Talk:List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes: Difference between revisions

	List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 26, 2006 Featured list candidate Promoted

I’m disappointed with the editors at Wikipedia for reversing the information added regarding hurricane Dorian reaching the cost of Nova Scotia.
I was adding fact and cited NOAA as my source of information. I did not make up this information. There is absolutely no valid reason for editor’s to reverse this information.
Dorian was one of the most historic storms to hit the Atlantic in recorded history. It was downgraded to an extra-tropical storm when it hit Nova Scotia but it was still very significant
in wind speed and strength. Canada has to contend with an increase of storms like these hitting its coast due to climate change.
I insist that Wikipedia reconsider reinstating the extra-topical storm column information as this information is considered significant enough for NOAA to list and mark as part of the path of hurricane tracking.

Another point I would like to make is that Wikipedia deemed it significant to list tropical depressions which are of less impact and significance to the historical nature of the storm as it’s classification as an extra-tropical storm of cat2 strength. It’s status before it had formed into a hurricane is just as important historically as it’s status after it was a hurricane. And NOAA’s tracking chart and bulletins reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.71.24 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is called “List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes“. That means extratropical storms are out of its scope. We keep track of extratropical storms in articles like 2018–2019 North American winter; if you wish to compile a full list of extratropical landfalls then be my guest. We aren’t here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.–Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshoctober16: I have reverted you per the same reasoning here; please get consensus first. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems others might disagree given its persistence here, but to be meaningful and match the topic, it would seem (if possible) that either Areas Hit By Cat 5 Conditions or at least Areas Affected As a Cat 5 might be more meaningful and consistent in the first list? In a list of total solar eclipses, you wouldn’t just list all the places that saw the partial eclipse, if listing consecutive PGA victories by one player, you wouldn’t list all the tournaments they played the rest of the season. I get that it may be difficult\uncertain with past storms (and even current ones) to decisively say which areas actually saw Cat 5 conditions, but given we have advisories (and best track equivalents), it should be easy enough to isolate to the locations actually under the impacts when the storm was a Cat 5 (and limit it to places seeing significant impacts at the time, given we tend to do that on every TC… not listing Canada in impacts of a hurricane just because they saw outflow clouds or minor post-tropical rains)? I get there’s always blurry lines and imperfect data, but having Greenland on the main list for Dorian or Florida on the main list for Irma [and not the rest of the southeast and other locations listed in its article?] seems entirely arbitrary and truly unrelated to the elite levels of a category 5 storm being reached and misleading\confusing to uninformed people coming upon the list? List 2 covers the wider effects, but being the primary one, would think list 1 should only include the category 5 effects as much as possible? Since we only include the dates it was cat 5, not its entire life. [As such, would think as suggested before the pressure should also be adjusted for Matthew to only the cat 5 values to match consistency]. The damage and deaths wouldn’t as easily be able to be isolated… perhaps they could be more explicitly indicated as overall by saying “storm total deaths” or “overall storm deaths” or such (or even removed). But would seem for a leadoff list, it should focus on the particular details of the cat 5 portion of the storm as much as possible? If such changes sounds tenable to those of you who have long curated, I can certainly try to rework it.
JeopardyTempest (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn’t a single hurricane in either the Atlantic or Pacific peaked at exactly 170 mph? That seems odd. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an artifact of the primary unit for measuring tropical cyclone winds being knots. The conversions with rounding to the nearest five leads to some values being “skipped” in mph and km/h. 145 knots converts to 165mph (270km/h) and 150 knots to 175mph (280km/h). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok good to know have a nice day 24.115.255.37 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references are woefully inadequate for the landfall table at the bottom of the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note this here in case anyone is confused, as in HURDAT Gilbert is listed as making landfall on Jamaica at 115 knots, which is low-end C4. The official sources do conflict but HURDAT is the most up to date so that’s why I changed it. AutisticLoser (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s worth noting that sources used to be inconsistent about whether a 130 MPH hurricane was a cat 3 or cat 4, even the NHC. This is likely the reason for the conflicts. MCRPY22 (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

true, and that’s a good point. iirc the NHC would occasionally incorrectly display storms at 125 and/or 135 mph due to C4 being misaligned, for lack of a better term, with what it converts to in knots. So yeah, def makes sense that this is what happened AutisticLoser (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]