Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:49, 30 October 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject Tropical cyclones Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Delaware / District of Columbia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New Jersey High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Misplaced Pages feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Hurricane Sandy was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 October 2012.

Diversity of models

This article shows the wide variety of predicted tracks, with different models giving landfall from Ocean City to Cape Breton. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Weather Underground also has model data to use too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Large wind field

I wanted to mention that Sandy probably could become one of the largest Atlantic hurricanes in history, and this page lists the current top 10. The latest advisory right now, #19A at 2 a.m. EDT October 27, shows that winds extend outwards up to 435 mi (705 km). –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I want to mention that people should stop speculating, wait until things actually happen, then write them up in an encyclopaedic way, with reliable sources. There's already too much "forecasting" in the article, which will be replaced very soon by reality. All very pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a true, sourced fact that the wind field is rather large already (extends outward 450 mi, 725 km now). I am not saying we should put the info in yet, but to be ready to put the info if/when the storm grows to a record size. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 Added I created the "Records" section. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it got removed because of a lack of good referencing (which I admit was a problem). Maybe we can re-add it with better references later. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont see anyplace where the NHC comes out and states this in the reference provided, I have been listening to multiple news sources that say that Sandy is large yes but comes in second largest in history. Are there reliable sources to confirm this that it is the largest? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend that it be removed until it can be referenced better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Brown, Daniel. "Advisory #21". National Hurricane Center. Retrieved 27 October 2012.

Nicknames in lede

I removed "Frankenstorm", "Perfect Storm", and "Superstorm". The term "Frankenstorm" is being used to describe the combination of Sandy + the cold front it is approaching, not the hurricane itself. The latter two are, needless to say, just descriptions of the storm. Non-RS refs (for the purposes of determining a name) added say things like "threatens to become 'Perfect storm'" and compares it to the previous "Perfect Storm", and the other ref refers to it as "'Super storm' Sandy". Those are descriptions. Not names. There's already a section discussing nicknames. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

...and I edited in what the refs actually say, after this was readded, since I don't feel like editwarring. Feel free to remove my edits along with the rest. There may be some merit to keeping "Frankenstorm" in the lede, though input from someone more experienced with hurricane articles would be helpful on that one. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed it as well. I also sent a message to the user because he has violated the 3RR. Maybe he will come by this page and discuss it. United States Man (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why you guys keep reverting his edits to be honest. It's already sourced and we have always added popular nicknames of a storm in the lede. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Then make a valid argument about why it should be on there. We have always added popular nicknames of a storm in the lede. is not a good argument. Come up with a good reason and it can be readded. United States Man (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well actually, since we've always done it like that, I think you should make a valid argument about why it shouldn't be. The nicknames section can easily be removed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to. 2001:db8 already did that. Your turn. United States Man (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh...nevermind. I'm not going to argue about every little thing with you. Just keep the article the way it is. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't need to argue if you could come up with a good reason. United States Man (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the name Frankenstorm has to do with Halloween, so even if the front-merger does not happen as it did in 1991, Frankenstorm will still be around looking for candy.Tumblehome (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are implying here. United States Man (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

United States Man, sorry for being unclear earlier. At the time I was suggesting that we should include Halloween as part of the reason Sandy became nicknamed "Frankenstorm", mostly because it was in the lede paragraph, but that's not an issue anymore.Tumblehome (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The correct and only real name of the storm is Sandy. We should not be reporting on names made up by media outlets to attract readers/viewers. it's not our job to play their game. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant and untrue. A great deal of Misplaced Pages's references come directly from media. Misplaced Pages is meant to help people find information, not hinder them by strictly relying on official terminology. 8ty3hree (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2012/10/26/frankenstorm-hurricane-sandy-name/1660867/Tumblehome (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The media is fine when it sticks to reporting the news. That's not what this is. It's making up a name, when the storm already has an official one. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was about to add "Frankenstorm" when I decided to check the talk page. Since the term is used in quite a few news sources, having it in the intro is useful. Having it does not make WP look like a tabloid. Auchansa (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Frankenstorm has been retired as a nickname already. "Superstorm Sandy" seems to be the new one. I think the media wanted this to be like "Snowmagaggedon" and "Snowpocalypse", but unlike those storms she already had a name (Sandy) so it became confusing.Tumblehome (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Extratropical Storm Sandy article?

As we all know Sandy is most likely not going to cause damage to the east coast as a Tropical Storm or Hurrican but as an Extratropical storm. Would it make sense to split off an article from here reguarding Sandy's post tropical effects? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not as a full article no, the meteorological and other aspects should be kept here. However, subarticles by region might be warranted later. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay I just expect with the impact of the storm that there will be alot added but that answers my question on where the content should be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And it's not even a guarantee Sandy is extratropical at landfall. Many models keep it as a fully warm core until after it moves ashore. For public awareness purposes and to make the Misplaced Pages subarticle naming business easier, I hope they keep it tropical up until landfall. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems like it would be propper to follow 1991 Perfect Storm and Hurricane Grace (1991). If the NHC forecast is accurate and it becomes extratropical in 48 hours, not much impact on the CONUS will have occurred yet, and two articles can be made that complement each other. If it happens much later than 48 hours too close to landfall, things will get messy. For what it's worth, some of the Northeast offices are not issuing tropical-related products and will only issue nor'easter-related products so as not to confuse the public. (Which is going to be a disaster in itself; as a meteorologist, what's occurring is fascinating, but for the general public, I hate to think about when this makes landfall). Inks.LWC (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Once the whole thing settles down a bit, we should go through and it should be split into an article detailing the tropical cyclone and the nor'easter, similar to 1991 Perfect Storm, unless everyone thinks it makes more sense to keep it all on here. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Playerstroke (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC) I believe we need to make an extremely rare exception to the Extra-Tropical rule because the storm is still being called "Sandy," ("Superstorm Sandy" is being used to describe it now) and people across the East Coast are going to remember it as Sandy as a result. It has transitioned to an Extratropical Cyclone right at landfall so there is no doubt that the name will be remembered in infamy.

Handling HPC advisories

Normally they aren't used much in the current info. But given the extraordinary situation, I would keep current information on Post-Tropical Storm Sandy as long as it is a serious threat (i.e. winds at least tropical storm force). How to make the infobox work with that though? CrazyC83 (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we create an article on Frankenstorm Instead of messing with the infobox? If you really wanna do it I think you could mark the Current Stat "Extratropical Cyclone(EC)" When Sandy lose tropical Characteristics. That would be unusual though. 76.124.224.179 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are already plenty of preps here, and it will be the same circulation when it's no longer tropical, just a different type. There is no need for a separate article. As for the infobox, I think we should have enough info in the HPC advisory. Don't they usually mention where it is, the wind speed, the direction, and pressure? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know the HPC issued advisories for post-tropical/extratropical storms. United States Man (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The operating procedure is here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Bahamas

In the table, 3 deaths are mentionned in the Bahamas but the reference only talk about one. So either the data in the table has to be corrected or someone find a new reference to uphold the 3 death there. Pierre cb (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Current storm information

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Please can someone show me what policy allows this section to become a news story? Why is it OK for some editors to allow bare URLs in the middle of the article? Lugnuts 19:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style#Current storm information requires it. Until something is resolved it is required to remain on there. United States Man (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see the bit that states using bare URLs are OK. Can you point that out to me? I do see the text at the top that clearly states "This advice is not a formal Misplaced Pages policy or guideline", however WP:NOTNEWS is. Lugnuts 19:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Except it is not a news story. YE 19:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That section is. Lugnuts 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You do realize in a week the current information section will not be there so what's the big deal exactly? JayJay 19:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's OK then! It's setting a precedent for all future hurricanes/earthquakes/tsunamis, etc. Lugnuts 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if WP:NOTNEWS says we shouldn't include that, I think WP:IAR makes it perfectly reasonable to do so anyways. It seems to be standard on past hurricane articles I've seen, and the relevant WikiProject obviously thinks so; going with their guidelines is reasonable. Helping better inform readers of a massive goddamn storm through the use of a couple minor bare links seems to be the kind of thing WP:IAR is meant for. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that because we've always done it, we continue to do it? I still don't see why it's OK to put those links in the body of the article. Maybe CNN is down right now. Lugnuts 19:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, if you have a problem with it, discuss it on the wikiproject's talk page. United States Man (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are making a mountain out of an anthill, readers want to know the most recent info reguarding the storm, the links there back up the data that is being updated at a regular page from the NHC, the NHC isnt news its data and info reguarding the storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(taken from the hidden comment) "DO NOT REMOVE at any costs" - Who worded that abortion? Lugnuts 19:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that's not worded very well; I readded exactly as was removed, though that should be edited. I don't know if I'd call it an "abortion" though. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Note - I removed the bare URL linkrot infobox as well. Honestly, it seems to be added in bad faith pursuant to this discussion. The links are obviously being updated frequently, and will disappear when the storm dissipates. They are not going to rot, because they will be removed far before that is even a possibility. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment and suggestion: this article is linked on the Google news splash page and is honestly one of the most comprehensive pieces. In fact, at the moment it is news for lots of people, but soon won't be. I suggest at least an "External Links" section to link to the National Weather Service or something. I don't know the conventions for storm articles, but was struck by the lack of the EL section. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done I added links to the full NHC info and to NASA images/data. Could probably use some improvement, though. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Frankenstorm"

It's a noteworthy nickname, and its reasoning should be in the article as long as it's sourced. I'm not sure why this is so controversial, but it appears that some don't want it there, so instead of deleting and re-adding, let's talk about this here. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was a merge from the stub Frankenstorm. If editors will not allow a small section somewhere on the term's origins and usage -- which seems odd to me, too -- then does it go back to being a separate article? Which would be unfortunate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Eventually it should probably be 2 articles, similar to Hurricane Grace (1991) and 1991 Perfect Storm, especially as it is expected to become extratropical well before landfall. But still, those articles will complement each other. Even if they're not separate, the Frankenstorm section helps readers understand why it's labelled as such by the media. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe the merge, which was boldly done (not by me) after I placed a merge tag, was a mistake. Right now, the article creator's referenced info on origins and meanings is hidden from view on the page history of the redirect, which is a shame -- and contrary to WP:PRESERVE of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes; I find this a bit of a shame since I placed that redirect, but now the material is hidden entirely. It doesn't hurt to have the basic information kept in this article to explain the name. Then again, it was kind of a WP:REDUNDANTFORK considering that the material was removed from this article by other editors before being forked. The editor who created Frankenstorm can always revert it and continue the merge discussion, in any case. I wouldn't have normally redirected it like that, but it seemed in the best interest of getting people to the right place with such a major event occurring. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the merge was not a mistake. Frankenstorm hasn't happened yet; Sandy is still happening. Frankenstorm should be made (and it shouldn't be called that; it should be something like "Halloween 2012 Nor'easter" or "October 2012 Nor'easter") when it becomes post-tropical. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's another article entirely... :) The "Frankenstorm" article was about the etymology of the name, thus it did seem to need merging in any case...I don't think that part was a mistake, just a bit of a shame that the content isn't anywhere at the moment. I agree we'll almost certainly need an article named something like what you suggest, but that will of course be about the storm, not the nickname! – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha... I see what you meant now. Yeah, "Frankenstorm" should probably redirect to the Nor'easter page, with a hatnote linking to Sandy, but the information about the name should be on both. If nobody chimes in giving a good reason to oppose the name info being included here, I'll readd it. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I object to Frankenstorm, suggest Hurristein instead. It's not used by any reliable sources, but it avoids potentially defamatory associations with Frankenberry. Halloween is supposed to be scary, not "spooktacular". "Hurricane Sandy" is genuinely scary, as it conjures images of dustbowls and not being sure if you're being blown by a dude or a chick. Per WP:IREMEMBERHALLOWEEN, I say it's spooky enough as is. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Be nice to the friendly folks in Herrstein, or WP:NOCANDYFORYOU! – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Frankenstorm" is simply not encyclopaedic. It's playing the game of the tabloid media. The storm does not need a name like that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't from the media, it was from NOAA itself: -- Tohler (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing "Frankenstorm" show up in social media from my American friends. It's now community usage; everybody knows what it means. We describe reality, we do not define it. Nor do we censor it. --Pete (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Two articles?

Correct my if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 1991 Perfect Storm a separate article from Hurricane Grace because it was a separate system that absorbed the hurricane? It seems that the circulation that is Sandy is what is expected to the the bulk of the damage in this case. I don't think the fact that Sandy is going extratropical is sufficient for two articles, considering that Katia had significant impacts as a post-tropical cyclone, but remained as one article. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy is expected to make landfall as a hurricane - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, with Sandy still being classified as tropical so close to landfall, it should probably remain 1 article. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you think another article might be needed for the prep and impact from Sandy? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think individual states might warrant sub-articles, but they shouldn't be made until the sections are of an appropriate length. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Bermuda?

Bermuda was also hit by Sandy's large gale wind field, as it is visible on this map: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at3+shtml/030345.shtml?swath#contents I think that it makes sence to add the article to the Hurricanes in Bermuda category and to list Bermuda as an affected area in the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season article. --92.206.78.129 (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bounty

Please remember to update Bounty (1960 ship) with what happens/happened with the ship, and why it's in trouble. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Now reported as sank. See here. Farawayman (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Nicknames

I feel names such as Frankenstorm should not be included in the article because it is media hype-labeling and sensationalism. Yes, the storm will be massive and bad, but is wikipedia a PEDIA that sticks to the objective facts and scientific information? Or is it a Yahoo article? 65.214.33.174 (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

They should remain, as they are significantly reported, and a likely search term. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Give it time. If we use it now, we are helping the media give it that name. HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48. It is not up for us to decide what is and isn't the "correct" name. We report what the RS say; we do not judge based on our own preference. But as HiLo indicated, we are potentially shaping that outcome if we use it too early. Since the term refers to the convergence with the cold front, and that is not yet complete, I think it is premature to promote a name. That being said, if the name holds in the media after the event, I think it's warranted, regardless of whether we think it's scientific, etc.204.65.34.134 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sandy predicted to make landfall as a hurricane

It should be noted that Sandy is currently predicted to make landfall as a cat 1 Hurricane in NJ. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of global warming section

In this diff Kennvido (talk · contribs) deleted a thoroughly sourced paragraph on the science of global warming and observed factors influencing Hurricane Sandy. His stated reason in the edit summary is the sweeping claim that it is political opinion. There is nothing political and nothing opinionated about how observed sea surface temperatures and the meteorological blocking pattern are feeding the storm. The section merits inclusion or something more than political opinion of wiki editors for its omission. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely a question of WP:WEIGHT. A number of "frankenstorm" articles have mentioned global warming, meaning a mention here is not unreasonable, but the majority of articles have not mentioned global warming at all, meaning any mention here should be brief. A dedicated section seems like too much; a couple of sentences (perhaps at the end of "Meteorological history") would be reasonable. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 19:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Hansen, J; Sato, M; Ruedy, R; Lacis, A; Oinas, V (2000). "Global warming in the twenty-first century: an alternative scenario". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 97 (18): 9875–80. Bibcode:2000PNAS...97.9875H. doi:10.1073/pnas.170278997. PMC 27611. PMID 10944197. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |author= and |last1= specified (help), extreme weather's probability is influenced by global warming climate change, but it is unlikely to be determined solely by it, a matter of statistics. 207.250.21.23 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I really dont think this is needed as another editor points out it adds too much WP:WEIGHT to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We can find all the RS's in the world, but the issue definitely is one of weight. This page should probably be linked from the Global Warming page where all of this is relevant. The section as stands is too long, but can be shortened to only a few sentence. In my view this isn't really the time to do that though. The page is being edited too much, too quickly and the updates are the most important right now. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 It's worth having something eventually. Presumably after this mess of a storm goes through, it'll warrant a place under meteorological history (perhaps contributing factors subsections referring to the cold front, the hurricane, the blocking high, and then GW). Def. not worth a whole section at this point. There's no deadline and right now the global warming stuff is pretty hand-wavy. I'm sure there'll be an actual paper on this in 6-12 months.... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and nuked it. In addition to the points above, the previous text was about global warming and extreme weather events generally, not this particular event. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I felt that the material was extremely tangential and inserted as a way to promote an unrelated issue. Maybe a reference to Hurricane Sandy as an example of the effect of "blocking" - if there actually is any effect here - in the relevant article. But we can't say that there's any connection at all. Hurricanes - large hurricanes - are regrettably all too common. Saying that any one factor, whether it be AGW or God's wrath at the upcoming election, is to blame is a very long shot. --Pete (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that's taking things too far in the other direction. There are many factors which influenced the strength of this storm, and at some point we'll have a section describing them, and AGW will likely be one of several (there's for instance, the unusually (record?) warm gulf stream current that can be at least substantially attributed to AGW), but not now. Requires careful statistical study at the very least. So we shouldn't rule out including some AGW mention in the article eventually. That said, I agree that the existing section was bad, pretty much a textbook example of a poorly executed WP:COATRACK. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there similar discussion on Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Katrina? 64.109.54.142 (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that all this well-sourced and valid material has been deleted, and now is being kept out of the article even is summary form, on the flimsy basis that 'there is no deadline' before which it must be mentioned. If people want to talk about politics in this context, it sounds more like, "We'll keep all mention of global warming out of the discussion until after nobody's interested in this storm any more." A bit like the US presidential debates. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't object to it, but it does need to be rewritten. With the article being edited heavily with updates at the moment, many of whom are in the storm, my view is that it can wait for a day or two. That situation won't change, but there will many updates to add over the night. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a mention is warranted, but a full section is too much. The IP had the right idea: neither Irene nor even Katrina have such a section (though there is this, for some reason). Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 22:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Specify "gender" in lead?

I think readers might reasonably want to know if "Sandy" is a boy's name or a girl's, and not know that the naming system alternates between genders (thus, after Rafael, it's a lady). Worth noting, or do we leave it to readers to deduce? "Frankenstorm" totally sounds like a guy to me, so there may reasonably be confusion among people who get their news from "the news". I think we should clarify, if only so readers can properly curse at the storm. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hurricanes don't have genders. The gender used to generate the name isn't relevant to the event, and there are articles covering hurricane naming for those who are curious. I can't tell if you're being serious... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, serious. Sandy is an ambiguous name, and the Frankenstorm stuff may suggest to many that it's a guy's name. I get that a storm actually isn't any gender. But they definitely have names, and names shape perceptions of things. That's why particularly harsh storms have their names retired. If a storm named Andrew or Katrina reappeared, it wouldn't actually be the same storm, returning. But it would seem that way (to some more than others). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Retiring storm names has nothing to do with the gender used in assigning the storm's name. Nor is it our job to help shape people's perceptions. Nor is the article about "Frankenstorm." Nor is "Sandy" ambiguous for the purposes of the article. Perhaps you should find an RS noting that people are confused as to whether Hurricane Sandy has been given a male or female name, then we can include that. Your seemingly absurd argument and insertion of that into the very beginning of the lede makes it hard to WP:AGF, quite honestly. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK if it's not cool for the lead. That's why I asked. But it's certainly worth mentioning briefly when the naming itself is. No undue weight there. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And I'm not trying to shape perceptions, I'm just stating a fact that may correct someone's incorrect perception that the storm has a masculine name. It's simple education. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is not notable. It was removed from the body by other editors previously, before you put it in the lede. I'm not going to editwar after just removing it again, but I feel like I'm feeding a troll here. You haven't provided an actual rationale for why we need to describe that the name "Sandy" was picked as part of the female hurricane name list vs the male hurricane name list. The origin of the name is not relevant to the current hurricane. (Nor is it "simple education." Should we also explicitly explain that Sandy was picked because the last storm started with an "R" and this one starts with the next letter in the alphabet? That's just as "educational.") If you think anyone has an incorrect perception, please find an RS. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Larry King himself is confused. That's probably not a serious question, but his Twitter followers are likely wondering as well, now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Then there's this Bride of Frankenstorm stuff from NASA. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I added Tropical cyclone naming to "See Also" just to make this pointless discussion hopefully come to an end. As for your source, you acknowledged that storms do not have a gender. That source treats the storm as having a gender. It's people joking about the storm, obviously. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Joking about the name. The ambiguity of the name is demonstrated by the joke making sense. Anyway, I've readded it, in three words, with a perfectly valid source backing it up. Problem solved? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As for relevance, what actual effect does being the 18th named storm have on the storm itself? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Low Pressure

Should we mention something about Sandy's unusual pressure? It is 940 mbars.

--Darkinferno30 (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been reported that this is apparently the lowest recorded pressure for any storm in the Northeastern US. I can't find an RS on that though, but it does certainly seem notable. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sandy now Post-Tropical

The NHC released it's 7PM update saying that Sandy is now Post-Tropical, how do we handle this in reguards to the infobox? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

' The info box should get updated automaticaly by a bot within 15 minutes of this info being publiched by the National hurricane center Hybirdd (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that in the infobox it still has this as a hurricane which its not now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It is fixed now. Still emphasizes the category to keep people to know this is a hurricane-strength storm and has NOT weakened. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Split?

Looks like there'll be a ton of info on Sandy in the US. Should we split off Hurricane Sandy in the United States at some point? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Full of routine content

Do we need this much content for routine news in the main article? And without mentioning the topic's significance compared to other hurricanes, like mentioning it is the largest Atlantic storm ever on northeast path? Some content feel like downright advertisement (what? waived overdraft fee is the most important impact to the United States?).--Skyfiler (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This article would be a lot different if it was being maintained by just project users. Since whe have all these outsiders it has been hard to keep control of what is on here. I do agree that some of it is bit much. United States Man (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a really big fan of the utterly useless picture of Barack Obama on the telephone, myself. I'm sure that the article will be streamlined once the interest drops down. Resolute 23:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to add useful information (like power in parts of Manhattan being shut down at the moment due to record flooding) with the "Superstorm" and "Frankenstorm" and insistence that we note that Sandy is a female name, etc, etc. I keep edit conflicting on anything reasonable I try to add, due to the volume of junk being added. I give up. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So this is useful? You made it far wordier and weightier, and added stuff about "Frankenstorm" when the article hasn't mentioned "Frankenstorm". You say the storm itself isn't a woman's name (though I was saying the name is a woman's name), but now it says the storm is not just a woman, but a bride. Are you trying to sabotage this so it's removed? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I edited it to what the ref says. The ref does not say Tropical Storm Sandy is a woman's name...because it's not, it's a storm. The ref mentions that Sandy, which the storm is named after, is a female name, in the context of comparing it to "Frankenstorm." If the information is going to be included, the context must be included as well. You can't just pick and choose and mangle the source. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The NAME Sandy is a woman's name. The storm is a storm. Anyway, your sabotage worked and created more edit conflicts. Restoring it to the perfectly fine claim it was is causing even more conflicts. Way to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and Sandy being a woman's name isn't relevant to the storm...unless there's some context. What did you expect adding a ref titled "Hurricane Sandy Actually a 'Bride of Frankenstorm': NASA"? I added the context for you, since your version wasn't relevant to the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was going to remove it, but I kept getting conflicted so I gave up. United States Man (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the name of the topic. Where it came from is relevant. If you can't grasp that, leave it alone for those who can. Edit warring is just frustrating for editors getting ECd. I've reworded it to make clear we're talking about the name, and not a storm with a vagina. Can we agree now? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed it again since it has nothing to do with this article. If you can find one other hurricane article that has the gender on it then I will at least agree to something. But, otherwise, no. United States Man (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's significant that it's the largest Atlantic storm ever in the Northeast, then just add that info. As for "Frankenstorm" and "Superstorm," both are terms that received widespread use in major media and therefore I believe are notable. Yes, it is a bit hard to add info at the moment - I had that same problem earlier in the day, receiving several "edit conflict" messages when trying to add information, but I eventually managed to push it through. I think most of the edits are generally good-faith and therefore protection or anything really isn't necessary. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The terms are fine (and Frankenstorm is noted in the body at the moment), and "Superstorm" seems to be becoming notable in the media. But naming has been discussed on the talk page, with some rough consensus...maybe that needs to be discussed further now, but that's what the talk page is for. I agree the edits are mainly good-faith, but when you have multiple users repeatedly trying to change the lede and infobox to "Superstorm Sandy" without any discussion, well, then it's hard to do anything but edit conflict. Maybe the preparation and impact sections DO need to be split off more quickly, just to make it possible for editors to edit without going crazy. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I am going to start sending out warnings if the infobox is changed again. It is getting on my nerves. I can't believe how much crap has went on and off of this article. There were so many people editing at once that it took me almost ten minutes to save a page earlier. United States Man (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You're not helping by removing sourced, relevant content. I've tried my best to talk sense about the name, but it's tedious. I'm done for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it has to be added. It's not relevant in my view and not worth discussing right now. The discussion can be picked up again later. 00:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Giant pic of Hull, Massachusetts

I realize that whoever uploaded that pic of the storm in Hull, Massachusetts wanted to make an impact, but can we scale it down a great deal? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Scaled down. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Not impossible to produce quality articles even under these circumstaces

(see Talk:Hurricane_Sandy#Full_of_routine_content )

I know it is easy for a backseat driver like me to offer suggestions, but I will give it a shot anyway:

This is not the first time an article like this is being developed on Misplaced Pages. Yes, it is hard to work co-operatively, but not impossible. Take a look at Malala_Yousafzai which had similar traffic stats on October 16, 2012 ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Malala_Yousafzai ) as this article did up to now ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Hurricane_Sandy ). Ottawahitech (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, when you have 20 people trying to edit at once (half of those probably vandalizing) then is is hard. United States Man (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Alas thrilling it was. However I agree some parts of the article really needs a little quality check now that the breaking part is over. I mean where is the red thread in some of the updates and sections made? --109.70.49.30 (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Preparation and impact of Hurricane Sandy in the United States article or Impact of Hurricane Sandy in the United States article

I propose that after things settle down a little that we make a seperate article for the Preparation and Impact for the United States, alot of info is confined here and I did see someone mention an article title like this in a past section here. Thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Although there won't be as much information. I think you should follow a format like Hurricane Katrina (not exactly, but sort of like a model). United States Man (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to this proposal, however should we include all of the affected areas in the article? Caribbean countries (Haiti, Cuba, etc.) were preparing in addition to the United States. -- Luke (Talk) 00:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be some sort of split so that people can edit the article without running into a dozen edit conflicts, and without edits taking minutes to save at times (assuming you don't hit an ec at the end!) Plus it's getting a bit long, of course. I don't know if we necessarily need to include those other areas past the main article; the information for those is much more minimal, and if it grows, it can be similarly split. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In general, I think there's a lot of information in "Preparation" that could belong in a separate article, but is excessive in the main Sandy article. (Cases in point: Google canceling the Android event; also separate sections about each governor declaring "state of emergency") ypnypn (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If there's enough information for either, I would suggest something like "Preparations of Hurricane Sandy in the United States" and another article named "Impacts of Hurricane Sandy in the United States". There will more than likely be enough information for an individual article for each. I don't like the idea of merging preparations and impacts in the same article though. Rye998 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a great deal of information around this, plus it is continuing to develop. It should probably be split as proposed. Dmarquard (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

To give an idea nothing like this has ever happened before in NYC, im hearing alot of info on impacts for NYC alone including subway fires, a broken crane on a highrise and flooding in mass parts of manhattan, and it was not even the place that had the direct hit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The number of datacenters currently running on backup power in NYC is unprecedented too. I assume they'll restore power by the time places start running low on diesel in the next couple days, but expect a bunch of web outages if the roads manage to stay too flooded to truck more fuel in. JFK/EWR/LGA all being closed for such a long time (JFK/EWR say closed until at least Oct 31 at the moment) is unprecedented back to 9/11 as well, I believe. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Too many refs

I believe that's why the article is so goddamn slow to save edits. (Er, I mean so goddamn slow to give you one edit conflict message after another. :) If you can remove unneeded refs when editing, please do so. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Once this article is split it should be alot better. United States Man (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Frankenstorm" nickname

OK, we've had several discussions on this, and so far, participation has been scattered and hard to follow. So I am going to try to do this in an organized manner with 4 proposals for what to do with the "Frankenstorm" nickname. First, let's lay out the facts about the nickname:

1. The name was first used by Hydrometeorological Prediction Center meteorologist James Cisco to describe the "combined gyre" of Sandy and an "amplified polar trough" forming a "hybrid vortex". The name does not refer to Hurricane Sandy itself, and the name was not coined by the media (two common misconceptions I've seen so far).
2. The name has been heavily used by the media.
3. CNN has placed an embargo on the use of the name, due to the seriousness of the storm.

So what should we do with it? I have come up with 4 proposals that I believe encompass the viable options. (The order of the proposals is in no way relevant - I had to pick one to be A and one to be D):

• Proposal A - There SHOULD be a section in the article dedicated to the nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media. The nickname SHOULD also be included in the lede.
• Proposal B - There SHOULD be a section in the article dedicated to the nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media. The nickname SHOULD NOT be included in the lede.
• Proposal C - There SHOULD be a discussion about nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media; however, this should be incorporated into the general section on the

and impacts of the storm. The nickname SHOULD also be included in the lede.

• Proposal D - There SHOULD be a discussion about nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media; however, this should be incorporated into the general section on the preparation and impacts of the storm. The nickname SHOULD NOT be included in the lede.
• Proposal E - There SHOULD only be a brief mentioning of the nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media in the lede.
• Proposal F - There SHOULD NOT be any mention of the nickname "Frankenstorm", and any other subsequent nicknames that may come about that are largely used by the media.

Please try to keep this organized and civil so that we can actually come up with some consensus. Remember that this is not a vote; I am merely coming up with the 6 proposals, because I think they are really the only 6 possible options that we could do, and so far, it's been hard to understand people's exact feelings on the matter. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Im seeing more sources that point to "Superstorm Sandy" Than this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prefer Proposal D, but only relating to "Frankenstorm." The media seem to be using this term less frequently now, and it's inaccurate as you point out; the new name they like seems to be "Superstorm Sandy", and I think that one may be valid for the lede IF it retains notability. "Frankenstorm" seems notable for a brief mention somewhere in the article, but doesn't seem to be notable for the lede. So mention both in the body for now, and promote "Superstorm Sandy" to the lede if it does become common usage in the next few days. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prefer Proposal E (or as a second choice D) ypnypn (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prefer Proposal D, per above, sources seem to be using "Superstorm" Sandy more now, we should go on a nickname that goes along with WP:COMMONNAME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prefer Proposal D I'd say some nicknames deserve a mention, but only if we can document that they are widely used. We should also put in redirects for those nicknames if we haven't already. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prefer Proposal D as per noms and others. The name is there and is relevant in a sense, but not important enough to live in the lede - unless "Frankenstorm" ends up being how we refer to Sandy in a year's time, in which case things will have to change.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prefer Proposal D it was part of the event per se, however if we mention Frankenstorm in the lede we might fuel the fire. 109.70.49.30 (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• C List it just like a person's alternate names, but a section is undue weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

IMPORTANT CAUTION: The source being used to justify the claim that "The name was first used by Hydrometeorological Prediction Center meteorologist James Cisco" is not working. Without that, this discussion is based on a falsehood. There's also the problem that the Cisco's claimed use of the name was for a combined event, which hasn't happened yet. The votes so far should be discarded. (And we don't vote anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying references

While we're getting a lot of edits to this page in a short period of time, it's important to figure out what references go where. Right now, most everything is referenced, but for anything that is not, I suggest using the {{cn-span}} template to avoid instances like this where an added referenced sentence may give the appearance that the unreferenced sentence before it is referenced. To use the template, just type {{citation needed span|text=Passage(s) to be sourced}}. Optionally, you can add "|October 2012" as a parameter at the end. For any changes to the death tolls, those need to just be removed until they are sourced. It's too hard to verify the total if we let unreferenced additions stay and try to reference them later. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Photo Suggestions

Crane Photo

Can someone take a photo of the Crane that is dangling in NYC? It may fall off!

Victor Grigas (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Special:ListFiles/JordanBalderasJordanBalderas (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

NYC Subway Photo

Is there a "free" photo from the underground station's CCTV showing the water flooding? --109.70.49.30 (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

are images created by the city public domain? Victor Grigas (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fake Photos

Watch out for fake photos! Victor Grigas (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble on similar with a good bunch of fake vs real images: – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

wow, Victor and db8 it's really hard to tell. Have to admit I fell for the seal photo earlier. --109.70.49.30 (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is that photo of the soldier on the page now fake?Victor Grigas (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No. It's confirmed via the source on the image as well as the Facebook page for the unit who protects the Tomb. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Somebody add this image!

I've tried to add this image 20 times already but can't because of edit conflicts.

I give up.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried. It's impossible. I suspect there will lots of images streaming in and some choices will have to be made, but at this point editing the article is very difficult. I'll try again tomorrow if someone hasn't gotten to it. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Ec-ing is fun! It probably needs to be resized and/or moved around in some fashion, but that's one of the best pictures of actual hurricane effects we have so far, I'd say. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(Heh, and I edit conflicted trying to note that here, too! :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Only 2 edit conflicts, but resized both Marblehead and Hull. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

From Flickr

Here are creative commons photos from Flickr if anybody wants to upload them: , here's a nice one: , and another:

Images of power out

Can people take photos of places with power out that would normally have power? I'd love to see them next to all these places mentioned in the article Victor Grigas (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Gov. of NJ and Atlantic City mayor in quarrel

Did anyone else hear CNN mention this? Something about the two publically criticizing each other in connection with the evacuations. Anyone think this should be mentioned or is it too small/irrelevant a thing? --109.70.49.30 (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Far too trivial. Thank you for asking. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• C-Class Delaware articles
• High-importance Delaware articles
• WikiProject Delaware articles
• C-Class District of Columbia articles
• Unknown-importance District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class New Jersey articles
• High-importance New Jersey articles
• WikiProject New Jersey articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• High-importance New York (state) articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• Start-Class Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment