This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hurricane Linda (1997) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Hurricane Linda (1997) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hurricane Linda (1997) is part of the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it's good to have millibars and inches of mercury for the benefit of weather professionals who read the Hurricane Linda page, but pressure should also be in PSI, which is the most commonly understood unit to general audiences in the US and some other places.
I don't know what the common unit is the UK and east of there, but if it's not millibars or inches of mercury, we should include that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.20.98.115 ( talk) 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
My point is not that PSI is used more often in the US for weather (by non-weather buffs), though it probably is. The point is that, at least in the US, PSI is the only unit of air pressure most people know--from pumping up tires and basket balls, etc., and the average educated person likely knows the 15 LBS per square inch at sea level rule. I've never heard anyone outside of weather or science talk about how many inches of mercury to put in their tire. If this Wikipedia article is only for weather experts and scientist, you don't need PSI. If it's for a general audience, PSI belongs there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.20.98.115 ( talk) 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If giving the pressure in atmospheres and torr would spare a significant number of readers having to look for a conversion table, perhaps they should be there. I often have to research what the audience for something I'm writing expects in word choice or alternate spelling (email, e-mail, Email?). I find a "search engine survey" a useful tool. Search on multiple spellings in use for a particular word, and see which one gets the most hits. Here is the result for searching (on Google) for the phrase "atmospheric pressure" AND:
Millibars come in first (all those science papers), followed closely by PSI. "Inches of mercury" comes in a distant third.
I realize that it's mostly the US and some other English speaking countries that use PSI (I know they still use it in the UK, and it was what we used when I was a boy in non-English speaking Haiti), but this is an English-language page.
Again, if the article is really for weather experts and enthusiasts, perhaps PSI represents an 'impure' layman's unit. If the article is for the general English-speaking public, PSI should be there. If that seems too cluttered, consider dropping 'inches of mercury,' since that is evidently much less in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.20.98.115 ( talk) 00:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems fair. I agree, if you're talking about meteorologists and other professionals, that PSI wouldn't come up in describing tropical cyclones—and shouldn't be used in articles exclusively for experts in the field. I also agree that millibars, as the unit experts in the field use, should be the primary unit. I believe strongly however, that the tiny bit of space it takes to express the pressure in units more familiar to the average person is worth it in terms of making information accessible to non-expert Wikipedia readers.
If you used the term, "minor second," writing for musicians, you wouldn't add, "the difference in pitch between two adjacent notes on the piano," but you would add some jargon-transcending phrase like that if you were writing for a general audience.
When I first read the article, I wondered what the air pressure was relative to normal. At the time I thought, "everyone knows 15 PSI at sea level (slightly rounded, of course)...why don't they give that as a secondary unit so the average person has a better sense of what's going on?" On further reflection, "everyone knows..." is just an assumption on my part. I just asked my wife and she knew—but she's a scientist (not even vaguely related to weather) who occasionally works with big tanks of gas, and they compare PSI in the tanks relative to the rounded-off 15 PSI. I'm now curious enough to start asking people at random. My hypothesis is that, of those people who know what average atmospheric pressure is, most of them will know it in PSI.
I'm so confused. UNISYS gives me two low pressure figures: 900 and 902...which is it?
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Good call on the deletion of the What if section.... As for the pressure, the NHC official report says 902, which is what I based my info off of. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1997linda.html Hurricanehink 21:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Why does it need an infobox? What needs to be done differently? Hurricanehink 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I dunno, the articles just too short... Jdorje 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this really low? Linda was the strongest hurricane in recorded EPAC history. That is at least Mid in my book. Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until the minor adjustment can be made :
Additional comments :
This is a good article thoroughly though the little part for which the comment is addressed to needs extrawork in order to achieve GA status. Good luck, Lincher 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Much better with this in a paragraph instead of lines. Thank you and good luck for the future. Lincher 11:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after it passed in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates of the website sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 21:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Per request:
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Did this go through vietnam? 118.71.181.52 ( talk) 04:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Should be cool to put one of these images on the article:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/fap/image/0004/bluemarble2k_big.jpg
http://www.weatherstock.com/RFgallery/rf1/hurricanes/slides/H-RF-21.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.2.44 ( talk) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Linda maintained Category 5 status on the Saffir-Simpson scale for 42 consecutive hours. This tied the record set by Hurricane John of 1994 for longest duration at that strength. Linda is one of fourteen Pacific hurricanes to reach Category 5 status. [1]
Here is the HURDAT bit I removed. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a concern about the main image. I know it is of better quality than the other ones, but it has been the main image for so many years, and the gray color of it makes me a little scared. should we change it? -- 加州飓风 ( 说话 | 大清帝国) 01:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hurricane Linda (1997) → Hurricane Linda – It appears to be a primary topic for me even the 2015 version is larger than this one (on THE page bytes, not the viewers!). -- SMB99thx XD ( contribs) 08:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Linda (1997). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Linda (1997). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hurricane Linda (1997) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Hurricane Linda (1997) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hurricane Linda (1997) is part of the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it's good to have millibars and inches of mercury for the benefit of weather professionals who read the Hurricane Linda page, but pressure should also be in PSI, which is the most commonly understood unit to general audiences in the US and some other places.
I don't know what the common unit is the UK and east of there, but if it's not millibars or inches of mercury, we should include that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.20.98.115 ( talk) 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
My point is not that PSI is used more often in the US for weather (by non-weather buffs), though it probably is. The point is that, at least in the US, PSI is the only unit of air pressure most people know--from pumping up tires and basket balls, etc., and the average educated person likely knows the 15 LBS per square inch at sea level rule. I've never heard anyone outside of weather or science talk about how many inches of mercury to put in their tire. If this Wikipedia article is only for weather experts and scientist, you don't need PSI. If it's for a general audience, PSI belongs there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.20.98.115 ( talk) 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If giving the pressure in atmospheres and torr would spare a significant number of readers having to look for a conversion table, perhaps they should be there. I often have to research what the audience for something I'm writing expects in word choice or alternate spelling (email, e-mail, Email?). I find a "search engine survey" a useful tool. Search on multiple spellings in use for a particular word, and see which one gets the most hits. Here is the result for searching (on Google) for the phrase "atmospheric pressure" AND:
Millibars come in first (all those science papers), followed closely by PSI. "Inches of mercury" comes in a distant third.
I realize that it's mostly the US and some other English speaking countries that use PSI (I know they still use it in the UK, and it was what we used when I was a boy in non-English speaking Haiti), but this is an English-language page.
Again, if the article is really for weather experts and enthusiasts, perhaps PSI represents an 'impure' layman's unit. If the article is for the general English-speaking public, PSI should be there. If that seems too cluttered, consider dropping 'inches of mercury,' since that is evidently much less in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.20.98.115 ( talk) 00:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems fair. I agree, if you're talking about meteorologists and other professionals, that PSI wouldn't come up in describing tropical cyclones—and shouldn't be used in articles exclusively for experts in the field. I also agree that millibars, as the unit experts in the field use, should be the primary unit. I believe strongly however, that the tiny bit of space it takes to express the pressure in units more familiar to the average person is worth it in terms of making information accessible to non-expert Wikipedia readers.
If you used the term, "minor second," writing for musicians, you wouldn't add, "the difference in pitch between two adjacent notes on the piano," but you would add some jargon-transcending phrase like that if you were writing for a general audience.
When I first read the article, I wondered what the air pressure was relative to normal. At the time I thought, "everyone knows 15 PSI at sea level (slightly rounded, of course)...why don't they give that as a secondary unit so the average person has a better sense of what's going on?" On further reflection, "everyone knows..." is just an assumption on my part. I just asked my wife and she knew—but she's a scientist (not even vaguely related to weather) who occasionally works with big tanks of gas, and they compare PSI in the tanks relative to the rounded-off 15 PSI. I'm now curious enough to start asking people at random. My hypothesis is that, of those people who know what average atmospheric pressure is, most of them will know it in PSI.
I'm so confused. UNISYS gives me two low pressure figures: 900 and 902...which is it?
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Good call on the deletion of the What if section.... As for the pressure, the NHC official report says 902, which is what I based my info off of. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1997linda.html Hurricanehink 21:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Why does it need an infobox? What needs to be done differently? Hurricanehink 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I dunno, the articles just too short... Jdorje 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this really low? Linda was the strongest hurricane in recorded EPAC history. That is at least Mid in my book. Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until the minor adjustment can be made :
Additional comments :
This is a good article thoroughly though the little part for which the comment is addressed to needs extrawork in order to achieve GA status. Good luck, Lincher 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Much better with this in a paragraph instead of lines. Thank you and good luck for the future. Lincher 11:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after it passed in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates of the website sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 21:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Per request:
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Did this go through vietnam? 118.71.181.52 ( talk) 04:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Should be cool to put one of these images on the article:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/fap/image/0004/bluemarble2k_big.jpg
http://www.weatherstock.com/RFgallery/rf1/hurricanes/slides/H-RF-21.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.2.44 ( talk) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Linda maintained Category 5 status on the Saffir-Simpson scale for 42 consecutive hours. This tied the record set by Hurricane John of 1994 for longest duration at that strength. Linda is one of fourteen Pacific hurricanes to reach Category 5 status. [1]
Here is the HURDAT bit I removed. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a concern about the main image. I know it is of better quality than the other ones, but it has been the main image for so many years, and the gray color of it makes me a little scared. should we change it? -- 加州飓风 ( 说话 | 大清帝国) 01:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hurricane Linda (1997) → Hurricane Linda – It appears to be a primary topic for me even the 2015 version is larger than this one (on THE page bytes, not the viewers!). -- SMB99thx XD ( contribs) 08:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Linda (1997). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Linda (1997). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)