Talk:List of Canada hurricanes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

[edit] Todo

Another one added to the "List of" series. How's it look? →Cyclone1→ 19:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll put it in as a Start. There are several things I can think of which need doing:

• This is an article about Canada not the United States. Therefore, several things should be altered accordingly: Canadian not US Dollars should be used (with USD conversions), both metric and imperial should be used with metric having precedence (2.5 mm (1 inch) not 1 inch (2.5 mm)) and Canadian spelling should be used (in Canada, its metre not meter).
• A copyedit is required. For instance Hazel's entry says "Floods killed 35 people on a single street called Raymore Drive in Toronto". The street's name is way too trivial. Hurricane Hazel implies that figure is 32 so one of the two articles needs correcting.
• The See Also list doesn't need to link to the list of NJ hurricanes does it?
• {{cite web}} referencing and all the storms should have an inline source.

In addition I think the article should be uniform in how it handles storms; either extratropical storms count or they don't. Personally I'd say include them all, the CHC issues warnings on post-tropical storms after all. Personally, I like the NJ list format, with all storms no matter how trivial mentioned (2005's Irene was hardly significant in NJ). However, given the sheer number of storms that would include that might mean a separation into the seperate provinces (why not?) and providing rather less detail in here.

I know thats a lot, but you've done a good job so far, once the level of detail is decided things will flow much better. Oh and one minor question did you copy/paste the article from your subpage?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Lol, yea I did. What, is that a problem? →Cyclone1→ 01:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. There's no indication of the prior history of the page. Moving is much easier. An easy way to do every province would be to keep this page, and have every province listed. It would basically be a disambiguation page. For example

"Ontario"

Main article: List of Ontario hurricanes

Ontario has experienced the remnants of several tropical cyclones that struck the United States, with the most notable storm being Hurricane Hazel in 1954. Hazel dropped heavy rainfall in Toronto, killing 35 people.

And that's it. Then, the List of Ontario hurricanes article would have every last tropical cyclone to effect the area. The NJ format would work well that way. It would be a lot of work, but I'm sure you can get help if you need it. For provinces like Alberta and Manitoba, you could say,

"Alberta" No tropical cyclone has effected the province.

That might get a little redundant, but it's a good way to keep things organized for now. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea. Maybe not Ontario, right off. We should start with Nova Scotia or Newfoundland. This page could be the parent page or something. Should I keep this version of the page or move it from my subpage? →Cyclone1→ 01:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

*light bulb* Here's an idea (remember it's just a thought). Should the entire article be rewired to look similar to this.

Nova Scotia

Main article: List of Nova Scotia hurricanes

(enter Nova Scotia storms here from 1851 - present day)

and repeat that for all the provinces mentioned. Just a thought. →Cyclone1→ 02:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of the separate article? I think that you should only mention the most notable storm for the province, and mention all of the storms in a sub-article. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Sorry, but my major editing (revamping articles and such) has been tragically cut short for a while, About 30 minutes ago, I sliced open my right index finger on a peice of glass and my typing is, well, troubled as of that. I'll get on it when my finger fells better. Don't worry, "It's just a flesh wound." Lol. It should heal up nicely before Friday. →Cyclone1→ 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, then again I can type fairly well with my other fingers. So nevermind. →Cyclone1→ 03:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So it is just a flesh wound. No biggie ;) But get better soon, and be sure not to overdo it. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol, thanks. Oddly enough, I've had paper cuts half this size that have hurt much longer. The pain has nearly stopped. Anyway, back on subject. I like that idea, but we should discuss it a little more first. Do you mean putting the most notable storm ever of the province in this article and making a sub-article for the province, or several of the more notable storms of the province in this article, and making a sub-article for the province? →Cyclone1→ 04:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually thinking about it, a comprehensive listing would make sense for the various subarticles. My opinion on the best layout for this article is to only mention the more notable storms in this article. A by-province layout could work, but with Prince Edward Island the most significant TCs would have affected somewhere else, two sections describing Hurricane Juan would be a mistake IMO. It might be best to split the article into 3 sections: The first one for landfalls in Atlantic Canada, the second for US landfalling storms which have significant effects in Canada and a third for Pacific hurricanes. The HPC summary for Ignacio mentions the remnant moved into BC. Obviously the first is the most significant one, so if needed break it down chronologically.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Never thought about the 2 Juans, but that is a problem. Three format things works. However, the US category should be better worded. Ignacio was a US landfalling storm and also a Pacific hurricane. So is it fine that this article has the three categories, with sub-articles for Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland? --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we leave provinces that were only effected by a few storms here (lets say, at least less that 10), and make sub-articles for the more active ones, instead of having a list of only a few storms in the sub-article. →Cyclone1→ 14:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Then again, it looks like every province effected had more than ten so nevermind again. →Cyclone1→ 14:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

... I'm still a little confused to what we've decided to do. Can't do anthing right now, I'm about to leave. →Cyclone1→ 14:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll add: Link the first instance of the provinces and place only, not randm occurences withi the article. Circeus 01:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I try to do, but after about 4 days of researching the article, you tend to forget whether you linked that already or not. →Cyclone1→ 01:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Plan

This is the plan. This article will serve as a pseudo-disambiguation page. There will be sections for each province's tropical cyclone history, and those that have over 10 will have their own sub-article. For those that have their own sub-article, only the most notable storm will be mentioned in that section. If one storm is the most notable for more than one section, then pick the second most notable for the province with the lesser impact. This article will have general climatology in the beginning. Then, it goes by provinces with TC impacts. The sub-articles will be List of Ontario hurricanes, List of Quebec hurricanes, List of New Brunswick hurricanes, List of Nova Scotia hurricanes, List of Prince Edward Island hurricanes, and List of Newfoundland and Labrador hurricanes. I think that extratropical storms should not be counted unless they caused actual damage. There's no need to mention every extratropical storm that moved through Canada if you don't have any information on it. So, does this sound good to everyone? --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, wow that's a lot of work, but a pretty good plan, IMO. →Cyclone1→ 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't do anything now, I'm leaving on a short wikivacation in a few hours and will have no computer. I'll be back in about a week, I'll start on it then. →Cyclone1→ 12:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I don't think it should be split up. It sort of sounds like a waste of time. Instead, I think this article could become the focus of it all. A lot more reseach is needed, though, to ensure if is comprehensive enough. Off the top of my head, Katrina and Isabel both affected Canada. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also the rare one (most recently Isabel) that gets past 55°N into Hudson Bay (which is technically Nunavut - sounds funny on a hurricane article)...although that is very rare as usually there is something to absorb the storm or deflect the storm rightward towards Greenland before that happens. CrazyC83 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)