Talk:Hurricane Matthew

Remember How Matthew Was Supposed To Do A Loopty Loop But Never Did?

How come that isn't discussed at all? It went straight up the coast surprising eastern North Carolina and Southeastern VA. The NWS only follows the forecast models yet that kind of forecast track was highly unlikely to occur given the history of hurricanes along the east coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.98.73 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@100.4.98.73: AFAIK, it is mentioned in the currently-WIP meteorological history of Matthew that @Cyclonebiskit: is making. We are just waiting for its TCR to be out (which should be another week or so considering its March now and the WMO meets in 3 weeks to discuss retirements and all the TCRs are done by then) to expand it more, then it should be good to go. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2017

Add the following citation from NOAA to the retirement section stating why the name was retired. For your convenience, there is no ref tag for the following template:

Feltgen, Dennis (27 March 2017). "World Meteorological Organization retires storm names Matthew and Otto". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 27 March 2017.

Once you add this citation template to the retirement section, surround it with ref tags. 24.105.170.133 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done – already did on my own that but minus a few parameters. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox picture edit war

@MarioProtIV, Undescribed, 219.78.190.133, Supportstorm, and 121.202.139.198: Can the edit warring over the infobox picture please stop? I'm starting this discussion in order to get agreement on it. WP:WPTC#Images might be useful.--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The only revision that I have undone was that of 219.78.190.133, because it does not show Matthew anywhere near peak intensity. Any of the other images that show Matthew at or near Category 5 strength seem appropriate. --Undescribed (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• 
  0215Z
• 
  0225Z

both at peak intensity. --219.78.190.133 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Either of those images are fine with me, but preferably the one on the right due to the better resolution. This is the only image that I don't think is appropriate:

• 
  1800Z

--Undescribed (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The one at 2015Z is more realistic, and while 0215–0225Z are shortly after peak intensity, the 0225Z IMO should be used on the meteorological history page. Plus we generally use good quality image, and the TCR has Matthew at 120 kt / 140 mph at 18z, so I'd assume it was 150 or 155 mph by 20–21z (given that it was 165 at 00z and had probably reached 160 around 22z).

• 
  2015Z
• 
  2115Z

Also on a similar note, the same thing was done for Nicole as it reached peak late at night and was RI around the time the image was taken. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: The intermediate value theorem only guarantees that it was 130 or 135 knots sometime between 18 and 00z, and says nothing about elsewhere. In fact, it is a stretch to put 130 or 135 knots for 21z; reconnaissance data would only support about 125 knots maximum at that time in my opinion. Note that this would typically be considered WP:SYNTH but we are only using it for our own image decision, and not adding it to the article.

Technically, the 215/225z ones are closer to peak intensity (2015z to 0z is 3 hours and 45 minutes, versus 2 hours and 15 or 25 minutes), and given the above I personally think they are more representative of peak intensity. However, I do agree with you that we should use the visual 2015z image, and use the other images later on (as with Hurricane Celia (2010) or Hurricane Rita, which both peaked at night).--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@219.76.15.7: You have added another image (2115z) to the mix. Do you wish to add your thoughts?--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Strange wording

At Hurricane Matthew#United States 3, highlighted by a citation needed template, there is an odd sentence saying "However, a number of people in Tybee decided not to leave, so emergency teams were sent out to look for them until it was safe to do so." It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would direct emergency teams to look while it was unsafe to look but then stop as soon as it became safe to look. Did this sentence get mangled somewhere along the way, or am I misreading it? —Salton Finneger (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)