Talk:Hurricane Karl

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic High‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as High-importance).

Mexico Mid‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Moved, 8 October 2010, from Hurricane Karl (2010) to Hurricane Karl, see discussion.
Moved, 16 March 2011, from Hurricane Karl to Hurricane Karl (2010), see discussion.
Moved, 26 June 2017, from Hurricane Karl (2010) to Hurricane Karl, see discussion.

Image

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it possible to get a better image of Karl over the BoC? The one in the infobox isn't bad, but it would be better to get one like that without any cut corners, ect. Rye998 (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cropped a little more. HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) 02:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Much better. There are no big errors I see... exept the infobox, it was a hurricane, not a TS. I can fix that, however. Rye998 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Possible Record

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hurricane Karl was the 4th costliest storm in Mexico's history, behind hurricanes Gilbert, Wilma, and Pauline. Also, it is the costliest hurricane ever known to hit Mexico's Gulf coast. I dont know if this should be mentined, but is it notable enough? Rye998 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems notable enough. CrazyC83 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is a true fact, but in the article, I don't know if Karl was the worst storm in recent hstory in Veracruz; the 1999 depression killed nearly 400 people in this same area. I would define that as "worse". But if the press just meant "the worst hurricane", that could be notable enough... but we would need a source from Mexico saying that, as that is currently bordering on WP:OR. Until there is a source providing that it was Veracruz's worst hurricane, I have commented that statement out of view in the article. Rye998 (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

Latest comment: 14 years ago26 comments10 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Hurricane Karl. Although consensus of those participating appears to be in opposition to move, when considering consensus as determined by strength of argument, and especially by considering the entire Wikipedia community as reflected in policy and guidelines, consensus is to move. In particular, all of the oppose votes seem to hinge on one main point: the name Karl is not yet retired, implying that it might be used again, and if it is, that storm might be even bigger. But this factor has no bearing whatsoever on whether this hurricane is the primary topic today for this name. Ironically, it's the argument that we have to wait and see if it's retired before we can know if this is the primary topic that violates WP:CRYSTAL. We don't know what, if anything, will happen with the name as applied to hurricanes in the future. What we do know is that, at least for now, and for the foreseeable future, the 2010 Hurricane Karl is most likely the subject anyone who types in "Hurricane Karl" is looking for, period. That's what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is about. And that's what matters with respect to making Wikipedia work well primarily for readers. In the unlikely but not impossible event that some other Karl becomes prominent in the future, this article can be moved again. Born2cycle (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hurricane Karl (2010) → Hurricane Karl — An almost obvious retirement candidate, causing $5.6 billion in damage. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 04:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per WP:NOR. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oppose prove that it was retired for this instance. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support but not because of the nominator's reasoning which is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. It seems clear to me that this is the primary topic. It is the only one of the Hurricane Karl's to make significant landfall and the only one to cause any damage or deaths and this is also the only hurricane to have a significant number of sources from news organisations. As such, in my opinion, this is already clearly the primary topic regardless of whether or not the name is retired.. If the name is not retired we can always revisit what one is primary when the next Karl occurs. Dpmuk (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oppose We will not move any hurricane articles before they are retired. It violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR to move the article before the name is retired. It is true this is the only notable Karl, but we won't move the article before it is retired. Period. This hurricane was bad, but I don't think this storm should be moved. Ike and Gustav were moved by mistake IMO and it never should have happened. Rye998 (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've explained why I think it's the primary topic without any reference to whether the name is retired or not, so although I agree that saying it's going to be retired violates WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL, I don't think that argument applies to my reasoning. Ignoring the retirement issue you're argument seems to consist of "I don't want it moved so it shouldn't be". You even admit it's the only "notable" Karl and so by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it should be at the base name. Can you give any policies, guidelines or even past consensus that supports not moving it despite, by your own argument, it being the primary topic? (Have also moved your comment to the end - we generally keep things in time order). Dpmuk (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
In addition, what about Tropical Storm Agatha (2010)? Should that article be moved? YE ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I woudn't say Agatha is an obvious retirement candidate. With $1.64 billion in damage (vs Karl's $5.6 billion), there is a chance that it could go the way of Dolly. The same is true for Alex. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 14:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  - You can't just base things off damage alone, you have to look at the loss of life and how widespread the effects were. I've already talked with a forecaster at the NHC and it is almost certain that Agatha will be retired since it is one of the worst natural disasters in Guatemala history. The widespread and damaging effects of Alex also make it a prime candidate for retirement; however, since there is no official statement of either storm's retirement, we cannot move them to the main article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per WP:OR. We cannot make assumptions that any storm will be retired, no matter how obvious it may be. For a storm to be retired, a country must request the name to be removed and in the case of Hurricane Dolly, the storm didn't appear significant enough to the United States to warrant its removal despite over $1 billion in losses. We'll just have to wait until next Spring to find out. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per CB and others. Also the argument that this is the only "notable" Hurricane Karl isn't a valid one as both Hurricane Karl 2004, 1998 and 1980 also meet the notability criteria and have had articles written on them.Jason Rees (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just to clarify what I wrote, I deliberately put "notable" in quotes as I was quoting from Rye998 and I happen to think all storms are notable. However his statement that this Karl is the only "notable" one, is in my opinion, supportive of this Karl being the primary topic. Dpmuk (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, it is true the other Karl's have articles, but as Andros mentioned, this is the only one to actually affect any land and cause damage. As I mentioned above, Karl was the 4th costliest hurricane in Mexico's history, behind Gilbert, Pauline, and Wilma, it was the costliest hurricane to hit the Gulf coast of Mexico, and it is virtually certain that Mexico will nominate Karl for retirement, but on top of all of that, it violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR to move it before that happens. I don't want to use Dolly as an excuse for Karl; I want to use her as an excuse for Alex. Agatha was the costliest natural disaster in Guatemala's history and the deadliest storm for the country since 1982, but just like Karl, we can't move the article until the WMO's word officially comes out. This discussion hasn't had anything to do with improving or maintaining the article ever since it begun, and if it should be continued, it should be done so on the Hurricane Wikia, not here. In conclusion, this storm should keep the (2010) until it is retired, because, no offense Andros and Dpmuk, but you are the only two people supportng this move. This discussion is concluded. Rye998 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Firstly the number of !votes on each side is not directly a factor in deciding what consensus is, it is the strength of argument that's the deciding factor (although a lot of !votes on one side will obviously make that argument stronger) and arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines inevitably carry more weight - see WP:NOTVOTE. Secondly as per the normal procedures for a requested move this discussion is not close until an independent admin comes along, determines consensus, and closes it. In the past I have seen discussion that seem early on to have clear consensus in one direction change to a clear direction in the other, often because parties directly interest in the article !vote first and then a wider audience, with a more independent wider viewpoint, come along later. This is one of the reasons why move discussions nearly always last at least a week. Thirdly, what's decided on the hurricane wikia has no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia as they are two entirely separate projects, so here is the correct place for this discussion. As I've stated multiple times I've yet to see any argument put forward that is based on policy, guidelines or even past consensus. Finally phrases like "we will not move..." and "this discussion is concluded" seem to smack of WP:OWN as they seem to be attempts to dictate to the community so, as a friendly suggestion so as to limit future drama, can I suggest you tone down your language a bit in future. Dpmuk (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Comment Perhaps as a temporary solution, we can redirect Hurricane Karl to Hurricane Karl (2010). ANDROS¹³³⁷ 19:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Storm articles without the year disambiguator are reserved for retired storms; as such, Karl is as of now ineligible. The "virtually certain to be retired" argument holds no water, since weirder things have happened. There is no hurry, and the page can be quickly moved following the RA IV meeting, if Karl is indeed retired. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
As I ask above can you give any policy, guideline or even past consensus that supports that view? Dpmuk (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
See WP:WPTC#Naming and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 13#Article name treatment re: likely retirees. Note that the latter discussion does leave the option open of moving the set index page currently at Hurricane Karl to Hurricane Karl (disambiguation) and then redirecting the undabbed page back to here, so Andros's second suggestion is acceptable per prior discussions. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, in my opinion the consensus from that discussion is far from clear (Nilfanion seemed to strongly disagree) and it was a long time ago. Personally I also don't like consensuses formed by a wikiproject without wider input (e.g. an RfC) as I think the participants are normally too closely involved, although I am aware that many don't share my view on this. Personally I'd give your argument some weight but not too much for the reasons I outline but I'm but one moderately experienced editor and we'll see what the closing admin thinks. Thanks again for pointing me at relevant discussion, as before your explanation this was starting to feel like a whole of bunch of "ILIKEIT" votes. Dpmuk (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yet that discussion has formed the basis for previous move discussions. In either case, I will raise this in the WikiProject's talk page to verify/clarify if this is indeed still the current consensus, and update the WikiProject's guideline based on that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Andros, I completly agree it should be at least redirected, but I don't support moving it altogether. And Dpmuk, I know the Hurricane Wikia and WPTC are two different projects, but as I mentioned before... this discussion has not been improving or maintaining the article ever since it had begun. In that case, yes, I believe this discussion should be continued on the Hurricane Wikia. Article talk pages are for improving and maintaining the article, in ways like putting in new, more reliable data or catching a typo and fixing it. Talk pages are not for containing forum-like discussion such as this. This discussion has thus far been nothing more than a Battleground over whether or not Karl should get the main article before the official word comes out, when in reality, it probrably will have the word anyways; it's like a "better now than later" kind of discussion. To tell the truth, I don't get the main point of this discussion. Could anyone give a good explanation as to what the main point of this discussion is? I just don't get how it's helping improve anything in the main article. That's why I believe this is Wikia-talk and needs to be continued there, not here. Rye998 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Discussion of whether or not this name will be retired is nearly definitely inappropriate and forum like so probably shouldn't be on this page, however discussion of what the page should be called is appropriate as it is about maintenance of the page. Karl getting retired is not a requirement or a condition of this hurricane being at the main name, the community can decide to move it there irregardless of whether it's retired or not, a view which I support. Finally your argument that we should redirect but not move makes no sense as it has the same end effect. If we're going to redirect, per WP:DISAMBIG which states we only disambiguate where necessary, then this article should be at the main name. Dpmuk (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also(not to be impatient), but does anyone else on WPTC want to say anything about this move? Is there anyone else out there who wants to support(or oppose) this? I know there are many people who haven't said what they think about this, but this can't be the end of this discussion already... Is there anyone else who would wish to support or oppose this? Or does no one else really care about what happens with this move? Rye998 (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oppose - HurricaneSpin Talk to me 17:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dpmuk, i'm not saying it won't happen, but i'm just saying many people who want to know "Hurricane Karl" probrably want to know about this storm in particular, because the other Karl's were not very exeptional in any way whatsoever. In that case, it should at least be redirected, but because the majority of the people here oppose moving it altogether, I do believe it is indeed appropriate to do that. However, it does appear to be the most notable of the Karl's, so it should be redirected. However, we won't move it to "Hurricane Karl" until it is actually retired, because most of us here oppose that move in particular. Dpmuk, this is what we decided on Wikipedia with Hurricane Paloma of 2008, when we chose to leave it as Hurricane Paloma (2008) with Hurricane Paloma redirecting there until it was retired in April 2009. This is what I want with Karl. True, Paloma was the only storm ever named such, but because every other Hurricane Karl never affected land, no one who lives on the coastline who cares about land-affecting storms would ever know they existed. This storm is the only interesting Karl, but in general, I oppose the move to the main article, but support the redirect move. Rye998 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I generally opposed this move in the first place, but Born2cycle, I completly agree with you. It is true that the majority of the people here opposed this move, but the strength of the argument supporting it appeared to be stronger. I am not upset that Karl has the main article, but I personally wanted to wait until it was retired until that happened. This storm is the most notable Karl and the one everyone is probrably looking for online or in the news, ect, and if Karl is used again in the North Atlantic(which is unlikely IMO), we could always move it back again if there is another more severe Karl in the future. If any other hurricanes happen to be as severe or more severe than Karl in the future, I will support moving those articles as well. All in all, this discussion has been concluded. Rye998 (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with the decision, and I think we should follow this in the future. I am going to move protect it, since someone has already moved it back to Karl (2010). If anyone disagrees, please open up a new discussion. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I find it disturbing that a long standing consensus is overthrown without any need. In several months we will know wether the name will be retired or not. It it will there was not need for this discussion. If it will not in six years another Hurricane Karl (2016) will be the primary topic and we will have to move the article again and there will be the need to fix all links. Folks, that was not a good move. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

But if in the event it wasn't retired, Karl 2010 will still be the most notable Karl, so we wouldn't have to move the links for a few years. It's not that big of a deal to possibly have to move something in a few years. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nope. If Karl will not be retired he isn't more notable than any other Karl. Besides, still someone would have to fix those links. What is the benefit of this? None. There isn't any. Worse: We have better work to do then to fix links. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

A $3 billion storm is not more notable than three other Karl's that hardly affected land? Let's not get carried away here. Certainly the worst flooding disaster in Veracruz's history can have the main article if it's the most-viewed Karl. What is the benefit of this post-discussion? We have better work to do than to argue about link. --Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, 1 million or 1 billion does not matter – priorating a storm depending on damage is following the money POV. Another Karl might be much more notable concerning how it formed, where it formed, when it formed, for instance. Besides, do you wonder about this post-discussion when the move was made though six or seven users opposed it but only one or so supported the move? --Matthiasb (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Certainly it does matter how much impact it made. Would you have preferred to have Katrina stay at Hurricane Katrina (2005) until it was officially retired? That's ridiculous. Impact is the whole basis for notability, ie how much it actually affected the world (which is reflected in page views). And a discussion isn't about the number of votes, but the quality of the argument on both sides. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't throw in Katrina, that was a slam duck from the very beginning, mainly because of it affected the U.S. mainland. Page view numbers are changing when an article's subject is leaving the scope of the press. Let's look on this in about one year of time, yeah, in only three months from now this article will not have much more hits than any other Karl article we have and also not more than for Danielle or Earl or Igor. <sarcasm> A hurricane outside the U.S. is, considering reader's focus, in the EN:WP more or less the same as a fish storm in the far Eastern Atlantic. </sarcasm> Surely discussions are about the arguments on both sides but they are also about consensus. And here the move was made against consensus what isn't good at all, notwithstanding how good any of the arguments were or were not. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Matthiasb, You can't discriminate against moving storm articles just because they didn't affect the U.S. mainland. Hurricane Gilbert never hit the U.S. and caused 5 billion in USD damage, in addition to 341 deaths. That storm was near-unanimous. I personally opposed this move in the first place, but i'm not mad that Karl got the main article; I just personally wanted to wait until the official word came out until that happens, that's all. Also, with Karl, the article wasn't moved based on that it would be retired, but was moved because this is the Primary topic of it's case. Every other Karl that was ever named was used to name a storm that never approached close to any land, and dissipated without affecting land, This Karl was the only one to make landfall, is the most notable Karl based on it's overall impact, and it was described as the worst hurricane to hit the city of Veracruz in recorded history. And HurricaneHink mentioned to you that article moves aren't solved by which side has more votes, a la WP:DEMOCRACY, but by which side of the discussion has more strength for(or against) the move. Everyone opposing this move said the same basic thing - Karl hasn't been retired, and it only should deserve the main page when it is retired, a la WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. However, for the near future, and today, anyone who types in "Hurricane Karl" is probrably looking for the 2010 storm, because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says if there are two or more articles that have the same name, they are distinguished by which one is more notable and what more people would probrably be looking for. People who type in "Hurricane Karl" wouldn't want to look for a fish-like storm that never affected any land, but would be interested in finding the one that did affect land and cause a certain extent of damages and deaths. I don't think I can make myself any clearer than this. Rye998 (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I contest that probability. As it can checked f. ex. Hurricane Karl (2004) was viewed 5000 times in September. Of course that was because of Karl 2010, but that is all about a media hype. In two months hits are back to normal; I would think below one thousands a month if not much lower. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Matthiasb, can't you just end this discussion and move on? I have many other important things to do than argue over some debate that should have ended a week ago. This discussion is concluded and Karl will have the main article, and you can't argue about that anymore. Just leave it be. Get over it. I don't want this discussion to go on any longer because I - and no one else on Wikipedia - really want this to go on anymore, and we have many other important things on our mind than arguing over some debate that was ended a long time ago. This discussion has went on one line too long. There will be no more edits made to this section, and that's final. Rye998 (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Let's agree that we disagree, also in the way you try to deal with me like with a child. I am not your child (certainly I am much older). Discussions normally end when they end and not when one participant declares that they should end. That's not the way to reach consensus. Thanks for your participation in this discussion anyway. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Matthiasb, I'm not treating you like a child, i'm just saying we should end this. This discussion has gone on too long and I don't want it to go on anymore. And this discussion was concluded by Born2cycle above about a week ago. He declared this article should be moved because the strength of the support was stronger than the strength of the opposition and Karl is the Primary topic of its case. We don't settle things by numbers in a discussion of a move, a la WP:DEMOCRACY as I mentioned above. This storm will have the main article no matter what. I just want this discussion to end so we can move on. Can't we get over this? I believe this discussion hasn't anything to do with improving or maintaining the article and it will be discontinued.Rye998 (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Report from the Government of Veracruz

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[1] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Has this report updated the damages or deaths from Karl? I can't translate the entire report, but I believe it's what they had recorded. Does this prove Karl was the worst hurricane to hit Veracruz in recent history? I commented that statement out earlier because it wasn't sourced. I believe this will update things, but I don't know what it has to say in the article... An aftermath section, maybe? Rye998 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

And...

Latest comment: 13 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: stay at Hurricane Karl (2010). This is seems like a really borderline case; there is real disagreement here about whether Karl 2010 is the primary topic. It seems like it is probably the main Karl, but based on the discussion here possibly not overwhelmingly so as required by wp:PRIMARYTOPIC. While I don't think Wikipedia:WPTC#Naming should necessarily supersede wp:PRIMARYTOPIC, the non-retirement status can be a clue, since the WMO's name retirement criteria is, to a degree, similar to the issues considered by our policies. Considering that along with article page views, ghits, recentism, etc, I think keeping the (2010) disambiguator is probably appropriate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hurricane Karl → Hurricane Karl (2010) —

Name was not retired. As other Hurricane Karls have existed, the dab is necessary to make clear which one we are talking about (2010). CrazyC83 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Page has been moved without any consensus here and has been move protected in that location due to the number of move. Please do not 'procedurally' close this requested move as this would ignore all the comments here and allow the move without consensus to stand. (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is of relevance here). Protection policy currently supports move protecting the page at it's current location despite the problems this causes for the request move process although this RfC to change the polciy to reflect the problems caused to RM process may be of interest. Dpmuk (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you check out the discussion on the tropical cyclone project page, it's now 6 to 3 in favor of the current article name. That is probably why someone moved to close the discussion. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Someone closed it with the edit comment, and I quote, "closed, procedural only, no other comments" so by their own addmission they weren't commenting on the discussion or any consnesus. Additionally if you read my comments below you're see that I don't think an unadvertised discussion on a topic page is a good way to get consensus - I'm not particularly happy with the move of the discussion to the project page but regardless this needs closing by an admin determing consensus not as a fait accompli procedural close. Dpmuk (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dpmuk, you may have missed what was trying to be said. I know consensus isn't determined by the numbers, per WP:DEMOCRACY, but I have to disagree with the view you have on Karl being the primary topic. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says if one topic sticks out from the others, it should be at the base name, but one thing that isn't mentioned there(and should be) is if one topic sticks out from the others, but isn't very well-known or remembered by people on Wikipedia or the public, ect, it should not be at the base name. As I have mentioned on WPTC's talk page, Hurricane Karl 2010 is no different from the other Karl's as Gordon 1994 is to the other Gordon's, or 2008's Nisha to the other Nisha's, Emiliy 2005 to the other Emily's, Hanna 2008 to the other Hanna, ect. If one topic sticks out from the others, but isn't long-famed or long well-known to the public in general, then that topic cannot be at the base name. That's completly true with Hurricane Karl and should also be reflected on Wikipedia. I know you think that readers care about deaths ect, but Hurricane Karl isn't viewed a signifigantly larger number of times now more than the other Karl's. It's nothing like it was last September, anyway. Many people know a disaster or event like Karl when it occurs, but only a few of these people remember the storm for life. The bottom line is, if you showed any random U.S. citizen the word "Hurricane Karl", would they know about the 2010 hurricane? I don't think they would even know, let alone care, about it. Karl 2010 may stick out from the other Karls, but other than for Veracruz, Mexico, the storm wasn't so well known. I highly doubt anyone would care about him anymore, even so. Once more, if one topic sticks out from the others, but isn't going to be forever well-known, it can't be at the base name. Karl's a good example of that, and our article should be reflected that way on Wikipedia by grouping it with the (2010). WPTC's policies are not counterintuitive to Wikipedia Policy overall, and keeping Karl's article with the (2010) is completly in-line with policy from what i'm seeing and have pointed out. Rye998 (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oppose as for my reasoning for supporting the previous move namely: It seems clear to me that this is the primary topic. It is the only one of the Hurricane Karl's to make significant landfall and the only one to cause any damage or deaths and this is also the only hurricane to have a significant number of sources from news organisations. As such, in my opinion, this is already clearly the primary topic regardless of whether or not the name is retired. If the name is not retired we can always revisit what one is primary when the next Karl occurs. (Notice I said when the next Karl occurs until a more or equally notable Karl occurs this is the primary topic and the lack of retirement has no bearing on this). Dpmuk (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
- It is the tropical cyclone project standard to add years to systems whose names have not been retired, because they will be used again. As you can see above, there was a bit of a discussion about its naming a few months back. Honestly, it should have always had the year attached, because it was never clear the name would be retired. I may have said too much... Thegreatdr (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  - And as I explain above in more detail a) I think that whether it's retired or not has very little bearing on what is the primary topic (it would be none but it's retirement or not might generate some news stories etc and so impact on what is the primary topic) and b) I'm not particularly happy with a very locally determined consensus deciding this. We make decisions based on what's best for the reader's and they're unlikely to be tropical storm specialists so I don't think a consensus formed without non-specialists is valid. I also think that to the average reader the arguements you give below will be of little interest - the average reader probably doesn't care that a hurricane "formed in the middle of an extratropical cyclone" they are interested in deaths etc and so to them the primary topic will be this Karl. Wikipedia is there for all readers not just tropical cyclone specialists and the primary topic to them should be deciding. Dpmuk (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
    - The main point I was trying to make appears to have been missed. If there is uncertainty (which wikipedia abhors), then make the safest choice. Never forget this an encyclopedia, which by practice, is not a controversial form of media. The safe choice is to include the year in the article title until there is a Karl which will be significant enough for the public to remember. I'm not trying to change anyone's minds here...I'm old enough to know better. I just wanted to clarify my point. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - just because the WPTC has a "standard" doesn't mean that it's right. Wiki policy clearly dictates that if there is one topic that stands out among others of the same name, then it should have the main article. Karl is a clear example of that. All of the other Karl's did nothing but attain hurricane status over the open ocean. Furthermore, if there was an instance where a retired storm was not the primary topic (for example, Hurricane Celia in the EPAC becomes a destructive hurricane and becomes as well-known as the 1970 one), then that storm should not be given the main article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Support — Karl 2010 is no longer the "primary topic" the way I am seeing it. The reason why Hurricane Karl was not retired or reknown(I should have mentioned this in the earlier requested move) is because the hurricane was not signifigant enough for Mexico to request it's removal. Many people get fixated on the damages and deaths of hurricanes and that truly ≠ retirement and notability. What does equal retirement status(and notability status) of hurricanes or natural disasters is how much it is talked about, how much public reaction it gets, how often it is refered to, ect. Hurricanes Igor and Tomas were unprescedented disasters for Newfoundland and St. Lucia, respectively, and were some of the worst, if not the worst natural disasters in the histories of those places, which is why they were retired. Karl was NOT an unprescedented disaster for Mexico and did NOT become retired for that reason. Mexico has seen lots of hurricanes in the past, say 50 years. Mexico has seen Diana of 1990, Gert of 1993, Janet of 1955, Dean of 2007, ect; Mexico has been hit every few years, and great damage from hurricanes there is, well, it isn't really unexpected. Igor and Tomas were unprescedented disasters though, and they were not as destructive as Karl, but they are talked about so much more because they were once-in a lifetime events for the places they hit, wheras Karl, on the other hand was not. Should damages or deaths alone really be used to determine notability of hurricanes or disasters? A better way of determining notability status of disasters is public outcry and emotional losses. We had this same discussion on Dolly's talk page and Hanna's talk page in 2008. They were both costly storms and deadly storms, but they weren't famous. They weren't talked about very much. They didn't get so much media attention. Karl isn't talked about very much either, and although it was a somewhat costly storm for Mexico, it isn't talked about as much as Igor and Tomas were, and both of those retired names will likely be remembered longer than Karl. Damages can play a part in notability, but what really plays the part in notability and the primary topic is public reaction and media attention, not money or deaths. Therefore this hurricane isn't the primary topic and it should be regrouped with the (2010). Hurricane Gordon of 1994 may clearly be the primary topic but it isn't at the base name because it didn't get enough media attention or public reaction, like Igor and Tomas did. It doesn't matter if it was very costly, or very deadly, ect, what matters is if it was talked about enough. If the hurricane or disaster isn't famous, isn't talked about very much, or isn't reknown, it shouldn't be at the base name. I'm not trying to say too much; i'm fully explaining myself as to why it must have the year disambiguator. Rye998 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Your logic is sound regarding status quo in general. It depends what you mean by Karl "standing out." I personally think the Karl in 1980 is more memorable as it formed in the middle of an extratropical cyclone, but I'm not going to push for it to have the main name. The 1998 Karl was somewhat memorable because it was nearly continued as Hermine (silly Appalachian wedge, confusing matters once again). At least with us using a WMO standard such as retirement we avoid pitfalls regarding what we should or should not do (unlike our TD issues). It is really not our, nor any encyclopedia's, decision to make regarding which one of these low to moderate impact systems should have the main name. Karl was wet, but come on, T. D. #11 of 1999 was larger, wetter (had gale force winds as an ET) and changed the course of a river. Retirements make the decision for us, and are the safest bet. In this case, the status quo is the most prudent choice. Therefore I support the article move to Karl (2010). Thegreatdr (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

But do you understand what i'm trying to say, DR? I'm saying not being retired, Karl 2010 is no different than 2010's Agatha from the other Agatha's, or 1994's Gordon from the other Gordon's. It may appear to be notable, but damages and deaths don't have everything to do with notability. Damages and deaths do indeed play a part, but public reaction and media attention is what matters the most, which was reflected in the WMO's desicion of retired names of 2010, and should also be reflected in our article here on Wikipedia.(I also moved your comment after my reasoning of support - we generally keep things in order...) Rye998 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

See my comments above. I think we're in better agreement than you think. I don't think the average person in my part of the world would know/remember/care to make a distinction between many of the storms this year. I think Alex was covered the most (at least where I am), with the others generally falling off the media's radar. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm in agreement with Thegreatdr. The WMO provides an impartial body who can make decisions, as opposed to our subjective views. Igor and Tomas were not nearly as destructive, but considering where they hit, they were much worse storms to them than Karl (and Alex) were to Mexico. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

What I said, you mean? 5 billion in damage isn't very much for Mexico or the U.S, but in Canada or St. Lucia, it is. I don't really care about the damages or deaths; media attention is how people get word of hurricanes, and Karl didn't get so much media attention, wheras Igor and Tomas did. If you were to take Igor's damage in proportion to a U.S. hurricane of the same force, it would be about the equivalent of a catastrophic, media attention, 8.3 billion dollar hurricane in Florida. Hurricane Karl did not get the fame Igor and Tomas did and it shouldn't be without the (2010) for that reason. The WMO is very smart when it comes to retiring names, and when it comes to the particular standards of hurricanes in a particular area. Many common people look at the damages and deaths, but they do not look at the media attention and standards of retirement for a country or group of people. That's a big misconception, and Karl falls into one of those common mistakes behind what we think will happen for retired names and notability/the primary topic. The lack of retirement doesn't really matter, I agree(especially if this was Katrina, ect), but what does matter(and what i've said numerous times) is it's fame and public reaction. Before the consensus with this discussion has been reached, I must ask the closing admin "how long willl this event or disaster be remembered? "How long will the country or group of people affected by this disaster remember it?" The notability of disasters is not related to the ammount of damages or deaths they cause. A better way of determining notability of these events is public outcry and media attention. Although Hurricane Karl caused over 5 billion in damage, the media didn't pay much attention to it, and Mexico doesn't either, and neither do they from Emily, Liza, Madeline, or Haiti from Gordon and Hanna, ect. Igor and Tomas, on the other hand, will be remembered for a long time to come, not exactly because they were retired, but because Canada and St. Lucia have never seen a disaster of epic proportions like them. Unlike Mexico, they will not forget Igor and Tomas for a long time to come. Our article should be reflected based on that idea, NOT the ammount of damages or deaths, as they truly ≠ notability of disasters. Gordon killed over 1,000 people and isn't remembered because 1,000 deaths is small for the country of Haiti, as was the over 500 from Hanna of 2008. Rye998 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oppose – I strongly disagree with moving this article to Hurricane Karl (2010). Though the name wasn't retired according to yesterday's statement, the scale of damage wrought by the storm warrants it having the main article. As Hink stated, WPTC is not following Wikipedia standards. The most notable of a series of topics with similar titles would get the main article and the others would be disambiguated. By far, this usage of Karl is the most notable, and from what I can see it is one of the costliest storms in Mexican history. You can't use other storms as a reason to not keep this at the main article as it is mostly a discussion for all storms in similar situations. Should the Wikipedia standard be finally adopted by the WPTC, other articles in similar situations (Gordon '94, Emily '05, Hanna '08) would be moved to the main article. I also don't understand why its such a big deal anyways. The articles at most would have to be moved once after six years if a storm of the same name is more significant. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

With three supports and three opposes, the article is likely to stay right where it is. Where is the wikipedia page that discusses situations like this cyclonebiskit? I think it would be good for us all to see it. If that's the standard, so be it. But I'm worried in situations like Allison decisions that were once clear-cut (which one gets the main name - the damaging 1989 storm that hit SE TX/Wrn LA or the damaging 2001 storm that struck SE TX/LA) will become more muddled. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I don't think the two Allisons are a good counter argument example. The difference in damage between the two is rather significant. The 1989 one killed 11 and left $500 million in damage while the 2001 one killed 55 (direct/indirect) and left $5.5 billion in damage. Regardless, should there be a case where two storms both warrant a main article, damage and loss of life is similar, and neither are retired, an exception should be made where both would have the year in their title. With the same situation but with one of the two retired, the retired one would have additional support for it having the main article and therefore would be given such. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  - Damage amount isn't everything. I believe it was Rye998 who pointed out something like this. It is similarly easy/difficult to get a $6 billion damage storm in Houston, TX as it is to get a $1/2 billion dollar storm in the country of SE TX/Western Louisiana where they mainly mill forests/wood for International Paper. All I can say is, prepare in advance for the arguments this new standard is going to create. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there are three general guidelines whether something is the main article. In terms of Wiki page linking (what links here), the 1980 one has about 50, while the 98, 04, and 10 one have about 100 each. In terms of traffic statistics in February, Karl 80 had 88, Karl 98 had 81, Karl 04 had 204, Karl 10 (with the year) had 241, and just Hurricane Karl got 1668. As for a Google search, the 1980 one got an unusually high amount, but you can see two of the first ten hits deal with the 2010 one. Same with the 1998 one, which had five of the top ten hits related to the 2010 one. The 2010 one has just under 900,000 Ghits, and that's with specifying the year in the search (which might not be done for how recent it was). This is a perfect example when we can take advantage of "This is about the storm in 2010. For other storms of the same name, see X." We used to have that on every page, but it wasn't needed at all for storms that had the year already in there. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, I strongly agree it should be moved back. Hink and Cyclonebiskit, you shouldn't pay so much attention to the damages. Karl did not get enough media attention to be notable, and that reflected in it not being retired. To be honest, i'm not mad at the WMO for not retiring this name; in fact, I think it rightfully shouldn't have been retired. As I mentioned, storms like Karl are NOT unusual for Mexico, wheras Igor and Tomas were unusual and unprescedented disasters. Also, as I mentioned, Hurricane Gordon of 1994 and TS Agatha in 2010 are not at the base name and just like Karl, shouldn't be, because they didn't get enough media attention or public reaction, like Igor and Tomas did. You shouldn't pay so much attention to the damages; 5.6 billion isn't a very big number by Mexico's standards, and although Igor and Tomas did only 200 and 500 million, respectively, that damage bill is huge by their standards, and it's a lot more for them than Karl's damage was for Mexico, and Karl won't be remembered for as much time as Igor and Tomas for that reason. The number of hits on a computer search is irrelevant to the attention it got in the media, as Igor and Tomas didn't get many computer hits(not as much as Karl) but got more media attention and public reaction and became retired for that reason. Just because a topic sticks out doesn't mean it's notable enough to be at the base name, as I explained with Gordon, Alex, Emily, and Agatha. You must look at a country's standards for retirement to base how notable the hurricane is. Just because Karl caused more damages and deaths than Igor does not mean it was more notable because Karl hit a place that has seen several hurricanes in the past and is well-prepared for them, wheras Igor hit a place that is unprepared for hurricanes and it was an unprescedented once-in a lifetime event for Newfoundland. Karl was not a once in a lifetime event and although it was destructive, it will not go down in Mexican history, wheras Igor, on the other hand, will. Rye998 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't focus on the damage at all in my last comment. It's a simple matter of whether one topic stands out in a group of similar names. This Karl certainly does, based on Wikipedia hits and Google links. The 2010 Karl is overwhelmingly more known, compared to the other ones. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Both Agatha and Karl were extensively covered by the media. Agatha was mentioned months after it dissipated and flooding subsided. I have yet to look into how extensively Karl was covered but from the little bit I have done, it is well-reported. Again, you're claiming that $5.6 billion isn't a lot for Mexico; however, it is a lot for any country and high up on the list for Mexico. For comparison, the costliest hurricanes in the country are Hurricanes Paulene and Wilma, both leaving US$7.5 billion (at the time) in damage. If you're going to use relative standards, Karl and Tomas are easily comparable. From what I've found, the costliest hurricane for St. Lucia was Hurricane Gilbert, leaving $1 billion in damage. In regards to Agatha, it is one of the worst tropical cyclones in Guatemala history, being the costliest in the country as well as one of the deadliest. You have to pull back a bit and look at the big picture rather than "this storm was retired, that one wasn't so what it did means nothing." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Support moving back to the (2010) parenthetical. The project-specific standards of using the year modifier for unretired storms worked fine for five years. It's clear, objective, and unambiguous guideline. Trying to determine the "primary topic" for meteorological phenomena is much more difficult than for people or cities, since different people have different ideas of what constitutes tropical cyclone notability (as evidenced above). The entire WPTC storm article base before 2010 employs the "old" naming scheme, so on the grounds of consistency I support moving non-retired storms back to the disambiguated titles. Also, like DR, I'm still going to tend to think of the 1980 storm before the 2010 one (1980 was on-par with the 1991 Perfect Storm in climatological rarity), so none of the Karls thus far are vastly and indisputably more notable than any of the others. Juliancolton (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll say that you're partially right in that climatology should play a role in whether or not a storm is more notable but the emphasis should be much less than the social impact caused by it. Aside from meteorologists, who cares about the meteorologic aspect of a storm? I'm being perfectly blunt here, there are very few people who care about the structure and track of a storm while most are looking for what a storm did and the lasting effects of it. Additionally, if your support is based on consistency concerns, there's a fault in that. Having this discussion over just a single storm would serve no overall purpose. Rather, what I'm gathering is that this policy would be implemented project-wide and older storms using the previous style would be moved to match the newer one. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Then this is the wrong place to be having the discussion. I'm moving it to the project page. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

But Wikipedia doesn't exclude any particular group simply because "less people care". I'm not a meteorologist and I care about the meteorological aspect of a storm. I know of forums comprised of thousands of non-meteorologists who care more about the genesis of a cyclone than its land-based effects. I'm not saying they're in the majority, but at the same time they're not simply fringe researchers. If we're looking to implement a project-wide policy then it should be implemented project-wide, and not on a single article talk page. Until the project as whole decides on this proposal, we shouldn't be playing with articles. Juliancolton (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here is the discussion now. Rye998 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Although I agree that this could probably do with wider discussion I'm not sure an unadvertised (by RfC or similar) discussion on a project page is the way to go. One of the arguements advanced here is that people interested in the topic may have a different view of the primary topic than the average reader and that the primary topic should take all readers into account. By holding the discussion on the project page you are effectively biasing the comments towards those interested in the subject. Dpmuk (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Damages

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I'm confused about the Damages listed in the table at the top. It says 5.6 Billion in USD, but there isn't a citation for that amount. I tried looking in the official Tropical Cyclone Report, but it only says that "the insurance risk modeling company AIR Worldwide estimated total damage costs in Mexico at US$206 million". Where did the 5.6 Billion figure come from? Did people just add up various estimates from different sources? SargeAbernathy (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh! I see that Citations 43 and 44 are the basis for the 5.6 Billion dollar figure! But these were only "preliminary estimates". The articles were written in 2010 right after the incident, while the Tropical Cyclone Report is much later. And after translating one of the articles I still don't understand where the 5.6 Billion USD figure came from .... since 15 million pesos is about 1.2 million in USD anyway. ( http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jornadaveracruz.com.mx%2FNoticia.aspx%3FID%3D100919_161604_312%26seccion%3D3 )

So, seeing as I can not find a verifiable and up-to-date (post-preliminary) source that says Karl cause an estimated 5.6 Billion USD in damages, I'll just change the figure to the NHC's TCR figure of 206 Million. Since that is the official estimate. SargeAbernathy (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The $206 million was based off an estimate by AIR Worldwide (an insurance company) and is solely for insured losses, a small portion of the total losses. I would also venture to say that information from any body of government in Mexico would override the AIR Worldwide estimate as it's not based in Mexico. This source states an estimated 70 billion pesos (70 mil millones) in damage and is directly from the Governor of Veracruz (the hardest hit state). "El gobernador estimó que el paso del huracán Karl por el estado de Veracruz dejó daños a la infraestructura, comercios, viviendas y bienes productivos por unos 70 mil millones de pesos." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see. Thank you, that's exactly the answer I was hoping to learn. I'll leave this page alone, but continue questions I have about sources for Damages at the main 2010 page. I want to be sure I know how exactly damages are calculated for Wikipedia articles.SargeAbernathy (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This souce is probably the article that NHC used for the Karl Report. The Tropical Cyclone Report can be misleading, but this article is not. It specifically states that many properties do not own insurance and so the total loss is probably much higher than the insured loss. I was told by others who didn't understand the source that Karl didn't cause as much damage according to NHC. Well, NHC isn't giving the total picture always. Oh hey look, I asked questions and learned something new. Horray for me :3 SargeAbernathy (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are we sure that Mexican damage total is correct? It's only a preliminary estimate, and as we know from Humberto and Ophelia, the preliminary can be way too high. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

EM DAT says 3900 million US$ for Karl.Jason Rees (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why no Retirment?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm curious to know if anyone has information on why hurricane Karl was not retired despite the $5.6 billion in damages? I've heard from other sources that the $5.6 billion estimate could be far higher than the actual total (around $200 million). Stormchaser89 (talk) 4:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The World Meteorological Organization doesn't give reasons for why storms were not retired, you could probably just send them an email asking if you're curious. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I emailed the WMO but I got no specifics on reasons for not retiring Karl nor any damage estimates. If anyone else has any possible reasons I'd be happy to hear them. Stormchaser89 (talk) 4:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.149.54 (talk)

Stormchaser89, the rule about retired names is the WMO cannot remove a name from the list unless a country or group of people request the name to be removed. Karl was not retired because Mexico didn't request Karl to be retired. If a name isn't requested to be removed by the country affected or group of people, the WMO can't retire the name, no matter how bad it may have been. You should Email the government of Mexico and ask them why they didn't request his removal if you're curious, or put any further comments on Hurricane Wiki. If the actual totals were overexaggerated, then it isn't worthy of it as the primary topic. Ophelia of 2005 had a 1.6 billion dollar estimate, which was later downed to 70 million, ending all comments on potential retirement of the name. Same probrably happened with Karl and/or Matthew and Alex. Rye998 (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I guess I didn't realize that names could only be retired on request of a country impacted That explains why Igor was retired despite damage only in the millions of US dollars. I'm probably not going to email the Mexican Government just to get another vague answer like I got from the WMO which didn't even inform me of the fact Rye998 brought up. Thanks for the input Rye998. (talk) 5:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. As I mentioned above, although Igor and Tomas were not as destructive as Karl, considering where they hit, they were much worse to Canada and St. Lucia than Karl was to Mexico. 200 million may not sound like a lot for Canada, but only 450,000 people live on the island of Newfoundland, mostly around the area where Igor hit on the Avalon Peninsula. Proportionally, that's the equivalent of over 8 billion in the U.S. from a major hurricane in Florida. Also, although 500 million may not sound so big for Tomas, since that damage was all on a single island, that's probrably much more for St. Lucia than Karl's 5.6 billion was for Mexico... I may have said too much. Any further comments on Hurricane Wiki. Rye998 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hurricane Karl (2010). 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) 23:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 26 June 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOved — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hurricane Karl (2010) → Hurricane Karl – Seems to obviously be the most notable Karl despite not being retired (Like 2010's Agatha). Deserves main title imo and dab page would be Tropical Storm Karl. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oppose it's not obvious, given the meteorological rarities of Hurricane Karl (1980). YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Should remind you here (referencing TWX13's opinion) that Karl 1980 was a fish spinner and had no effects on land. So there is some difference there between the 1980 and 2010 storms. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
  - Given that Karl 80 at least has some claim for its formation at a high latitude (and this was echoed in why this RM failed in the first place a few years back), I don't think Karl 10 is much more likely than the other Karl's combined to be more sought out. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
    - Karl 80 didn't affect land, but Karl 10 did and at a significant price ($5.2 billion compared to the other Karl's which barely impacted land at all). Like I said, it is more notable then the others (WP:PTOPIC). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Support – Given that 2010's Karl is the only storm of its name to make landfall, and as a major hurricane at that, it is "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." (WP:PTOPIC) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Support it is the most destructive tropical cyclone named Karl. --219.79.127.17 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Support – impacts on people are more likely to be sought after than meteorological rarity. ~ KN2731 {talk} 13:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Karl. 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) 02:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic