Jump to content

Talk:1969 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

"One of only three hurricanes to have done so [hit as a Category 5]in the US." Labor Day, 1935; Camille and Who?

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

Andrew was the third one. It was upgraded upon re-analysis to be a Category 5 hurricane in the 1992 hurricane season. Hurricanehink 22:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

18 hurricanes in a season-broken record

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a mention of the fact that the 2005 season broke the record set by this season for the number of hurricanes in a season? PaulC/T+ 15:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the records section. Hurricanehink 16:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Button Bar Fixing

[edit]

Whoever made this made Martha a Cat4 Hurricane.HurricaneCraze32 23:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they didn't. Hurricanehink 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I read-including the review says Martha was Cat1.HurricaneCraze32 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The button bar says it was a Cat. 1. Hurricanehink 21:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we've had this discussion before...the only thing you need to read is the best track - http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5104.html#1969_18. It's a cat1, just like the button bar says. — jdorje (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about the button bar, which I see nothing wrong with. Hurricanehink 11:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was Cat4-i changed it to Cat1.HurricaneCraze32 21:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well you could have told us you changed it before you posted. That is why we all were so confused. Hurricanehink 21:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inga

[edit]

The info on Inga contrasts with this page... which is correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Longest_lived_Atlantic_tropical_cyclones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.245.13 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna

[edit]

In case you wanted to know, I was the one who put up the picture of Tropical Storm Anna. If you want it taken off go ahead. Jake52

No, good find! Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong La Niña?

[edit]

The following statement was in this article, added by Storm05: "...the likely reason for the increased activity was a strong La Niña which also affected the 1969 Pacific hurricane and Pacific typhoon seasons."

According to SOI data from the Australia Bureau of Meteorology and ONI data from the Climate Prediction Center, conditions in 1969 were neutral, at best, rather than indicative of a strong La Niña. Therefore, I removed the aforementioned remark.Senorpepr 05:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Seven

[edit]

Seven? 1-2-3-4-5-6-7? That means seven tropical depressions formed before the first storm did. That's hard for me to believe. I can't find the list of the other ones. Could someone tell me where the other six came from? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MWR does indeed confirm this, though I really don't think that the depression should be numbered as such. I think it should just be referred as Tropical Depression, as some other seasons have done. Indeed, the newspaper report simply calls it a tropical depression, and further remarks that it was the first severe tropical weather system of the season. Does anyone know when depressions first started being called Tropical Depression X? The preliminary report for Hurricane Cora in 1978 calls it Tropical Depression 3, which is the earliest I can find. If no one is opposed, I think that depressions prior to that, unless specifically numbered, should be referred just as Tropical Depression. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
opposed, why? because seven tds formed during the season and simply refering it as "tropical depression" would confuse the reader regarding which td formed and which struck land, etc. Also do not rely soley on newspaper reports since they seldom mention the NHCs referring the TDs as Tropical Depression X and so on untill recently. Storm05 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a good rationale. Calling it simply Tropical Depression is more accurate, as naming it with a number is incorrect otherwise. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it simply Tropical Depression is confusing epescally if theres one or more tds in one season and it makes it difficult for the reader to determine of which td struck land or which did not, etc. and it appears you did not read my rataionalle all the way through. Storm05 14:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your rationale all of the way through, and I still don't buy it. I think it is more confusing giving the depressions names when they shouldn't. For all you know, depressions back then could be the equivalent of a modern invest, given how many there were. The biggest point is that, pending some unlikely evidence otherwise, the depressions did not have official titles, and so a generic title is much more informative, correct, and useful than giving them numbers. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spreadsheet I have of potential additions to HURDAT (ooooh...aaaah) shows tropical depression numbers from 1970 onward. The system in question does not appear to have been designated TD #7 in real time. The comments in the spreadsheet merely state "Surface obs show 1006-1008 mb and no tropical storm winds."

This gets to the heart of a debate that was initiated by the discussion regarding the Unnamed hurricane in the Central Pacific in September 1975. It was labelled as Hurricane 12 instead of Unnamed Hurricane. I argued that it was never known as a hurricane in real-time, let alone #12, and should have no designation outside the title Unnamed Hurricane for wikipedia/encyclopedia purposes. I guess the critics agreed, because it is still labeled that way. I would argue for removing the numbering of depressions before 1970, since it does not appear they were numbered in real-time. Along the same vane, I also argue for removing names like "Tropical Storm 8" and title them something like "Unnamed Tropical Storm - July 8-12, 1969". Thegreatdr 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All around, I agree. Since it seems that depressions were numbered starting in 1970, I am in favor of removing all depression names (TD 7) prior to then. Additionally, you touch on a good point about Hurricane 12 in 1975. I wouldn't mind seeing those sorts of names gone for the named storm era. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears tropical depression numbers were assigned operationally back to at least 1968 in the Atlantic Basin, but their numbering is the cause of significant consternation, as TDs were frequently renumbered after the fact. Newspaper articles don't appear to reference TD numbers on any kind of consistent basis until the mid 1980s. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of the 22 nondeveloping tropical depressions in 1969

[edit]

This is from the reanalysis spreadsheet. Enjoy. I have nothing more specific than this information.

  • April 18-22.......Western Atlantic.................Barely identifiable on surface maps
  • April 27-May 1....Western Atlantic.................Weak 1011 mb low
  • May 3-8...........Western Atlantic.................Broad low which may have been partially frontal
  • May 27-30.........West Central/North Atlantic......Low moving northeast ahead of cold front
  • May 28-June 1.....Western Atlantic
  • May 28-June 3.....Western Caribbean
  • June 6-10.........Northwest Caribbean..............1006-1008 mb low
  • June 11-16........NW Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico......Surface analyses only show a surface trough
  • June 16-19........NW Atlantic......................Deepening low moving northeast ahead of cold front
  • July 24-28........Western Tropical Atlantic........1011 mb low
  • August 6-8........Western Caribbean
  • August 7-9........Gulf of Mexico...................1006 mb low
  • August 23-27......Western Tropical Atlantic........1008 mb low
  • August 24-29......Eastern Tropical Atlantic
  • Aug. 29-Sept. 2...Western Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico..Barely identified on surface maps
  • Sept. 5-11........Eastern Tropical Atlantic
  • Sept. 10-13.......Western Tropical Atlantic
  • Sept. 16-20.......Gulf of Mexico
  • Sept. 18-21.......Gulf of Mexico...................1007 mb low
  • Sept. 25-28.......Gulf of Mexico...................1006 mb low
  • Oct. 3-7..........SW Caribbean.....................1006 mb low
  • Oct. 8-12.........Central Tropical Atlantic

Thegreatdr 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them would probably be just Invests under current standards. They probably had a much more liberal definition of "tropical depression" then as they had far less data to work with. CrazyC83 04:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe like the JMA's Minor Tropical Depression.--Neka 2008! 02:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACE

[edit]

Why is there no table for the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) of each storms in 1969 but there is for almost all other seasons? --12george1 (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 1969 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 1969 Atlantic hurricane season's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "mwr":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1969 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I would like to review this interesting article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

As I am new to reviewing cyclone-related articles for GAN I took a look at GAs on the same topic. My comments are based on observations from some such GAs.

  • The 1969 Atlantic hurricane season had the highest number... surpassed in 2005. I think the fact mentioned in this line would look good in the second or third line, but in the first line it makes it seem as if we had just left off the conversation on this and we are picking it up again.
  • Rather, the fact of the third line could be used in the first like : "The 1969 Atlantic hurricane season was the busiest season since 1933" followed by the details on its duration. The line presently at first could be made the third line. Just take care not to link Atlantic hurricane season twice in the lead.
  • Neither the former or latter caused significant impact on land "Neither the former nor the latter..."
  • Why not link Georgia?
  • Hurricane Blanche was a small and short-lived tropical cyclones Why is cyclone in plural?
  • If Hurricane Camille was most significant then you should also add the important dates for it.
That's right. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Central America has been linked twice in the lead
  • I think the note you have added in the lead about the damage figures should be placed in the main text.

Season summary

[edit]
  • Could we have center align for the timeline?
  • I think at least in the first line of the main text the year 1969 deserves a mention. Even if it is already there in the second line, it should be there in the opening line.
  • Just curious, is it the convention in cyclone-related articles not to link terms like "tropical cyclones", "Storms" and "Category 3"?
  • I realized that I didn't link tropical cyclones yet, so I fixed that. As for the other two, I personally do not like to link to those since "storms" is the same as "tropical cyclone" and "Category 3" doesn't seem like it would be all that useful to link to especially if the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale is already linked to.--12george1 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twelve of the eighteen named storms Elsewhere you say 18 instead of eighteen. Please check that you use either words or numbers for numbers, except for numbers 0-10 that must be in words.
  • Link Caribbean Sea, tropical cyclogenesis
  • with two tropical depression forming Plural
  • Camille and Debbie are duplinks

Storms

[edit]
  • Very well-written.
  • You could link some of the media names and local areas.

There are many duplinks (listed here by section):

  • Tropical storm Anna: maximum sustained winds, barometric pressure
  • Hurricane Blanche: Sable Island
  • Hurricane Camille: 1935 Labor Day hurricane and Hurricane Andrew
  • Hurricane Debbie: Lesser Antilles, Project Stormfury, Hurricane Camille
  • Tropical storm Eve:low pressure area, rapid deepening
  • Tropical Depression Twenty-Nine: low pressure area, Georgia
  • Subtropical Storm One:Maine
  • Hurricane Laurie:Bay Islands Department
  • Hurricane Martha:maximum sustained winds
  • Other storms: Yucatán Peninsula, Lesser Antilles
I guess you missed five of them, I fixed them. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: Look reliable and sufficient in number. Are there no URLs for ref. nos. 15, 16, 26, 54?
  • These are references for newspaper articles that formerly had a url, but that url has since rotted. I will check but I highly doubt replacements urls will be available for the articles from The Daily Gleaner--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the issues you have addressed are done with now. You can move on to the others. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks eligible for GA status now. So I shall promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1969 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1969 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1969 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal for Hurricane Debbie (1969)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was...Merge. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Hurricane Debbie (1969) into 1969 Atlantic hurricane season. This is because the only reason Debbie has a claim to fame is because the government attempted to sabotage it. This is adequately explained in the Project Stormfury and the season article, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. OhHaiMark (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1969_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1235467200"