Wikipedia

Talk:1935 Labor Day hurricane/Archive 1

< Talk:1935 Labor Day hurricane
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Lowest pressure?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It says in this article:

. . . the central pressure was unofficially measured as low as 26.35 inches of mercury (892 hPa). This measurement of barometric pressure was lower than in the other two category 5 hurricanes, Camille and Andrew, and a record for the Western Hemisphere.

But it says in the Hurricane Gilbert article:

Gilbert also reached a minimum pressure of 888 millibars, the lowest pressure on record in the western hemisphere.

Is this article trying to say that the Labor Day hurricane set a record for lowest barometric pressure in the western hemisphere at the time (if so, that could be made clearer)? Or is the Gilbert article faulty? Or something else? --Camembert


Most sources I've seen list the labor day hurricane as the strongest (lowest pressure). But I don't necessarily believe the gilbert article is incorrect. The most reliable hurricane data comes from the NOAA which is very US-centric. Mitch isn't included in any of the lists, and although Gilbert did cross the mainland US it wasn't a very strong hurricane when it did so. Jdorje 22:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: I found some NOAA data on Gilbert that confirmed the 888 number. So I added the external links to Gilbert and changed the labor-day article. Jdorje 22:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article said that the Labor Day storm had the lowest pressure? I know this to be completely false. It's pressure was the lowest of a hurricane to hit the U.S, not the lowest in the Western Hemisphere.

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

Interestingly, 892mb was not the lowest pressure recorded in that storm. A man on Lower Matecumbe Key recorded 26.00 inches (880 mb) a whole hour before landfall. Unfortuneatly, this could never be verified because the man was in a flooding car at the time and had more pressing matters to attend to than reading his barometer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony868 (talk • contribs)

Damn, if only that could have been verified. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To Much Focus on the Keys!

The Great Labor Day storm of 1935 also destroyed the City of Tampa Bay, which is something this whole article skips over. The ,l/mkl/n mjk.njkand not of the event itself. I fell that if the author wants to pay tribute to the toll it took on the keys then he should make a seperate article about it.

The Labor Day storm while it did not directly smack into Tampa, it did come close enough to lay waste to the entire area, and even sunk 2 islands off of Treasure Island in the Pinellas County region of the bay. This is just as much a piece of Tampa history as it is Key West history, and this information needs to be added, until this article is updated the entire story is flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba-Fett (talk • contribs) August 29, 2006‎

Be bold. Add the information you want to see in the article. DavidH (talk), November 1, 2012‎

Over-wikified

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article seems somewhat overwikified now. Don't like to see brief paragraphs with 10 or more links, it just makes it unreadable. Links directly related to the topic are good. Links to every noun in the article (palm, baseball, mural, Greenland????) are overkill. Here's a guidelines from WP links style guide:

On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:
more than 10% of the words are contained in links;
it has more links than lines;
a link is repeated within the same screen—40 lines, perhaps;
more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist; or
low added-value links (e.g., such as year links 1995, 1980s) are duplicated.

Comments? DavidH 16:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think it's overlinked then you should fix it (I didn't write any of this, so I don't speak for the authors). But "dense" text that says "The hurricane passed over XXX, then hit between YYY and ZZZ" probably do need links to XXX, YYY, and ZZZ because otherwise nobody will have a clue what it means. This happens because this is basically text-ifying something that should instead be shown in a picture. Jdorje 01:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
And for the record, I agree it's over-wikified. Words like "veterans", "railroad", and "transportation" just don't need to be linked. Jdorje 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1935 Labor Day hurricane. 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).

  • 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) 01:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1935 Labor Day hurricane. 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).

  • 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) 20:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1935 Labor Day hurricane. 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).

  • 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) 13:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

References for deaths and railroad

I'm making some changes after checking back on some references. In particular, Marjory Stoneman Douglas' book HURRICANE, Rinehart & Company (1958). Keys Historian Jerry Wilkinson calls it "the best account" on his Keys history website. This and other info on the Keys History Museum site contradict some of the current narrative. In particular, that the vets died on the relief train. In fact, the train never made it that far; its only passengers were 11 Keys residents it picked up on its way down to the FKRA work camp. The number of vets killed on the train in the current version is actually the total number killed, according to the coroner's report, which I cite now in the article.

One poignant detail from Hurricane is that the vets were waiting by the train platform for the evacuation train. They kept thinking they heard it coming. Never has the cliche about a storm sounding just like a train been more tragic. DavidH 01: 25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The article discusses the origins of the veteran work camps, and the subsequent controversy surrounding the botched evacuation of the veterans from the camps, but never actually discusses the circumstances of said evacuation. There is one brief mention of the request for a special train for their removal but no other details. Sakosk 5: 46, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

Winds

The article says 200 M.P.H. winds, but that can't be right. Before the re-analysis it was 160, and now, post-analysis, it is 185 M.P.H. Something isn't right.... Hurricanehink 02: 31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Gusts have been estimated at 200 mph or higher, not sustained winds; if it's not clear it should be corrected. DavidH 16: 10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, where'd you get that data? As I said below the NHC's best-track (as of spring 2005) puts the storm's max winds at 140 knots. It is possible there is a higher value between data points but I doubt it. Jdorje 07: 29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The latest best track data (which still has not received the 2006 updates) still puts the max winds at 140 knots, 160 mph. Anything else is speculation at this point. — jdorje < small> (talk)</small> 18: 26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yea, here's the link. It's a ppt file, it's official, and it says the winds were raised. Hurricanehink (< small> talk</small>) 18: 30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It also upgrades the final landfall in Mainland Florida to 125kt. Pobbie Rarr 22: 42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That is the submission of the probable new Best Track. The slide 50 says "This research will be evaluated by the Best Track Change Committee for final acceptance of revisions to HURDAT. " Therefore it hasn't been officially included into HURDAT yet. Patience people its not official yet, but it can be quoted as a likely change.--Nilfanion (talk) 22: 51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
So does that mean the 160kt is unofficial too? Pobbie Rarr 23: 03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that source isn't official. The official source is the HURDAT, which as Jdorje says hasn't been updated. That can be cited to say it is likely that it will be upgraded but its as unofficial as calling 2005's Cindy a hurricane before its TCR upgraded it.--Nilfanion (talk) 23: 10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I see. I thought that ppt actually was HURDAT. Pobbie Rarr 23: 13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a gust of up to 250 M.P.H. in Windley Key which would make it the strongest hurricane on record. The sustained winds were at least 190-210 M.P.H.

I have edited Impact with winds. Info from 100 Biggest Weather Moments. Also, A Newspaper said The Hurricane was named Fifi. Alpha`s Arceus:Are You Siding with the Humans?! 23: 32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tracking Map

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At [1] is a storm-path map I created for this storm. See User:jdorje/Tracks. Jdorje 06: 40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

AWESOME. DavidH 07: 01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Link didn't work for me 8/2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAlex (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wind speed

According to the NHC (s:Atlantic hurricane best track) the winds for this hurricane were 140 knots = 160 mph = 260 km/h. This is now what the article says. There is PPT source in one of the paragraphs that used to say something different (the paragraph said something different, that is), but since I can't read this source (ppt is not a common format and should not be used for online sources) I can only go with the official data. Jdorje 07: 27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
  • Better intro.
  • More references (and probably switch to ref/reference form).
  • Maybe separate "Development and landfall" into "Storm history" and "Impact".
  • Minor formatting fixes, like alternating the alignment of tables and pictures.

As discussed in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones this is potentially a FA. Jdorje 20:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the intro now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Better. I expanded it a bit more with mention of 1935 Atlantic hurricane season and Labor Day, and removed the confusing piped link from Atlantic basin to Atlantic Ocean. I still think it's too short though. — jdorje (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
We need a pic for the infobox. Personally, I like the aerial view of the derailed train. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and sure. — jdorje (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
What about this for a picture? It doesn't necessarily have to be the infobox pic, but it's an interesting representation for such a historical storm. Hurricanehink 19:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I recall a Miami, Fla. "Herald" newspaper article about the return months after the hurricane by barge or ferry of the regular train that was marooned in Key West. There are photos of a wreck train near Key Largo on its way to retrieve the derailed rescue train. This quote is probably the recoveries of both trains condensed> > Only the locomotive remained upright on the rails, and had to be barged back to Miami several months later. < — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBoylan (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory Information with Other Articles?

This page says "[Hurricane Gilbert] was the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic basin..." which clearly contradicts the first sentence in this article, which claims it is the most intense hurricane ever to make landfall, because Hurricane Gilbert did make landfall. 67. 168. 30. 136 (talk) 05: 00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Promotion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was nominated on the 14th may an annon user. After reviewing the article I have promtoed it to Good Article status. Congratulations to all the editors of this article. One minor suggestion is that the storm track be included in the info box. Gnangarra 02:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1935_Labor_Day_hurricane/Archive_1&oldid=1090196419"