Talk:Hurricane Matthew

"Florida and the United States"

"it will be the first major hurricane to strike both Florida and the United States" - isn't Florida part of the United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.128.65.129 (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(Of course, the original author meant, "Not only the United States, but also its state of Florida." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerhaven1 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

gif

Awesome gif here of the wind speed probabilities if anyone feels like migrating: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/214535.shtml?hwindloop?#wcontents Victor Grigas (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure Wikipedia supports gifs in motion like that. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

it does :) Victor Grigas (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't know if this is relevant but...

It appears the NHC website is down from this storm, as confirmed by several tweets from news sources on Twitter...

Source 1: https://twitter.com/B911Weather/status/784230642506723329

--69.223.178.15 (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Also confirmed by https://twitter.com/NOAA/status/784235757774917633 , but it remains to be seen if this is directly related to the hurricane. It could've just been a glitch. Remember, everything has to be verifiable. — Gestrid (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It's probably not. The problem is a DNS failure, and the authoritative DNS server for NOAA geolocates to New York. Besides, the NOAA is the kind of organization that would multihome for redundancy. The actual NHC site is up for those whose local caching DNS server still has those domain names.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

We'd need to wait until the issue is reported by secondary sources before updating this article, assuming it was a major outage. The http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ site appears fine for me (I'm in California). There's no mention of the outage on their Facebook feed while their Twitter feed has a comment "For those having trouble accessing the NHC website, here's the 5-day cone graphic for Hurricane ..."^[1]

For www.nhc.noaa.gov DNS shows that they are using returns ten web servers:

• 140.172.17.11 and 140.172.17.21 Servers are in Boulder, CO at NOAA-Boulder
• 216.38.80.71 and 216.38.80.81 Servers are in Dallas Fort Worth, TX at National Weather Service Southern Region.
• 129.15.96.11 and 129.15.96.21 Server are in Tulsa, OK at the University of Oklahoma.
• 140.90.33.11 and 140.90.33.21 Servers are in an NOAA data center - location unknown.
• 140.90.200.11 and 140.90.200.21 Servers are in an NOAA data center - location unknown.

As reverse DNS results were not available I could not determine the locations of the latter four servers. It appears they have a well distributed set of machines. The three 140.90.0.0/16 and 140.172.0.0/16 blocks are both direct assignment blocks. The NOAA is most likely using BGP meaning they can steer those blocks to any operational data center with the changes happening almost immediately. I doubt that hurricane Matthew was a direct cause for the outage. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Marc Kupper: I'd even say they'd use anycast routing since this is one of those services that absolutely shouldn't go down, but I'm too lazy to try to find out if that's indeed the case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point Jasper Deng. I checked one of my edge routers and see no evidence of anycast. At present the router has 565,974 network entries and 1,581,595 path entries which is a decent chunk of the Internet. 140.172.0.0/16 and 140.90.0.0/16 both have one routing entry though the latter is subnetted a little. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Using Geotool, the NHC website (IP: 129.15.96.21) is hosted in Norman, Oklahoma and the ISP is the University of Oklahoma. Of course, this may not be the usual host (ie. it could just be a temporary host due to the earlier outage). That said, earlier the NHC website itself had a banner message at the top mentioning problems with accessing the website and saying that updates are being posted on their Twitter account. I think that was about 1 a.m. EDT, when I first visited the website tonight. It's gone now (5:38 EDT). AHeneen (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Cape Verde / Cabo Verde

The article should use the same name as the article, for this country, namely Cape Verde, not Cabo Verde. This was confirmed in a recent RM discussion at Talk:Cape Verde#Requested move 31 August 2016, and is important for recognizability. I wasn't even sure when I read that in the article whether it was even referring to the same place, as I only know the English name for the place, not the new official name. Hence I've restored "Cape Verde" as the spelling in this article. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

useful information

No information of reasonable quality has been reported during the storm for people to use to estimate how long it will continue in any given location. This information could be put together and provided on wikipedia. This would consist of a series of hourly radar images showing the geographical of the hurricane for a given hour and a labeling of the wind speed at a number of radial positions extending outward from the center of the storm in that image. A list of links representing hourly images at the bottom, clicking of which updates the map with specified hourly image. This allows viewer to predict based on available information the immediate future path and predict the change in wind speed based on that path. Nowhere is this information to be found on the internet right now. Rtdrury (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. — Gestrid (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rtdrury: Although I get where you're coming from, Wikipedia is not a news source. It's not our place to provide people with extensive forecast information that changes by the minute. That's the job of NOAA and local meteorologists. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The job of a "good" encyclopedia is to properly and thoughtfully document subjects after the event - WP:NOTTHENEWS.104.169.37.15 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources cited in text.

I am not seeing the two deaths in the US cited in text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.175.32 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done I've added a tag to the number until someone can find a source and cite it. I'm having trouble finding one myself, but all the news sources right now are either focused on Florida or what remains of the Caribbean. — Gestrid (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the deaths was mentioned in a Twitter post by a news reporter (if I recall correctly). I don't know about the other one, though. Dustin (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've just sourced it now. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Mathew and haiti

I am wondering with such a huge death toll if a separate article on the effects on Haiti should not be created?--98.167.194.3 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

sorry I see it now Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti--98.167.194.3 (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Current meteorological status

I have removed the "current status" section. The appropriate sites (the NHC's latest public advisory on Hurricane Matthew and the NHC's latest forecast advisory on Hurricane Matthew) have the most up-to-date information. Wikipedia's information on this topic, on the other hand, will become outdated in a matter of hours. So as to avoid a very quick outdated situation, I have removed it. epicgenius (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Current storm information has been included on Wikipedia for current storms for several years now. I strongly suggest you bring this up with WikiProject Tropical cyclones if you are going to challenge the longstanding practice. Dustin (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: It appears I am mistaken about this. I apologize, and I'll revert my previous edit. epicgenius (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I understand your point about articles sometimes becoming outdated; I have on a few occasions brought up the idea of having such information automatically updated so as to avoid edit conflicts and outdated information, but I typically don't act on it and forget about it. The last time I brought up this idea was in January as part of a larger discussion. Dustin (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: There could probably be a larger discussion in regards to whether this current storm information should be allowed by policy, or if it should not be allowed because of the dynamic nature of the information. I think the bot idea is a good idea, but it may need some level of artificial intelligence. Readers might want current information about the storm, just not outdated information. However, such a discussion should be held elsewhere, like in Tropical Cyclones' WikiProject discussion page. epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox picture

As Matthew reached peak intensity at night (locally) and never had a stable eye, it is a bit difficult to determine which picture is better to present the hurricane.

• 
  18:00 UTC, October 1
• 
  15:45 UTC, October 2
• 
  15:35 UTC, October 4

They are all at 125 knots according to the operational post-analysis. I would prefer the one on October 2 as it presents a clearer eye and a generally orderly shape. -- Meow 08:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The selected image should have its timestamp included in its caption. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The filename has the timestamp. -- Meow 10:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest an image stitching together the MODIS-Terra infrared data from this graunle and this granule from October 1. (Paging User:Supportstorm or User:Meow). At the time Matthew had just been upgraded to a Category 5 hurricane, and the data coverage seems pretty good to me. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually there has been already an image at the same time in Wikimedia Commons. To me, however, the result is not as good as what I expected. I also have tried to extract from EOSDIS Worldview, yet it doesn't look better than the one on October 2. The resolution of infrared MODIS images is 1km. Therefore, I think it is not that necessary to build the complete IR image. -- Meow 17:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I could create a colored IR image like I did with Hurricane Sandy and Typhoon Haiyan. Supportstorm (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The eye of Matthew is still cloud-filled on the infrared MODIS image. That is why I said it may not be necessary to build. -- Meow 17:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well it was like that throughout Matthew existence. At least the MODIS IR image would show Matthew when it was at category five strength. Though if I had to chose a image from the above section it would be the image from the 4th. Supportstorm (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It is free to build an infrared one but I don’t think it should be used in Matthew’s infobox. The cut is much closer to the eye comparing to Haiyan’s, no matter how you rotate that image. I forgot that the article of Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti has already used the picture on October 4. -- Meow 18:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Peak intensity, 02:25Z

I made something preliminary using the MODIS infrared image... though perhaps someone with higher computing power could make a higher quality image. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts but I still don’t think this should be used, no matter who builds it... -- Meow 18:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, why should Matthew be excluded from using that kind of image? Haiyan peaked at night-time, like Matthew did, and its MODIS image has been up there since late 2013 if I had to guess. Plus, the infobox picture is most frequently used to display the storm at its peak intensity, although for example if it happened at night-time we can only use files that are the closest to peak intensity while still be visible in daylight. With the above image being created I actually support using it once the storm dissipates, which IMO should be by Wednesday if not sooner. Plus, the structure of Matthew is better defined in that image then in all the others, including the tremendous outflow which is clearly visible. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that an image at peak intensity should be used, however, would it be possible to create a storm-centered image instead? ~ KN2731 {talk} 04:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

That is the main reason why it should not be used—impossible to make it centered unless we crop the image again... You guys should think more. -- Meow 06:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Of note is that the "blob" on the right was a noted feature of Matthew. The caption could simply note the unusual blob in addition to the storm itself. @Meow: "You guys should think more" - you know you could've been more polite...--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

So is that really necessary to use the picture because of that blob? Why should we use a much more unimpressive picture (not due to the maker) only because of peak intensity? It does not mean we can do the same thing to Matthew as we did to Haiyan. -- Meow 06:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

More like, having the blob is not a reason to not use this image. "Impressiveness", on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder, and is of lesser priority than peak intensity. --Jasper Deng (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If you ask me, the peak intensity picture is the most impressive though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing an 'and' from the opening sentence

I propose changing the article's first sentence

"Hurricane Matthew is currently a strong tropical cyclone that impacted Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, and The Bahamas, and the United States."

to the sentence (with one less 'and' and no other changes)

"Hurricane Matthew is currently a strong tropical cyclone that impacted Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, The Bahamas, and the United States."

HVanIderstine (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Made the proposed change. Apologies for the unnecessary talk section---I didn't have the ability to edit semi-protected nor did I know to submit an edit request. HVanIderstine (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

@MarioProtIV: I noticed you undid the edits made by TheAustinMan. I think the lead section in its current state is inadequate, and I preferred his version because it contained better summaries of some of the following sections. Perhaps the additions could have been cut down a bit, but the lead in its current state is too short, in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Death count

Can we have some more sourcing on this so it does not amount to WP:SYNTH? Death is a serious thing, so we should be accurate when it comes to this info . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This source says that ten have died in Florida. Florida deaths
This source says three have died in Georgia and North Carolina each. Georgia and North Carolina deaths
This gives us only 16 confirmed deaths, so we need to find the sources for the remaining deaths. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Aside from that the Daily Mail is all but a reliable source, WP:CALC applies. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a consensus here. Okay here is the issue: Lets say source A says 4 people died, while another source (source B) says 6 people died. How do you know the deaths from Source A aren't included in Source B's death count? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, in this case, the numbers are from different states so there can't be an overlap. But the problem is that a majority of sources are offering different numbers in terms of death, especially in Florida. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I added a source for a total death count, I feel that if this info is incorrect then it falls on the source and not us. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

ABC News has just reported a fourteenth death here, which I sourced after someone added it and removed the old source. ~ KN2731 {talk} 08:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

My request, is to amend "Obama" in the last section, to be more respectful and say "President Obama". Summerhaven1 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done I have followed through with your request. However, I have not done so out of respect (not that I disrespect him by any means) but rather because "President" is part of the title of his office. Dustin (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath in Haiti and in the French-speaking Caribbean

Following a prejudicial tradition of denying the power of action to people in the Caribbean, this section presents Haitians, and other Caribbean people, as the recipient of both harm and altruism. They have no agency over their lives. This is particularly obvious in the longer report on Haiti. I do appreciate the information presented here, however, to make it fair and balance, this section should also have information about what Haitians are doing for their own. Concerned reader r166.143.113.207 (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Shepard Smith quote

Is the Shepard Smith quote really necessary? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dissipation of Matthew

It would appear that the OPC, the agency that had official dictation over Matthew when the NHC stopped tracking, has ceased calling the extra-tropical remnants Matthew in the high seas advisories. Usually the OPC will continue to call the extra-tropical remains of a tropical cyclone by the name it was given when it was tropical. Since this happened there is no means of verification, even though the original low can still be traced in the weather maps. So unless the OPC reinstates Matthew in the next advisory the dissipation date has to be on October 10 at 12Z. This might be changed whenever the TCR is released early next year. Supportstorm (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The section on Matt Drudge is flawed. While a conspiracy to promote global warming is valid, the sources linked say nothing to corroborate "were rooted in the belief that climate change was a hoax perpetuated by the Government of the United States.[91] " and this sentence has bad grammar as well.