=Knabb") is from the names at the bottom of the particular advisory webpage. The latest advisory webpage is linked from:

The advisories coded as "xxA" are named "Intermediate" compared to the other advisories (named as just "Advisory"), so the titles are:

  • title=Hurricane Gustav Advisory Number 22
  • title=Hurricane Gustav Intermediate Advisory Number 22A

Intermediate pages are in folder "public_a" with URL for 22A as:

I hope this helps people to add ref-tag footnotes to the article text; however, just stating "NHC advisory 22A" would be technically a "verifiable" statement within the article text, to meet the Wikipedia requirement for verifiability. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Gustav/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 13:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC).

Substituted at 14:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Doppler Radar 600 Mile: Biloxi radar", The Weather Channel, 1 Sep 2008, 6 a.m. CDT, web image: TWC-Biloxi-radar.
  2. ^ a b Pasch/Berg (2008-09-01). "Hurricane Gustav Intermediate Advisory Number 31A". National Hurricane Center. Retrieved 2008-09-01. 
  3. ^ a b c Beven (2008-09-01). "Hurricane Gustav Advisory Number 32 (10am)". National Hurricane Center. Retrieved 2008-09-01. 
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NHC_Discussion was invoked but never defined (see the help page).