Talk:Hurricane Sandy/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Importance for the hurricane project?

This could be an interesting discussion, especially after the last one, but, there are three storms in the top importance for tropical cyclones that struck the United States in the past 25 years, including this one. These are supposed to be the top importance for the entire project, and as bad as Sandy was, I think it's a bit too US-centric (and Atlantic centric) for a project that's supposed to cover the entire world. The only reason the damage was so high was because it struck one of the most populated and wealthiest regions of the world. It will surely be remembered for years to come, but most regions have recovered well already, unlike Katrina which affected Louisiana for years to come. This proposal is only about Sandy, whether it should be downgraded from top importance to high importance. Please keep an open mind and consider the global importance, and keep the discussion civil :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support – I agree that this should be downgraded to high importance. As you say, this project is getting too U.S.-centric. United States Man (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment – I won't go as far as a "Support" or "Oppose", as I am not generally involved in meteorology projects here and do not consider myself qualified to judge in that way. I must disagree, however, with your claim, HurricaneHink, that "most regions have recovered well already". I live in the area where Sandy hit the hardest, and to me it feels like a transformative event, the effects of which are still very much with us, as reported, for example, here. Many whole neighborhoods were devasted and have hardly begun to recover. Transportation that affects the lives of thousands remains badly damaged, and the Sandy Recovery project of the New York City Transit Authority is not expected to be completed for months. And try telling a friend of mine that his area has "recovered well". He lost the only house he ever owned. Just one personal anecdote, to be sure, but there are thousands like it. I grant that all this still might not matter much when the storm is viewed strictly as a meteorological event—but do these articles on severe weather really restrict themselves to that extent? The fact that it affected "one of the most populated and wealthiest regions of the world" does, in my opinion, add to the storm's "importance". --Alan W (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
But the cyclone didn't care that the area was "one of the most populated and wealthiest regions of the world". We should look at it from a global meteorological perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
That's true. Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by adding that I don't think that a higher importance is justified simply because of the concentration of wealth and population. But the intersection of the storm and that concentration led to unprecedented damage and loss of life for the region (in an event of the kind; there was the 1938 hurricane, but that affected mostly the farther eastern suburbs, not the core area). That is what, to my mind, justifies the importance. I would take the same view if the city were Sydney rather than New York. Also, I'm thinking now that even on the strictly meteorological side, a top importance might be justified on the grounds that "the storm became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record ... as measured by diameter". So even strictly considered as a tropical cyclone, Sandy was a very noteworthy event. --Alan W (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm also in New Jersey, just miles from where the storm made landfall, and the effects have largely been fixed, not even one year after the storm. Yes, it was bad, which is why I think high importance is good and accurate, and there will be places that might not recover for longer periods of time. But as far as tropical cyclones worldwide, there have been many deadlier storms, and many storms that were more damaging to a specific region (not dollar wise, obviously, but in terms of number of houses across a region that were destroyed). Also, Sandy was not the largest TC worldwide. That honor still belongs to Typhoon Tip. Again, I'm just trying to cut down on the Atlantic bias. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, we can argue forever and we'll both be right: recovery is complete in some parts of the region but not others. With respect to the Tropical cyclones project, though, I do see your point, especially now that you bring in Typhoon Tip as an example. Maybe your referring to it as the "Hurricane project" threw me off at first (since they are called hurricanes, as you know, only in this part of the world), but, yes, now I can see that from a global meteorological, scientific perspective, Hurricane Sandy would not necessarily be of absolutely top importance. Point taken, Hurricanehink. --Alan W (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Dubious about the premise Generally we need RSs to say much of anything. From where I sit the very notion of "top" should rely on what RSs say are the "top". As a project outsider who doesn't really know, at first blush entries at top importance appear to be assigned their status by wikipedians. Shouldn't the RSs drive categorizations? I've an open mind ... am I just missing something here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, yea, what you said is correct, that wikipedians decide the ultimate importance. A lot of RSs said the storm was among the worst ever... in the days after the storm. Now that it's a year after, it seems that Sandy's damage is similar to a storm like Hurricane Ike, which had a ton of media focus in the months after the storm, but a year after, things largely got back to normal, and not quite what's worthy of being on top of the entire world. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support downgrading to high class – Though I'm not particularly concerned/worried about an article's stated importance class, in light of the recent push from the aforementioned WikiProject to become less U.S.A.-centric, I would agree with the downgrade of Sandy, not that it matters that much anyway, due to reasons already stated by Hurricanehink. That's all I'll say. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 21:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to weigh in on how the storm or article should be graded but statements that everything is "back to normal" in the areas affected by the storm are not correct. Some processes are ongoing and some have not yet begun, and in my area there is continuing demolition causing my neighborhood to look like a partially-eaten piece of corn on the cob-(where there used to be homes and neighbors). Decisions, equipment, and the funding to demolish properties affected by the storm are manifesting here currently on a daily basis. There was a slowdown in reconstruction over the weeks of Summer 2013, but recently recovery and demolition, raising of properties... has seen an increase in activity. www.nj.com keeps a running tally of storm-related progress and Local newspapers such as The Asbury Park Press, and The Press of Atlantic City, just to name a few NJ news outlets--have continuing updates of problems and reminders of how the issues created by the storm are either being or not being remedied. People who were survived the storm and the ensuing disaster efforts are still dealing-with what happened-every time that it rains.So-no, things are not anywhere close to being back to normal and they won't be when just going outside is a reminder that all of your friends and neighbors who attended your New Year's Eve Millennium Party in 1999, are all GONE now because of that stupid storm and it's aftermath. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Yea, it's bad, but compare Sandy to Typhoon Haiyan, which literally destroyed entire islands and killed 5,000 people. In a global view, is Sandy as important as a storm like Haiyan? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't agree with downgrading Sandy to high importance. Sections of the coastline it hit, especially in New Jersey and New York, remain completed destroyed with the rebuilding process hardly underway. The fact that this storm was so unique -- phasing with a trough to create the largest Atlantic hurricane ever observed...and then slamming into the largest population center of the USA (one of the largest in the world) -- is one of the important aspects of the storm that needs to be considered when judging its importance. Of course, if you judge it with deadly and powerful typhoons like Haiyan, I could see the disconnect. But then again, Katrina isn't exactly comparable either... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Tons of storm destroy large sections of the coastline. We already have Katrina and Andrew on the top list from the US. Not every deadly US storm can be added. It's plain basinism. The project generally is set on having 1% of WPTC articles be top. If you don't wanna axe Sandy from top, which storm do you propose gets removed from top? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I am quite aware that not every deadly Atlantic hurricane cannot be added to the top important list, that is why storms like Rita, Wilma, etc. But Sandy paralyzed one of the largest cities in the world. That in and of itself should get it to top. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
        • .... Tons of storms paralyze large cities across the globe. Look no farther than the West Pacific for this. And even then, I don't think paralyzing large cities is really relevant. Sandy's impact overall, while severe for sure, is not on the level than the other storms on the top list. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm not referring to just a "large" city; New York is one of the largest cities on this planet. As far as the rest of your post, it's wrong to compare the damage Sandy wrought to those on the list. For one, Sandy was not a Category 5; construction in the United States is also much more superior to most in the West Pacific (Philippines as an example). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
              • Well, yes, but so what? It's not wrong to compare Sandy to the other storms as this project covers the entire globe, not one basin. Sandy not being a Cat 5 does not support your argument at all. Yes, construction in the US is more superior to most of the world, which only helps increase damage costs and distort a storm's notability even more. No doubt Sandy was bad, but it's just not at that first class level that 10 or so storms are at globally. This is a global project, and the US and ATL in general has more than enough representation on the top list. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
                • Which, perhaps, means this project's guidelines for what is considered top importance are too strict. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandy and jet stream

The article says: As they move north, Atlantic hurricanes typically are forced east and out to sea by the jet stream's prevailing winds. This is wrong: it is just the opposite: Jet stream direction is modified by ciclonic storms below and usually takes a bend to the right when a big hurricane is on its path. The reason is that many hurricanes reach a higher altitude than jet stream normal height (i. e., 14 km vs. 11 km), so, the top of ciclonic storms are zones of higher atmospheric pressure (even they are zones of lower atmospheric pressure at the ocean surface) and, thus, the jet stream cloudy line is forced bending to the right (same as airplanes have to do going east to use tailwinds from jet stream) in order to avoid the big thunderstorm. --Fev (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that should've said "Prevailing Westerlies", not "jet stream's prevailing winds", as the prevailing winds are what generally drive hurricane movement. This is also what the source says. I have fixed it. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I think I was the original author who erred. thank you both for catching that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Forecasts section

I am thinking that it would make more sense to have that in the meteorological history section as a subsection, probably before the global warming section. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Inks.LWC (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That could probably work since the section is not very big. It seems that it should be able to fit into the meteorological history section quite easily. United States Man (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, these are meteorological forecasts that we're talking about, so that would relate it to the meteorological history. It does seem logical to me. --Alan W (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it. I figured it was pretty uncontroversial; I just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy in my rationale. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Restructure article?

Hello All,

As a user trying to read about Hurricane Sandy as a meteorological phenomenon I find this article extremely cumbersome.

Issues I have with this article:

The introductory paragraph has details (see text in small font) about Sandy damages. IMO these should not be in an introductory paragraph.

In Jamaica, winds left 70% of residents without electricity, blew roofs off buildings, killed one, and caused about $100 million (2012 USD) in damage. Sandy's outer bands brought flooding to Haiti, killing at least 54, causing food shortages, and leaving about 200,000 homeless; the hurricane also caused two deaths in the Dominican Republic. In Puerto Rico, one man was swept away by a swollen river. In Cuba, there was extensive coastal flooding and wind damage inland, destroying some 15,000 homes, killing 11, and causing $2 billion (2012 USD) in damage. Sandy caused two deaths and damage estimated at $700 million (2012 USD) in The Bahamas. In Canada, two were killed in Ontario and an estimated $100 million (2012 CAD) in damage was caused throughout Ontario and Quebec.[9]

There is a large section 'Preparations' which is then sub-divided into regions, then these are in turn sub-divided by country or U.S. state.

Similarly, there is a section 'Impact' which does the same thing-- region, sub-divided by country or state.

In 'Aftermath' there are only discussions of 'Relief efforts', 'Political impact', 'Media coverage', etc.

Nowhere (as far as I can find) in the article is a discussion of the downgrading of Sandy into a tropical depression (or whatever came of it), the path of the storm after it was downgraded from a hurricane, etc.

I am only a moderate-level editor: I generally only fix typos I see here & there across Wiki; restructuring &/or re-writing large sections of this article would be beyond my level of expertise. So I will leave this as a suggestion-- perhaps edit down the Preparations & Impact sections to countries & regions, rather than countries & states. Some of the contents under particular states have only one sentence. Perhaps the fine details should be edited out or put into a sub-article-- some exist already such as 'Effects of Hurricane Sandy in Maryland and Washington, D.C.'

Perhaps add a section 'Chronology' which discusses the meteorological evolution of the storm. The extant section 'Meteorological history' does a fine job of discussing the genesis of the storm. But there should be a similar paragraph on the dissolution of the storm. Or add a 2nd paragraph to 'Meteorological history' which discusses the storm's dissolution & path.

Thanks. SaturnCat (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey there! First, why don't you feel that we should cover the impacts outside of the US in the lede? Secondly, the "Meteorological history" section covers after the hurricane became extratropical, made landfall, and weakening over Pennsylvania. There is an article on the meteorological history, so there shouldn't be too much focus on that in the main article. I do agree there is a bit too much info on preparations, and those should be relegated to the sub-articles. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I didn't say we shouldn't cover aspects of the hurricane outside of the U.S. The details, however, that are included in the paragraph from the article that I put in a small font (see above), are way too detailed IMO to be included in an introductory paragraph.
You said <<Secondly, the "Meteorological history" section covers after the hurricane became extratropical, made landfall, and weakening over Pennsylvania.>> Yes, but it's only one sentence: The remnants weakened over western Pennsylvania, degenerating into a remnant trough on October 31.[31] I think the wording should be something like: At XXXX UTC, when positioned over [whereever in NJ, MD, or PA it was], Hurricane Sandy was downgraded into a tropical storm by the National Weather Service. The tropical storm proceeded through [western PA, or whichever counties of PA], until it further dissipated and was designated as a tropical depression by the National Weather Service at XXXX UTC. (Does the NWS have such a thing as the official beginning & end of an event such as a hurricane?)
I would think that the duration of a major event: where & when it officially became a hurricane and where & when it officially was downgraded from a hurricane would be important facts to note in the main article. IMO the article should be more scientific: discuss the hurricane more as a meteorological phenomena; again, IMO, there is too much emphasis on the hurricane as a natural disaster.
Cheers. SaturnCat (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, a hurricane is natural disaster, and this hurricane is particularly well-known for, in part, the amount of destruction that it caused in the USA. As for the "downgrading" timeline of this storm, that's actually a controversial topic (as to whether or not the Tropical Prediction Center should have just kept issuing statements and/or warnings on the storm as it became more extra-tropical) which, I think, resulted in some policy changes within the National Weather Service. Guy1890 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Plus the extra-tropical stuff is in the meteorological history article about Sandy (as is a lot more). Inks.LWC (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, a category 3 hurricane or higher is a major hurricane
That's it ·71.187.134.129 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
What's your point? Inks.LWC (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Meteorology and Climatology

Long term Meteorological data (F. J. Monkhouse says meteorological data registered for more than thirty years) are taken as scientific basis to define Climatology as the long term average meteorological information such as atmospheric temperature, pressure, winds, atmospheric water vapor, clouds, rain and so forth. Hurricanes (i. e., Sandy) are meteorological and not climatic data, and, therefore, can't be taken the other way around. --Fev (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article is Sandy's data labelled climatic data. I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

An explanation

The article talks about global warming (a climatic concept) and climate change, obviously, another climatic concept:

  • 1.-The answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question. All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be".
  • 2.- Meteorologist Martin Hoerling attributes Sandy to little more than the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Trenberth does agree that the storm was caused by "natural variability" but adds that it was "enhanced by global warming".
  • 3.- The sea surface temperatures along the Atlantic coast have been running at over 3°C above normal for a region extending 800 km off shore all the way from Florida to Canada. Global warming contributes 0.6°C to this.
  • 4.- Global climate change has contributed to the higher sea surface and ocean temperatures, and a warmer and moister atmosphere, and its effects are in the range of 5 to 10%.
  • 5.- Natural variability and weather has provided the perhaps optimal conditions of a hurricane running into extra-tropical conditions to make for a huge intense storm, enhanced by global warming influences
  • 6.- As the temperature of the atmosphere increases, the capacity to hold water increases, leading to stronger storms and higher rainfall amounts

Let's analyze the six previous points:

1.- If we define climate as a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over l ong periods of time, it is wrong to say that All weather events are affected by climate change. It is just the opposite: a hurricane like Sandy affects, even in a slight or insignificant way, the local or regional climate but not the other way around: if we include data from Sandy, the average climate data from sites affected by Sandy will remain the same.

2.- Point 2 says: attributes Sandy to little more than.... Truth is more complex, being an important reason explanation in advisory number 3 of Sandy, not included in the article (maybe some biased point of view of WP users) which helps to understand the reasons of Sandy's huge size (see the spanish version of Sandy).

3.- Surface ocean temperatures may vary 3º C below or above the normal in a short period of time but these variations does not affect that normal value, as we had seen before. Attributing 0,6ºC of from those 3º to global warming is something wrong and not scientific, since climate refers to the atmospheric or meteorological data over a long period of time: atmospheric temperature is rapidly affected by ocean waters temperature, but not the other way around: atmospheric air is diatermanous and water is not.

4.- The article says: Global climate change has contributed to the higher sea surface and ocean temperatures, and a warmer and moister atmosphere, and its effects are in the range of 5 to 10%. The truth is that warming of ocean waters rise the average sea level because of increasing volume and, therefore, decrease in water density. However, warm waters increases evaporation, which, in turn, decreases water level and its temperature and therefore, increases again water level. Saying that 5% to 10% (of Sandy, I suppose) of effects are caused by global warming is an elusive idea, extremely difficult to prove.

5.- To say that Sandy's was an intense storm because of global warming influences turns again consequences in causes.

6.- This point is only half of the problem: As the temperature of the atmosphere increases, the capacity to hold water increases, leading to stronger storms and higher rainfall amounts. But stronger storms and large rainfall amounts decreases that capacity. --Fev 01:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fev (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

Please add in a paragraph about the Governor's Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR) to the relief efforts section. Providing information about GOSR is helpful in understanding the political background of Sandy response in New York State. 

Please add the following description of GOSR (source: http://stormrecovery.ny.gov/overview):

In June 2013– following the occurrence of Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee and most recently Superstorm Sandy– Governor Andrew Cuomo set out to centralize recovery and rebuilding efforts in impacted areas of New York State. Establishing the Office of Storm Recovery, the Governor aimed to address communities’ most urgent needs, while also encouraging the identification of innovative and enduring solutions to strengthen the State’s infrastructure and critical systems. Operating under the umbrella of New York Rising, the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR) utilizes approximately $3.8 billion in flexible funding made available by the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program to concentrate aid to four main areas. Paired with additional federal funding that has been awarded to other State agencies, the CDBG-DR program is enabling homeowners, small businesses and entire communities to build back even better than before. And in a State already known for its great resiliency and can-do spirit, the efforts are paving the way for a tremendous comeback– one that will reinvigorate New York and better prepare it for future extreme weather events that come its way.

Additionally, please add the following GOSR milestones (source: http://www.stormrecovery.ny.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/03-11-14_gosr_ny_rising_housing_program_application_deadline_release_final.pdf) The NY Rising Housing Recovery Program has distributed more than $280 million in payments to 6,388 homeowners for damages that resulted from Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Irene, or Tropical Storm Lee. Every eligible homeowner who applied by January 20 has been issued a check for home reconstruction. Over 4,650 Nassau residents have been issued rebuilding payments totaling over $201 million and over 1,350 Suffolk residents have been issued over $65 million in rebuilding payments. Additionally through its buyout and acquisition program, the State has made offers totaling over $293 million to purchase the homes of 709 homeowners.

Thank you! 184.152.29.236 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: You would need to capture the information from those pages which you believe improves this article and present it in your own words. Including the exact text from that website can be either a copyright or plagarism problem and it may also be too much detail about GOSR for this article about Hurricane Sandy. If you have reasons for adding this material other than improving this article, please read our guideline on how to edit with a conflict of interest. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2015

Hurricane_Sandy has an incorrect (old) citation [5] which cites a 2012 report, but the sentences says March 2014.

50.1.86.169 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

 On hold I sent a message to the user who made this edit. Perhaps they can explain. Altamel (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Done With no response from the user I messaged, I'm going to default back to the date stated on the NOAA report, which is May 2013. Altamel (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, but now that way of expressing it seems odd, after two more years have passed. So I changed that to "assessed". Alan W (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@AlanW That's all right with me. Altamel (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Damage

Sandy was so far one of the worst huricanes I have ever been through. Tho I do live in freehold and it got hit pretty bad but not as bad as AC and Jankinson. They had to rebuild sertiant things from scratch. Misstomazic (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

request for edit

Can a logged in editor please change the date in the article for the sandy relief concert? That was on November 12 not the 2nd...ty2601:80:4202:203B:68EF:3DF5:60EE:60D4 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Oooooooooops I'm on mobile here...December 12 lol. The thing was called 12 12 12 . also the cite is from Moscow and erroneous. Either take out the mention or int wp link? The is a wp article on 12 12 12 concert.ty2601:80:4202:203B:68EF:3DF5:60EE:60D4 (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Although it's likely there were multiple concerts succeeding Hurricane Sandy, the tidbit in this article is focusing on the most significant one that raised $23 million for the Red Cross. In that regard, the article is correct that it (the benefit concert) aired Friday, November 2, 2012. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but it is locked. I can't change it. I would since was a middle school history teacher. This was my first time reading this. Misstomazic (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry. I got my facts mixed up! It is the 2nd Misstomazic (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

sandy

hurrican sandy was later down graded to a catagory 1 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tributetwister (talk • contribs) 02:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. But nice try. United States Man (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
He's probably a sockpuppet of User:Awesomenessluigi. Just ignore him. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It is OK to have an article about Hurricane Sandy. However, it needs to be made clear that Hurricane Sandy became a category 1 hurricane that would have simply blown out to sea if it had not developed into an Extratropical Cyclone. It was the merger with the large cold front caused by the southern wave of the Polar Jet Stream that increased the strength of the storm. There was also the wave in the Northern Atlantic interacting with the North Atlantic Oscillation that diverted the storm onto land. Please consult some better meteorological sources. Do not feed the people that want to blame "Hurricane Sandy" on "Climate Change". Tyrerj (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Tyrerj. Misstomazic (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Source

Here's a new source. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/state-by-state-hurricane-sandy-article-1.1194673

I've already used it for Kentucky. JerrySa1 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hurricane Sandy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Satges

On October 22, 2012 the hurricane developed into a tropical storm. Oct. 23, the storm became a category 1 hurricane. Oct. 24 Sandy met land with 80 mph winds. Oct. 25 the storm hit Cuba and Haiti as category 2 hurricane with wind speeds of 150 mph. October 26, Sandy became a category 1 hurricane with 80 mph winds. Oct 27 the National Weather Service declared Sandy a tropical storm. Sandy then strengthened to a category 1 hurricane with 75 mph winds. On Oct. 29 Sandy heads towards land as a category 2 hurricane. The hurricane's winds reach 175 miles away from the eye making it one of the biggest of its kind. Then the massive storm hit the US east coast causing a colossal amount of damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.19.217 (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Sandy. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Affect on television

I thought that I would mention whether or not any shows affected by the hurricane were worth mentioning in this article. I feel that it would probably be deleted for being trivia, but I thought that I would have a discussion about this. I know that some shows worked Hurricane Sandy into their plots. I could be wrong, but I think that the cancellation of 666 Park Avenue was in part due to the destruction of the set from the storm. David Letterman and Jimmy Fallon both hosted their shows without an audience while the hurricane was happening. Is any of this worth mentioning on the page?

65.214.67.173 (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. JerrySa1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Costliest Hurricane in the World?

Was Hurricane Sandy the costliest hurricane ever? 174.92.79.163 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No. See the link in the Infobox under "Damage". Sandy wasn't even the costliest in U.S. history, which was Hurricane Katrina. --Alan W (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ground Zero - Mantoloking, NJ?

Every report, article, news report, etc., points to Mantoloking, NJ being the place that Sandy came ashore in New Jersey. Yet, the Wiki article states that Brigantine, NJ was ground zero for the storm. This is erroneous. Mantoloking was definitely the place Sandy came ashore in NJ, and did the most damage. Brigantine is much further south, where the hurricane didn't do nearly as much damage. How do I get this article updated? The Wiki article is locked. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.28.234 (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2017

{{edit semi-protected|Hurricane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.81.69.26 (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hurricane Sandy. 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) 00:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Hurricane Sandy. 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) 21:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017

In the New York part of the preparations section, it says that Zone A "comprises areas near coastlines or waterways." However, after this storm, New York City switched to a system of 6 numbered zones rather than 3 letters. For this reason, I believe it should say "comprised areas near coastlines or waterways." 161.185.150.242 (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Sandy. 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) 15:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Sandy. 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) 13:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Table of Tropical Cyclone and Hurricane Watches and Warnings

I've moved the Table of Table of Tropical Cyclone and Hurricane Watches and Warnings added by B dash to after the accounts of preparation in all countries. Those did not apply to only the United States. But, additionally, I'm concerned that the table looks incomplete. Surely there were watches and warnings issued for the Northeastern United States, where the storm hit particularly hard. What about those? --Alan W (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alan W: the NHC didn't issue much watches and warnings for the northeastern United States, the table is completed. --B dash (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The table is not complete since the non-tropical watches and warnings, that were issued for the northeastern United States should be included.Jason Rees (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jason. That is pretty much what I was thinking. The U.S. National Weather Service must have issued watches and warnings of that kind. Perhaps you or another editor who like yourself specializes in Tropical Cyclones can find the sources (probably more quickly than I could). --Alan W (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Common name

I have read the archive and it seems to me that the bare consensus was to bold the name Superstorm Sandy, no matter how stupid the public is and will forever remain. Now that I have added my weight to the consensus, it is unequivocally to bold. I shall make the change now, and reversions will not be productive. Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion I am referring to is here. The consensus of the discussion was NOT to boldface the term. Nothing to do with any alleged stupidity of the public. It's an informal name, not one recognized as a techncial name of a hurricane. But since it was frequently called "Superstorm Sandy", that was the compromise: quote it but do not boldface it. I have no wish to get into an edit war at this time, so will let this be for now. But what actually was discussed and the consequent consensus should be clarified. --Alan W (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
You cherry-picked the discussion with far fewer participants. I imagine this sort of behavior is to be expected of those who know they will lose on the merits.... Abductive (reasoning) 16:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
There has been no agreement on anything since previous discussions, so you have no right to change anything at this point. I don’t care what your interpretations of consensus are, it was obviously left that way for a reason. So you need to start a new discussion and get project members involved if you want a change. United States Man (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I see, I have no rights. And this thing here isn't a discussion. Your trifecta would be complete, if only, oh, if only the tens of millions of members of the public weren't so stupid as to make this the WP:Commonname. Drat, let me get my monocle and look to see how I can wikilawyer my views all over even though Wikipedia Policy would say to bold it. Abductive (reasoning) 16:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It’s a name that’s commonly used. Does it matter if it’s bolded or not? Blind people who hear the article (or read in brail) won’t notice a difference. Let’s keep it civil, and focus on the important things. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this really isn't that big of a deal. If Abductive wants to bold the term then let the term be bolded, I'm not going to wake up screaming at night as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
That was my feeling too. And I thought that maybe I was the only one who cares anymore. But I see that is not so. And what Hurricanehink says about civility gives me pause for thought, too. Abductive, you were the one who barged in here like gangbusters, with accusations, drenched in sarcasm, of our considering the general public "stupid", of our "cherry picking" the evidence and, implied in "trifecta", of three of us ganging up on anyone who doesn't agree with us. There has been no evidence of any such thing. We, and others, have had civil discussions about this in the past, with the one I "cherry" picked being the last formal discussion. As United States Man says, if you're seriously interested in changing this, you should open a new discussion and get project members involved. Also, note that WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles; it says nothing about boldfacing names within articles. There are other considerations, too, and it seems to me this is a gray area. Which is why it was the subject of prior debate. While we're flinging around Wikipedia rules and guidelines, how about WP:AGF? --Alan W (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you that Abductive was in the wrong here when it came to WP:AGF with this edit [1]. Had he or she approached it with a better edit summary then editors wouldn't be so riled, to be fair though nobody bothered to cite WP:BRD in the edit summaries either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I see I have been reverted again, and again the reverter denies that this discussion on the talk page is a discussion. I have gone through the archive looking for the numbers of notvotes on this issue. Here are the unique users who have indicated what they would like:
Against bolding, some even against the name appearing in the lead, or even the article: Alan W, Kafziel, TornadoLGS, United States Man. Jim.henderson, CrazyC83. 6.
OK with non-bolding but want the name to appear in the lead: Mitch32, TheAustinMan. JonRichfield. Nabla (changed mind somewhat to this position), Pete, Guy1890, MarioProtIV. 7.
For bolding: Hot Stop, Hurricanehink (now a bit more equivocal), The Anonymouse, Thegreatdr, TropicalAnalystwx13, YE, 12george1, Knowledgekid87, Sailsbystars, Rreagan007, Inks.LWC (changed mind). 11.
Bolded and was reverted: Imzadi1979, Tazerdadog, Barticus88, Bongwarrior, Sizeofint, J 1982, 1618033golden, Mr. Guye, Abductive. 9.
Equivocal: Ankit Maity. Jason Rees. 2.
As can be seen in the lengthy discussions in the archives, plenty of input from interested editors was received. Importantly, the trend is towards bolding. I am merely the 20th person to happen upon this article and say that, as is common practice and called for by MOS:BOLDSYN, the alternative name should be bolded.
So, what is the upshot? First, the consensus, over the raging objections of a few, was to include the awful term Superstorm Sandy in the lead. Those objections were based entirely of a repudiation of the media and the public's latching onto this name. Then once it was in the lead, discussion has moved towards asking for it to be bolded in accordance with longstanding Wikipedia consensus and the Manual of Style. For quite some time it was italicized. Users have come by and bolded, only to be continuously reverted; I have listed them above. So what we have is WP:tendentious editing by a few article WP:Owners. The consensus is to bold the name. In the end, the outcome will be that it will be bolded. The path by which this outcome is reached might include a "discussion" more formal than this, by why waste time if you cannot prevail? Abductive (reasoning) 08:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Consensus was made several years ago to not bold the name, end of discussion. This whole arguent smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that needs to stop. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE. And I think I have demonstrated that it has changed, and that not bolding is now the minority position. And I will not end this discussion, I am sorry. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Abductive has a point though with MOS:BOLDSYN. I don't seem to remember there being a consensus on the bolding or not, just with the title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Actually, there was such a discussion over the bolding over 4 years ago, and the consensus was no bold. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Your notvote is already listed above. Thank you for your endlessly repeated belief in the losing minority opinion, but the time has come to bold the common name, as is required by the Manual of Style. Abductive (reasoning) 22:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@Abductive: Just go ahead, it really doesn’t make any difference to me honestly. I think the name is stupid as well, but if it has to be in there and you want it bolded then I’m not going to keep fighting :P United States Man (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep it unbolded. If a new discussion is opened, I will join. But if, as it seems, others are throwing up their hands and saying, OK, bold it and have done with it, then I agree it's not worth the energy to fight this battle. If Knowledgekid87 doesn't expect to wake up screaming in the middle of the night if the name is bolded, neither do I. There are more important things to expend energy on around here. --Alan W (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
How do you guys feel about the quotes? Abductive (reasoning) 00:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
If we boldface the name, then the quotes are overkill. I'd say it should be one or the other. --Alan W (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but if anyone feels like quotesing it, or just the superstorm part, please do. Abductive (reasoning) 04:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about that. If we're going by WP:MOS, which I would hope we all are, and I know you have recently cited it, Abductive, then that is even more of a gray area than I thought this case of boldfacing was. See MOS:BADEMPHASIS: 'Double emphasis, such as "italics in quotation marks" or italics and an exclamation point!, is unnecessary.' Maybe there could be double emphasis in certain instances, but I think they would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. So, if anybody wants to quote and boldface the name, there should be further discussion here first. --Alan W (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I know I am late,but I live in New York,and Superstore Sandy was used commonly only when they figured out it became a post tropical storm at 4pm on October 28,2012 and hit New Jersey at 8pm, but I live in Nassau and in 2019 they are referring it now as a hurricane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled (talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2019

Add somewhere Sandy's effects in Delaware,as where it hit in NJ is close to DE,also mention Pennsylvania. ImtheOneKhaled (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are requests to make specific, precise edits, not for general pleas for article improvement. If you want, you can write some text and request that it be added, but please make sure to use reliable sources to verify any claims. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

Hello Editor, suggesting an edit to: 'The term was also embraced by climate change proponents as a term for the new type of storms caused by global warming,[343][improper synthesis?]' I would say that the 'caused' should be changed to 'enhanced' as the source attached ([1]) acknowledges that human processes were an influence of why the storm was so intense, not a cause. The source also acknowledges that such influences are unprovable. Additionally the article is only one opinion, and 'embraced by climate change proponents' suggests many others agree. I would suggest changing this to 'embraced by some climate change proponents' or rephrasing in another way to prevent implications that this is a popular belief when the source does not show this.

("These physical factors associated with human influences on climate likely contribute to more intense and possibly slightly bigger storms with heavier rainfalls. But this is very hard to prove because of the naturally large variability among storms. This variability also makes it impossible to prove there is no human influence." [2])

I realise there is already a concern of improper synthesis, I am only bringing this up as it is not an active topic on the talk page. This is also my first edit request - sorry if I incorrectly submitted it :) Cheers 2A00:23C6:B281:9600:29C1:BB7D:5F4F:C018 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: Instead of further muddying the waters, I removed the improper use of the improper synthesis tag. This tag is for highlighting WP:OR issues that are written into an article by a Wiki editor, not synthesis performed by the author of a RS that an editor opposes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion/opinion-super-storm-sandy-40282
  2. ^ https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion/opinion-super-storm-sandy-40282

Unclear info?

"The eighteenth named storm, tenth hurricane, and second major hurricane of the year, Sandy was a Category 3 storm at its peak intensity when it made landfall in Cuba.[3]"

This is a bit unclear, because later it says that the Hurricane first made landfall in Jamaica. I've seen multiple sources which agree with that, too. Can someone edit that to make it more clear?

193.115.123.48 (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The sentence isn't about its first landfall. It refers to the storm's peak wind speed, which it attained just before its second landfall, which was in Cuba. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, agreed. I had just tried to post the same thing, when an edit conflict alerted me that you, TornadoLGS, beat me to it. The sentence is clear enough to me. --Alan W (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy's image

There's been edit warring following this, so I'll clear it up: The current image for Hurricane Sandy is October 24th. That's at it's Jamaica landfall. Sandy's peak intensity was on October 25th, the previous image. So either we change "Hurricane Sandy at peak intensity just before landfall in Cuba on October 25" to something like "Hurricane Sandy intensifying prior to it's Jamaica landfall on October 24th", or change the image back to the October 25th image. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we should ignore the standard for what we usually do and have a pic of Sandy nearing the northeast US. That final landfall is what caused $70 billion in damage, and the tag could be something about it being the largest Atlantic Hurricane on record. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting Data (Damage Costs)

In the 2nd sentence it currently states there was nearly $70 billion in damages in the US. However in the last paragraph before “Meteorological History” it says $65 billion. The later of the 2 provides a reference.

I know the $ amts are similar, but given they are both listed on the same Wiki page I think data should be congruent to ensure there’s no ambiguity. Herenow44 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Herenow44: the $70 billion in the lede is a rounded up total for damage across the entire path in USD while the $65 billion is just for the US. I've tweaked the lead to make this more clear. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Thanks for the help and clarification! Your response time was impressive to say the least. Given you likely have considerably more exp on Wiki than me, do you have any idea how/why the 2 reference sources listed at the bottom of my post got there? I’m guessing they relate to a previous users post from this talk page? Either way was confused why they appeared in mine. Thanks Again! Herenow44 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Herenow44: Yes, you're right, those footnotes are notes to somebody's comments further up the page. I don't like it either. I have a fair amount of Wiki experience but I couldn't figure out a way to make the notes apply only to the section they refer to. I once tried to argue with somebody about this, to no avail. It could be that there are technical obstacles that make changing this difficult. To me, it's not worth the trouble to try to get this changed. This happens only on talk pages, after all. If you want to, you can post a question or request that this be changed. Not sure where, but if you're really intent on pursuing this, maybe I can figure out the best place you can post to, unless someone else here has a better idea. --Alan W (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
And, as you see, now the footnotes follow my comments. :-) --Alan W (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Herenow44 and Alan W: the template you're looking for is {{Reflist-talk}}. I've gone ahead and added it to the section that has the refs. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Cyclonebiskit! I was unaware of that template. Maybe it didn't exist when I had that discussion. Looks like we aren't the only ones bothered by those footnotes dropped to the bottom of the page. The page looks much better now. --Alan W (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020

Add it was the worst Hurricane of 2012 108.170.65.170 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail[✉] 22:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 11 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RyanHubbs, GreenieBaby.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Image

Hello, can I change the image to something more interesting just asking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricaneinfomation. (talk • contribs) 22:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That would depend on which image it is and what you mean by "more interesting." TornadoLGS (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
And on the copyright status of the image you prefer. Dgndenver (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

majority of the damage

@Alan W: In the revision of 14 October 2022, the comment states:

"majority of damage" is not the best grammatical construction. "Damage" is not a "countable".

Curiously, I have recently objected to many uses of the plural form of "incidence" on the basis that "incidence" is generally not a countable, though I have met some resistance to my objection.

Notwithstanding the nature of your professional experience, I don't agree that "majority of damage" is a problem. While "damage" may (in this context) not be a countable, that doesn't mean that the amount of damage can't be compared or measured. My opinion is that the "majority of damage" would be appropriate if it appears that "more than half" of the damage is being referred to. It hasn't been stated what is the measure of the extent of the damage, but that doesn't make this phrase inappropriate or otherwise improper. Fabrickator (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, @Fabrickator: it's debatable. In recent years popular usage has evolved somewhat, too. I just thought that in more formal writing, such as in an encyclopedia, the more established usage should prevail. That is why I did not say that this is flat-out ungrammatical. Just "not the best". Speaking for myself, it's jarring. An example: A glass of water is full. Its contents can be measured, by, say, ounces. Someone picks it up and drinks more than half. To say that he or she drank "a majority of the water" to me sounds, well, ridiculous. My example is a bit extreme, but it demonstrates why I reacted as I did. --Alan W (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
If someone stated that they drank the majority of the water, I would infer that they had taken more than their fair share (assuming "fair share" is "equal" and there's more than one person, then mathematically, that would be correct). I don't agree that "majority of damage" is less formal than "most" of it. It sounds like think that if something isn't "countable", then the "amount" can't be quantified. Actually, I think this criticism (as to the extent of the damage) would apply equally to "majority" and "most", and I also don't agree with you that one is particularly more or less formal than the other. Fabrickator (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, I said it's debatable, and we just debated it. Sometimes, it comes down to one's personal feeling based on however many years of experience with idiomatic usage. We may just have to agree to disagree here. --Alan W (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2023

Please add, under the Appalachia and Midwest section, that the storm brought record snow to Mount LeConte. Source: https://www.local3news.com/mount-leconte-sees-record-october-snowfall/article_92c8ac29-f697-5fd9-8692-667a349fafac.html 98.116.45.220 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, seems reasonable enough, and the ultimate source, the Associated Press, is reliable. Done! --Alan W (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Environmental Impacts" Section Edits

This section is only on the sewage infrastructure failure in the New York/New Jersey area. Sentences will be rewritten to have fewer peacock words and some relevant information will be added. The section heading will be removed and the information will be moved to the "New England" subsection of "Impact". Citation 282, https://blog.epa.gov/2013/10/29/a-look-back-at-epas-work-in-the-wake-of-hurricane-sandy/, is a dead link. Live source [Schwirtz, Michael. “Sewage Flows after Storm Expose Flaws in System.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/nyregion/sewage-flows-after-hurricane-sandy-exposing-flaws-in-system.html] will be added. TheGreatAndross (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

Please add in the Tennessee section that Great Smoky Mountains National Park was temporarily closed. https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2012/10/updated-hurricane-sandy-nears-land-national-park-service-closing-parks-and-offices10742 69.118.237.29 (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done AnnaMankad (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Redone, moving the information, a bit expanded, to the "Preparations" section, where it more properly belongs. --Alan W (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Sandy/Archive_5&oldid=1198291884"