This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
That article is better, more appropriately named, and contains much the same information. Jdorje 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What on earth is the 'Next' column for? TimL 21:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
A few notes for this table:
1) When it comes to counting storm occurrences in any given month, the rule of thumb is to use the month in which the storm originated. So any storm occurring at the end of a month and crossing over into the next month counts towards the previous month's total. (Ex. ALEX of 2004 formed on July 31, and lasted until August 6. Alex counts as a July storm, not August. FRANCES of 2004 formed on August 25, and lasted until September 8. Frances is an August storm, not September.)
2) The monthly records should read as follows: JUNE = 3 in 1886, 1909, 1936, and 1968; JULY = 5 in 2005; AUGUST = 7 in 1933, 1995, and 2004; SEPTEMBER = 8 in 2002; OCTOBER = 7 in 2005; NOVEMBER = 3 in 2005
In addition, the records for months outside of the regular hurricane season read as follows: DECEMBER = 2 in 1887 and 2003; JANUARY = 1 in 1978; FEBRUARY = 1 in 1952; MARCH = 1 in 1908; APRIL = 1 in 1992 and 2003; MAY = 2 in 1887
If the purpose of this table is to show the record number of storms TRACKED during a given month, then the title needs to reflect that.
And I agree with Tim above. Why is there a "Next" column? It makes no sense and should be removed. Thanx!!! Raffy85 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a few storms that seem to be missing, partially from the alphabet soup that was the end of the 2005 hurricane season. I recall storms developing straight through December (the shear just didn't develop over the Carribean that usually does). Therefore, I think some of the records are at least partially obsolete.
Misread/misunderstood some of the text of the article. Stupid me.
Shouldn't 1978's Subtropical Storm One be the earliest-forming tropical storm (or the latest, I guess?), or is this some quirk of how seasons are defined? It's included in the list in the section on earliest-forming first storms of the season, but the Groundhog Day storm is still first on the earliest tropical storm list. --98.218.195.90 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure how to edit the page but now the size of Igor has grown to 500 NM which is 575 miles up from the 518 listed below...I can not figure out where the edit is for the table that is there Cwachal (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Alex is tied with whichever is listed as most intense for june, with a pressure of 946 mbar.--Peanut.pookie (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This is from the Wikipedia article about Humberto: "Hurricane Humberto was a minimal hurricane that formed and intensified faster than any other North Atlantic tropical cyclone on record before landfall." Based on this information, I believe that it should be listed as the fastest intensification of a storm. At minimum, it should be listed on the records page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.195.84 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that we should definitely revise this subject as many individual Hurricane pages (for example Ike|, Carla, and Greta) claim that their subject is the largest — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootyStavros (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Are we going to add Hurricane Nadine when it's gonna reach the 19 days point in the longest hurricane section? It's gonna be soon I think, during the course of next week.
Fabzzz (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if I'm the only one who has considered renaming this article? Strictly speaking these are not hurricane records, but tropical cyclone records; there are numerous storms in various lists here that never achieved hurricane status. Calling this a list of hurricane records may be potentially misleading. The distinction may be somewhat technical, but wouldn't List of Atlantic tropical cyclone records be a more accurate name? Shereth 15:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Shereth is correct, the name of the article should be modified to be technically accurate. Otherwise this is a misleading reference. The term ″tropical cyclone″ is a meteorological term used to describe rotating circulating weather systems which form over tropical waters. This would include tropical depressions as well as tropical storms. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ″A hurricane is a type of tropical cyclone - the general term for all circulating weather systems (counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere) over tropical waters.″ This definition is cited from NOAA's hurricane preparedness guide from 1998, published by the US Department of Commerce. It further describes a hurricane as, ″An intense tropical weather system with a well-defined circulation and maximum sustained winds of 74 mph (64 knots) or higher. In the western Pacific, hurricanes are called typhoons, and similar storms in the Indian Ocean are called cyclones.″ An updated source for this guide can be found at this site for the US Department of Homeland Security Digital Library - https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=778095. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LLovejoy (talk • contribs) 16:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
An explicit definition of "lifetime" and of "what" (hurricanes, tropical storms, tropical depressions, post-tropical depression, extra-tropical depression, subtropical depression, pre(sub)tropical depression, etc. or any combination of these) seems helpful both to contributors and readers of the table entitled "Longest duration". We could do with clarity on e.g.:
* whether only (at least) tropical-storm hours are counted; * whether all time a structure is deemed to be an entity (of whatever kind) is counted.
For example, Ginger (1971) may have existed for 27.75 days, but - according to what I understand from the text on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ginger - cannot have been a tropical storm for more than 21 days.
Thanks!Redav (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I changed Hurricane Sandy's number to ≥65.6 (billion) to match the amount on other articles mentioning it. User:Magneto10 (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Would like to see INFLATION ADJUSTED damage estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.217.80 (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title "Most intense landfalling Atlantic hurricanes in the United States (HSI)" have the "intense" replaced with "severe". The Hurricane Severity Index is supposed to measure severity, not intensity, right. In any case, intensity is incorporated as a category in the index, along with size, so that is clearly not the same as intensity alone. 99.141.240.120 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Given this article is slowly being pruned away (it's the rump article of List of notable tropical cyclones), I don't care too much whether there is a section on Bermuda landfalls, which is currently being discussed. I think it's time that we take whatever is useful here and merge it to Atlantic hurricane. I have that done that so far with Earliest/latest formations for each category (but only the relevant information on intensity and time of year) and Intensity. I think everything else is fairly trivial and extraneous, and if there is agreement, I think it should be merged to Atlantic hurricane (which should be the true parent article, anyway). I don't think this article can ever become featured or good, given the weird shape it's in, and so I think merger is the best option. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with having a Bermuda section on the page. Regardless of the reason as to why landfalls in Bermuda are unusual, I don't see why one section should be kept rather than another. Even though Bermuda gets a lot of direct hits, landfalls are fairly unusual. The last landfall before Fay of 2014 was Emily of 1987, which constitutes a lower landfall frequency than both the Azores and Cape Verde, despite the steering currents. --Undescribed (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Whereas for January, February and March the table list records for the earliest, considering that the lowest activity between two consecutive climatologically averaged seasons' peaks seems to occur in / or between March and April (based on what I read in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_off-season_Atlantic_hurricanes), it seems more logical to list the latest formation dates for January, February and March. So that is what I propose as a change.
The rationale behind this is that the closer a storm is to the climatological centre of levity of the lull between two seasons (or the more eloignated a storm is from the climatological centre of gravity of the preceding or the following season, which seems to be near 10 September according to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/ based on numbers of storms), the more atypical, outlying, extraordinary and record-breaking it may be deemed. Even better might be a comparison to a climatology which takes into account the climatologically averaged power (i.e. in megawatts) generated by (sub)tropical storms as a function of the days of the year.
From visual inspection of a graph of the storm data (category, peak velocity, duration, minimum pressure) vs the date, the lull between two seasons seems to be approximately (as well as - for administrative reasons - conveniently) centred around midnight between 31 March and 1 April, in part since the longest time gap between dates with storms appears from 10 March to 13 April in the list in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_off-season_Atlantic_hurricanes (after sorting with respect to dates active).
An extra reason for taking midnight of 1 April as the anti-pivot is that the climatological average in the decay of activity seems to be slower in the months before 1 April than the climatological average in the increase of activity after 31 March. Hence a (couple of) longer gap(s) before the anti-pivot (e.g. the empty 22-day interval from 10 to 31 March inclusive, and the empty 12.25-day interval from 22 February to 5 March inclusive) and a (couple of) shorter gap(s) (e.g. the empty 13-day interval 1 to 13 April inclusive, and the empty 1-day interval on 17 April) seem(s) understandable. From the data in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_off-season_Atlantic_hurricanes the climatological onset (of the next season) after 31 March seems sharper that the decay (of the previous season) before 1 April.
From this perspective, not so much the 1938 Storm 1 - which was a category 1 hurricane on 4-5 January - is the most outlying category 1 hurricane in January, but the 2016 Alex - which was a category 1 hurricane on 14-15 January - is!Redav (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of Atlantic hurricane records. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Philip Klotzbach (leader of the CSU tropical predictions team) is saying on Twitter that Irma has already tied the 1932 Cuba hurricane for time as a Cat 5...but the table in this article lists Irma at 3rd place well behind.Who's counting wrong?LE (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
!!!PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE OR TAG UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED!!! (Thank you)
There are parts of this article that imply that x hurricane fits x record because of x. In other words I want editors to draw their eyes to...
Those are just some examples of what needs work done here. The main issue though is with the tables themselves, at one point does x hurricane become a "record"? Are we doing the tables by the top 5, top 10, top 20? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Per NOAA, the data prior to 1965 is not really accurate; prior to the advent of satellite tracking, many tropical storms and hurricanes went unnoticed at sea. I added in NOAA's own chart which shows this, but it is kind of an ugly thing. I'm not too familiar with the bar graph stuff on Wikipedia, but is there any way to add uncertainty bars to them? The other possibility might be just graphing the data post-1965, as we are reasonably certain that the data after that point is accurate. Thoughts? Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that this can be in the main article even if it doesn't only contain record-breaking seasons. First one thing, there is another section that don't only contain record-breaking seasons, 3.3. Also, the table is sortable, so it is easy to display the record-high or record-low seasons for each category in order. I have included the table for reference.
Season | Tropical Depressions | Named Storms | Hurricanes | Category ≥2 | Major hurricanes (Category ≥3) | Category≥4 | Category 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1967 | 29 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
1968 | 14 | 8[nb 1] | 5[nb 2] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
1969 | 20 | 18[nb 3] | 12 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 1 |
1970 | 19 | 10[nb 4] | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
1971 | 22 | 13 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
1972 | 19 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
1973 | 24 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
1974 | 21 | 11[nb 5] | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
1975 | 23 | 9[nb 6] | 6 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
1976 | 23 | 10[nb 7] | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
1977 | 16 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
1978 | 24 | 12[nb 8] | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
1979 | 26 | 9[nb 9] | 5[nb 10] | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
1980 | 15 | 11 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
1981 | 22 | 12[nb 11] | 7 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
1982 | 9 | 6[nb 12] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
1983 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
1984 | 20 | 13[nb 13] | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
1985 | 14 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
1986 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
1987 | 14 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
1988 | 19 | 12 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
1989 | 15 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
1990 | 16 | 14 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
1991 | 12 | 8[nb 14] | 4[nb 15] | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
1992 | 10 | 7[nb 16] | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
1993 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
1994 | 12 | 7[nb 17] | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
1995 | 21 | 19 | 11 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
1996 | 13[nb 18] | 13[nb 19] | 9[nb 20] | 6 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
1997 | 9 | 8[nb 21] | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
1998 | 14 | 14 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
1999 | 16 | 12 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
2000 | 19 | 15[nb 22] | 8 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
2001 | 17 | 15 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
2002 | 14 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
2003 | 21 | 16 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
2004 | 16 | 15 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 1 |
2005 | 31 | 28[nb 23] | 15 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 4 |
2006 | 10 | 10[nb 24] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
2007 | 17 | 15 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
2008 | 17 | 16 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 0 |
2009 | 11 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
2010 | 21 | 19 | 12 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 0 |
2011 | 20 | 19 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
2012 | 19 | 19 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
2013 | 15 | 14[nb 25] | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2014 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
2015 | 12 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
2016 | 16 | 15[nb 26] | 7 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
2017 | 18[nb 27] | 17[nb 28] | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a problem regarding what storms are going into these charts. The thing that throws this off right now is the inclusion of the 1887 season in the "Most storms" table, while excluding all of the seasons that have allegedly had the "fewest storms". There were for example.... a lot of 7 or below total storms in the early 20th century which are not included. Here are my proposals to remedy this situation:
Comments? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Could someone update the List of Atlantic hurricane records#Earliest formation records by storm number table? According to the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season page, most of the storms have so far set records for the earliest formation by storm number. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add a section on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) records to this article. These records are already addressed in the article for Accumulated cyclone energy, but it might be helpful to add at least a link to the page and maybe also a table for both seasonal and individual storm ACE records. Ikkisno1 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I am hoping to trim back the tables in that page to just the top 10 highest/lowest seasons on record since ACE is used around the world by the relevant agencies. Adding the top 10 in here as well as list of Atlantic hurricane seasons wouldn't be a bad shout. Jason Rees (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This edit argued with my inserting Hurricane Nate (2011) in the runner up spot for 15th, claiming Nate was the 16th in the season. On 2011_Atlantic_hurricane_season, Nate is section 3.16, because section 3.10 is a tropical depression, which doesn't count, so it is 15th.
According to the old version of the page:
#14 Nate September 5, 2005 and Maria September 7, 2011 #15 Ophelia September 7, 2005 (06z) and Unnamed September 19, 1936 #16 Philippe September 17, 2005 and Ophelia September 21, 2011
if Nate, September 7, 2011 (18z) is the 16th storm in its season, then it needs to take Philippe's spot, and Maria either needs to be moved to the #15 spot (as tie or runner-up, I'm not sure), or the nonexistent unnamed storm between Maria and Nate needs to take the #15 spot.
Lastly, this stood out because it said "September 7, 2005 (06z)<!-- Ophelia became a TS at 06z, before Nate in 2011 at 18z -->", which makes no sense if the runner-up is 1936 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Fifteen on September 19, 1936.
Please do not simply revert this; I may be wrong but there's no chance the version that's being reverting to is right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
It was a really strong category 5 that a lot of people think was at least 180 miles per hour... Shift674 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Shift674
Oh. That's good to know. Shift674 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Shift674
This is too much to trim down and summarize, so I'm placing it here. Below is the table before my edits. Below that is a list of what I changed and why.
Earliest formation of north Atlantic tropical cyclones by storm number | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Storm number |
Earliest | Second earliest | |||
Name | Date of formation | Name | Date of formation | ||
1 | Unnamed | January 3, 1938 | Unnamed | January 4, 1951 | |
2 | Unnamed | May 17, 1887 | Unnamed | May 26, 1908 | |
Beryl | May 26, 2012 | ||||
3 | Cristobal | June 2, 2020 | Colin | June 5, 2016 | |
4 | Danielle | June 20, 2016 | Debby | June 23, 2012 (12z) | |
5 | Edouard | July 6, 2020 | Emily | July 11, 2005 | |
6 | Fay | July 9, 2020 | Franklin | July 21, 2005 | |
7 | Gonzalo | July 22, 2020 | Gert | July 24, 2005 | |
8 | Hanna | July 24, 2020 | Harvey | August 3, 2005 | |
9 | Isaias | July 30, 2020 | Irene | August 7, 2005 | |
10 | Josephine | August 13, 2020 | Jose | August 22, 2005 | |
11 | Kyle | August 14, 2020 | Katrina | August 24, 2005 | |
12 | Laura | August 21, 2020 | Luis | August 29, 1995 | |
13 | Marco | August 22, 2020 | Maria | September 2, 2005 | |
Lee | September 2, 2011 | ||||
14 | Nate | September 5, 2005 | Maria | September 7, 2011 | |
15 | Ophelia | September 7, 2005 | Unnamed | September 19, 1936 | |
Nate | September 7, 2011 | ||||
16 | Philippe | September 17, 2005 | Ophelia | September 21, 2011 | |
17 | Rita | September 18, 2005 | Philippe | September 24, 2011 | |
18 | Stan | October 2, 2005 | Sebastien | October 21, 1995 | |
19 | Unnamed | October 4, 2005 | Tony | October 24, 2012 | |
20 | Tammy | October 5, 2005 | Unnamed | November 15, 1933 | |
21 | Vince | October 9, 2005 | — | ||
22 | Wilma | October 17, 2005 | — | ||
23 | Alpha | October 22, 2005 | — | ||
24 | Beta | October 27, 2005 | — | ||
25 | Gamma | November 18, 2005 | — | ||
26 | Delta | November 23, 2005 | — | ||
27 | Epsilon | November 29, 2005 | — | ||
28 | Zeta | December 30, 2005 | — | ||
Based on data from: U.S. NOAA Coastal Service Center - Historical Hurricane Tracks Tool |
1. Lee is, for some reason, tied with Maria as the second-earliest 13th named storm. That doesn't make any sense because the L storm is number 12. So I've removed it entirely because its formation date is not earlier than the dates of the two L storms up above it.
2. 2011 Maria for some reason has the old earliest record for the N (14th) storm row. Same situation as above, removed it.
3. Now it gets weirder. Ophelia and 2011 Nate are tied as the earliest 15th named storms. Same situation as above, except with the deletion of Maria there's now an empty space in the slot for second earliest N storm. So instead of deleting it I've moved it up into the previous record slot to occupy the empty space.
4. Unnamed hurricane fifteen is listed as the old record for the O storm, coming in after 2005 Ophelia. Below it, occupying the old record for the P storm for whatever reason, is 2011 Ophelia. Since the unnamed storm was a category 2 hurricane, the 15th tropical cyclone, and formed earlier than 2011 Ophelia, I've removed 2011 Ophelia and kept the unnamed storm in its place.
5. The removal of 2011 Ophelia leaves an open space for Philippe, which is currently listed as the second-earliest 17th, or R, storm. Obviously it isn't either, so it's been moved upward to occupy the empty space generated by the removal of 2011 Ophelia.
6. The same pattern does not continue. This leaves the second-earliest R, or 17th, storm blank. That needs to be figured out and populated.
7. The storm listed as the earliest 20th storm has a T name, which belongs at number 19. This means there are now three. The NHC didn't notice the unnamed subtropical storm 19 until post-season analysis, which creates two T storms for the year 2005. If they noticed it they'd have named it. Therefore Tammy is the 20th storm of the season but is named with the letter T, which screws everything up because T is reserved for storm number 19. I'm leaving it as-is because chronologically it's correct. But I feel notes need to be added to clarify why it's there, and why the T storm (Tammy) below it is listed as number 20 instead of 19 (which I explained above). Otherwise, if we want to go strictly by named storms we can just remove subtropical storm 19 and shift Tammy and everything below it upward one row. Obviously we wouldn't exclude the storms that formed before naming them was a thing. But that's just an idea. It's fine to leave it as it is too and just add notes.
And that's all. Feel free to leave feedback if you want to. WiggleCat (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The numbers shown here, here, and here all contradict each other. From what I understand, it seems Sandy was the largest hurricane, but Olga might have been larger as a tropical storm. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The columns for "total storms" and "tropical storms" are the same, since only tropical storms count towards the total. One of them should be removed. Benshim333 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
In Tropical cyclogenesis, a subsection noting when more than 2 named storms have formed in a single day (2020 & 1893)? 67.215.144.179 (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this section should be changed back to only include tropical storms since there are many tropical depressions in the pre-satellite era which may or may not allow those seasons to end up on this chart in months like February, April, and June. IosifDzhugashvilli (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Isn’t teddy the biggest storm now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGotYourToastNow (talk • contribs) 05:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
We have to eventually address the elephant in the room and figure out what information is officially classified as a record, versus excess information that has no value other than a statistic. Here is an example:
This creates a problem as it falls under WP:SYNTH, there are also additional lists on this article that take information directly from raw sources rather than having them cite a record as official. Kane Tanaka is the 3rd verified oldest person in the world... it is tied down to WP:RS calling her such. Its okay to have "records" tables as long as they are considered to actually BE noteworthy records. Where do sources normally cut off lists to include the most relevant information? Just something to think about... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys I was wondering what some formation extremes were in the Atlantic. Specifically the most SW forming TS in the Atlantic — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldGamer32 (talk • contribs)
According to Hurricane Fiona article, it was the most intense category 4 Atlantic Hurricane on record. This should be added here. 115.96.137.237 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I feel like this article is forgetting about the South Atlantic. While I doubt it would shake the entire article up, there would be some changes. I'm not entirely sure how we would do orders though (maybe separate by hemisphere?). ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=nb))
template (see the help page).