Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season

Link Archiving

Bumping thread for 180 days. Noah^Talk 15:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC) I will be adding archive links to the entire article. Please note that the article must be split up in order to do this because of how large it is (ie the tool can't process it). All talk subpages listed below should remain intact for future use with archiving (definitely a must when getting this to GA in the future). Noah^Talk 12:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Archiving Schedule

• Every 15 days during the active season
• Every month outside the active season
• As needed after May

Archive Links

• Top-Bertha
• Cristobal-Laura
• Marco-Vicky
• Storm Names-Season Effects
• Beta–

@Hurricane Noah: Thanks! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Archived again due to extreme activity. Noah^Talk 22:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

TCRs just came out!

Bumping thread for 180 days. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Arthur

~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice. Just managed to add that in before the 21:00 UTC advisory frenzy! Buttons0603 (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Sally

I've now seen multiple times today changes to Sally's damage estimates, all of them going between 7 billion and 1 billion. Now, I know that the damage estimates will continue to fluctuate as insurance losses continue to be calculated, but going back and forth between two figures hours apart on the same day, seems excessive. Has anyone else noticed this? Furthermore, of the sources currently provided for such totals, most of them are higher than the current $1 billion listed. What estimated cost should be used? Gumballs678 talk 23:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gumballs678: Thank you very much. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Seems a little more dramatic and unnecessary than needs to be, but I'm glad I wasn't the first person who noticed the changes. As it stands now, is there still a discussion on this matter or has it been resolved? Gumballs678 talk 01:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gumballs678: I have talked with the other party and proposed we discuss it civilly here. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Damage estimates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

While unrelated to the dispute between the two parties, my personal belief is that the damage estimate not be updated until the NHC confirms it. However, my personal belief is not the rule of law, and Sally's TCR is still months away from being published. Until then, the dispute between the damage estimates should continue to be discussed here. It appears that there may need to be multiple third parties involved in the dispute to help keep it civil, but to also fact-check any and all arguments that occur. Gumballs678 talk 02:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the sources provided, insured losses only are estimated at US$1–3 billion by a few catastrophe modelling agencies. Meanwhile, overall losses are estimated at around US$7–8 billion by one agency (assuming the AL.com article is more updated, since the Reuters piece it links precedes it by a week and quotes the estimate as US$8–10 billion). That same agency states that US$5 billion of "damage and cleanup costs" were likely incurred from "immediate impact", which I would take to mean it does not cover the full extent of damage. The minimum estimate to use here looks to be US$7 billion, since insured losses don't constitute everything. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

AON estimates will be out in a few days. That’ll clear things up a lot! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No offense, but can't we just wait to see what the NCDC says the damage estimate is while putting the damage range in for now (i.e. $1-7 billion)? This will obviously be a billion dollar disaster and the NCDC report will clear ALL of this up.ChessEric (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric: No offense taken. LOL. Well, other storms all use AoN as the estimator. You can put up $1-8 billion for now. Let's see if others agree. Also, the content dispute is closed, so I'll be removing it.

The latest source we have (al.com) that gives an estimate for the TOTAL cost says at least $7 billion. I don't understand where you guys come up with the $1 billion figure? Firstly, common knowledge should tell you the total cost was far higher than $1 billion. Secondly, all the sources mentioning the $1 billion figure are only referring to insured losses. Insured losses are only a small portion of the total cost of this storm. I already went through this entire discussion once. Literally every single argument in this discussion was already made, was responded to, and was resolved. Now for some reason we have to do it all over again on this page. I already posted this link: [6] which says quote: "Hurricane Sally is not expected to cause a major insurance loss...As the storm was more of a flood event, the ratings agency said, most of the losses will be covered by the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)." What started this entire dispute was that someone posted a source claiming the cost was $1-3 billion but that same source also literally said that this estimate did not include NFIP losses. In other words the estimate was clearly incomplete and only covered a small portion of the total losses. It is perfectly logical to go with the $7 billion figure for now until we get newer estimates from other reliable sources, which in my opinion will end up being even higher than $7 billion. Ultimately all the figures will be updated at the end of the season when NHC reports come out so this issue doesn't warrant all this time and energy that is being devoted to it. Hurricane21 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane21: AON reports come out in two days. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Yes AON reports will come out in two days and you will see that their estimates will be much closer to the $7 billion figure than to the $1 billion figure. In fact their estimate will likely exceed the $7 billion figure. I hope this entire unnecessary discussion satisfied whatever concerns you had but hopefully next time when someone politely asks you to first discuss the issue before reverting their edits for no reason you follow Wikipedia guidelines (WP:BRD) and actually respect a simple polite request. Hurricane21 (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane21: AON is much more reliable than all the other individual sources. al.com is a local new source in Alabama. There is a rational to say that sources such as KarenCo and Moody are more reliable than a local news source, since KarenCo reliably and closely estimated Isaias's damage. Also remember please that Jasper Deng once told you that we put "storm damage losses", not "total economic losses". JD did not respond because he does not like to respond to people (even when people ask for help or award him). JD is also a very experienced user, with 47,000 edits and 13 years of expertise. Cyclonebiskit is an experienced user and an admin for 5 years. Ask them if you have any more questions, please. Thank you very much, and have a lovely day. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa:

1. I'm perfectly fine with going with whatever AON says.
2. The al.com source says nothing about "total economic losses". It says quote: "...estimating the overall loss from Hurricane Sally between $7 billion to $8 billion. Of that, $3 billion is insurance losses." It further says: “Our numbers are higher because we are counting things like government expenses, and redirected economic activity,”. My understanding of "economic losses" that JD was referring to was things like businesses/industries shutting down or being unable to operate not storm related government expenses. Government expenses go into things like storm cleanup or fallen tree removal, which as far as I understand are part of the total damage. But even if you would want to exclude those types of expenses, the source still does not indicate that those expenses are a large portion of their estimated total expense so it is illogical to go back down to an unrealistic $1 billion figure. In fact it would have even been ok to go with the original $5 billion figure just to stay on the conservative side but you insisted that we use an obviously false and unrealistic figure of $1 billion.
3. I have no questions to ask JD or Cyclonebiskit but thanks for your suggestion.
4. If you're satisfied with this discussion and feel like we can agree on going with a certain value for now then please say so because there is an open dispute pending on this issue.
Hurricane21 (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane21: I agree that $1 billion is a bit unrealistic, seeing the damage using drones and helicopters from news websites. I am glad how you are open to more damage figures than just the $7-8 billion, I thank you for doing that. I currently am thinking of three ways we can carry on with this below. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions

1. Put $5-8 billion
2. Put ≥$5 billion
3. Put ≥$7 billion

Any comments or questions, or suggestions will be welcomed. @KN2731, Cyclonebiskit, Gumballs678, ChessEric, and Hurricane21: and others, please put your !votes down below. Thanks.~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point the better option would have been to just wait for AON reports. Part of my concern with this entire discussion was that we're spending way too much time and energy on something that ultimately doesn't matter. I'm simply trying to say sometimes its better not to open up disputes on small issues like this. Anyways I went ahead and voted anyways. Hurricane21 (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane21: Thank you. Yeah, I'm also eager for the AON reports, but we have to put something for now. Can't vote since I wrote the suggestions. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

!Votes

3 -Hurricane21 (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

1; I don't think the damages are 4 billion or lower but I dought Sally caused any more damage than 8 billion - I like hurricanes (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to vote until there is more of a consensus on the total losses from the storm. While most of the sources for Sally do list the damage estimates between $5-8 billion, either figure doesn't seem correct because it's a range. $7 billion doesn't really work either because of the same issue. For now, I think it is best to leave whatever damage estimate is currently listed for Sally (I think its 7 billion) as is until AON releases their report. Whatever that figure may be, should then be used as the final figure for Sally until the storm's TCR comes out in the spring. Gumballs678 talk 01:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Would prefer 3 (i.e. status quo) for the next 36 hours or so until the AON reports come out. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New articles for storms

@Robloxsupersuperhappyface and ChessEric: Before making an article for future storms, please check to see if there is already an existing draft. It will get confusing if there were two Gamma articles / drafts at the same time!! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There were multiple articles / drafts; very frustrating. Mine was deleted! Drdpw (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: That is really frustrating, and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I suggest telling everyone on this talk page before going on and making a draft, since this can happen. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw, Destroyeraa, and Robloxsupersuperhappyface: To be fair, I started the article on the storm while it was still a depression and let Destroyeraa know when I did.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric, Drdpw, and Robloxsupersuperhappyface: Yeah, ChessEric did. A lot of people created drafts, and that created a lot of confusion. So let's notify everyone on this talk page before starting a draft. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn’t remember to check, I did feel sick while making the article and my thinking was a bit blurry. So yeah we need a talk page on the main season article for drafts. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Whoops just realized this was the main page lol Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robloxsupersuperhappyface: Oh. I probably wouldn't have been as upset about how the article was written had I known that. Sorry! LOL!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh it’s fine my body’s still feeling a bit warm but I don’t have a fever, I guess it’s just bad allergies lol, plus I think Gamma may make a second landfall in eastern Mexico so we will have to watch it closely. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robloxsupersuperhappyface: Feel better. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Feel better, watch out for Covid, and wear a mask in public! At least editing Wikipedia is safe, where us nerds have been social distancing since 2001 :P Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I’m feeling better it’s just allergy season down in Texas is always violent Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robloxsupersuperhappyface and Hurricanehink: Luckily COVID is low for us in New Jersey, but cold season is ramping up. Also, there’s an outbreak at the White House, which is currently being debated at ITN. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Texas is still a badly affected area. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright, switching back on topic, Gamma really needs expansion for a minimal Cat 1 hurricane (IMO). I'm not gonna go on my NHC rant here on WP, but you know what I feel about them an Gamma. Anyway, the preps and impact section and the MH really need to be expanded. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Correction–Gamma was a high end tropical storm. I'd argue it doesn't need an aticle, but Tropical Storm Vicky does as it claimed a life. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Just because a storm killed someone doesn't mean it needs an article. See WP:MEMORIAL. Also, Vicky caused the death while it was only a tropical wave. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Hurricanehink. Vicky is not a notable storm. And also Gamma was a hurricane but the NHC refused to recognize it as such, and will probably do in post analysis. Gamma still needs expansion.~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair points. However, I still have to say that then we don’t need a storm for Tropical Storm Arthur, which only did $112,000. Also they won’t say gamma is a hurricane as during the advisories winds were only 70mph. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Arthur has an article because of its impacts to land, despite not making landfall. The difference between say Arthur, Edouard, Rene, and Vicky, is that while they all impacted land in some way, the impacts all varied. Edouard hardly impacted Bermuda, Rene impacted the Cabo Verdes but that's typical of a CV seed. The same can be said for Vicky. Furthermore, as for the speculation on whether Gamma was a hurricane or not, just because in its final advisories its winds were 70 mph, does not mean it was not a hurricane. The NHC noted the storm was either at or just below hurricane intensity upon its landfall in Tulum. We can speculate all we want, but until the storm's TCR is released, it will remain a tropical storm. Gumballs678 talk 17:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Me thinking at 6:41 AM! Anyway, Arthur didn't claim a life; Vicky did. It's possible Gamma was a hurricane-at first we thought Michael was a category 4. It was then proved to be a category 5. Anyway, I see your CV claim thing. Arthur did $112,000—IMO that's minimal(below $500,000)but your entitled to your opinion.--67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Vicky's precursor caused a death, not the storm itself. Furthermore, Arthur was warranted an article because of its impacts, even if it did cause $112,000. There's not really a requirement for a storm to have an article, but typically, if a storm brings significant impacts to land, it will receive an article. Not always though. But, Vicky's impacts weren't significant enough to warrant an article. Gumballs678 talk 20:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Nominated for ITN

The article, Tropical Storm Gamma (2020) has been nominated for Wikipedia's In The News portal. You can participate in the discussion Here. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Good or featured article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After the 2020 season ends as the most active in history. Will it be tagged as a good or featured article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modokai (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 05:56 October 8

Neither. A full rewrite will be needed to incorporate TCR information and post-storm damage assessments. Both good articles and featured articles are required to go through a review process in order to be promoted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Modokai: it may not be. We need four more tropical storms. It's getting late in the season, and the 2 waves have small chances of being Tropical Storm Epsilon. I'm not fully sure we'll be most active. You can't make assumptions. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Not very late. Also there might be more off-season storms in the season, since there already have been two. I believe we'll get to about Kappa before stuff become too cold for storms. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: WP: OR. We might get to Kappa, Theta, Eta, Zeta, Epsilon or stay at Delta. We could even get down to pi! The point is, saying that it will break 2005 is original research. And giving how any organizing storm has to deal with dry air, if it can't form in 5 days, wind shear will tear it apart. That is the forecast. I can't see Epsilon forming until late October. We need to have an active November. Keep in mind; 2005 had 2 storms in December. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please remember not to turn this discussion into a forum. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, we’re not. But we are breaching WP: OR, so the publisher got a {{uw-or1}} warning. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You know, why don't we just close this discussion? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

Delta currently says as of 4AM CDT 600 UTC but can we fix it so its the same???? 67.85.37.186 (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Teddy and Paulette damage

According to AON, the damage for both Paulette and Teddy is stated as "millions". Currently, it is put as ≥$2 million. Should we change it to >$1 million, or keep it this way? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be >$1 million. "Millions" just implies more than $1 million, not necessarily that it's at least $2 million. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that, feel free to change it to >$1 million then. Please don't forget to also update the hurricane pages themselves. Hurricane21 (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Xth named storm"

This may be kind of splitting hairs, but I notice in a number of articles for this year's storms, we mention that it is the earliest xth named storm, beating records set primary in 2005. But strictly speaking, it's not entirely correct for storms after the Azores subtropical storm. For example, Tammy was the nineteenth named storm, even though it was the twentieth tropical/subtropical storm. Should we change the wording accordingly, or is this too small of a distinction to make? TornadoLGS (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: Strictly speaking, the 2005 Azores storm is not named. However, the NHC counts it as a named storm. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I have gone through and fine-tuned the wording in the 2005 "post-Azores" storm articles regarding the breaking of records by 2020 storms for accuracy with citations. I have also tried to provide such nuanced and accurate statements with citations about the new storm formation records set this year in this article, and would suggest that the various individual storm articles use such wording too. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

When accounting for the record on xth named storm, the Azores storm is counted. It's why, for example, Delta is the 25th named storm, but beat out Gamma, even through Gamma is the 24th name. Because the Azores storm is included in the tally, every storm after it is moved down a number. It's why Wilma in 2005 is the 22nd named storm, and not the 21st. Gumballs678 talk 15:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying to adjust the numbers, but to label systems as "the earliest Xth tropical or subtropical storm," or something to that effect." TornadoLGS (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles (where they exist) for 2020 "earliest" storms through Sally can accurately state that they are "the earliest Xth named Atlantic storm." Articles for storms from Teddy on can accurately state that they are "the earliest Xth tropical or subtropical storm." Drdpw (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: We can not and should not be calling a tropical cyclone the earliest Xth named Atlantic storm anymore as it isn't true and never has been as the NHC are not alone in naming storms over the Atlantic. The UKMO, MetEirrean, Meteo France and various other met services in Europed name storms that impact them and that's not to mention the German FU Berlin which names highs and lows over Europe including the Atlantic Ocean and are used by the German Weather Service.Jason Rees (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

So "earliest Xth tropical or subtropical storm," would indeed be more accurate. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Except you are assuming there that FU Berlin et all have never named a tropical or subtropical storm in the Atlantic - I have no evidence either way.Jason Rees (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You mean an Atlantic tropical or subtropical cyclone recognized by Germany but not the NHC?TornadoLGS (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not quite as I don't think that FU Berlin classifies areas of low pressure, as tropical, subtropical, extratropical, frontal etc, but instead names all lows/highs with the exception of this that are already named by NHC. I also note that they named Ilonas - Udine.Jason Rees (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

So wouldn't that make it appropriate to list storms by when they reached (sub)tropical storm status rather than when they were named, as I proposed? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It also depends upon the way the record is phrased by reliable sources.Drdpw (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jason Rees and Drdpw: Since the NHC is the RSMC for tropical cyclone naming in the Atlantic, it is safe to ignore the FU Berlin and still say “the earliest xth name tropical/subtropical Storm”. The WMO decides the beamed, and the NHC carries them out. These are the official names, not some other name other countries name them.~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually @Destroyeraa: The fact that the NHC is the RSMC for the region would not be an excuse for us not to mention any subtropical or tropical systems that FU Berlin, UKMO, Meteo France etc named or monitored especially as they are also official. Taking Alpha as a hypotethical example Portugal would have been well within their rights to name it Alex as a part of the [[European winname our storms project and we probably would have had to have the article at Subtropical Storm Alex per WP:Common Name. I also note that project consensus is very much against it since we mention PAGASA Names and as well as non RSMC storms around the world. However, we are getting off-topic here and my original point was that we can not say that something is the Nth named storm of 2020 in the Atlantic as FU Berlin, UKMO, Meteo France AEMET all name weather systems in the Atlantic and are official.Jason Rees (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, when backed by a reliable source, we can accurately state that "abcd was the earliest Xth named storm on record in the Atlantic hurricane season, surpassing ...". Drdpw (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You are putting way to many qualifers in there and as i noted above, a named storm is not just tropical or subtropical cyclone anymore.Jason Rees (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

And again, this becomes a non-issue if we simply say "Xth tropical or subtropical storm" instead of "Xth named storm." TornadoLGS (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Record Set By Delta

Hurricane Delta is the 10th named storm to make US landfall in on year, breaking the record set in 1916. Mw843 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but that should be an edit request. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Already notes in the article. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Delta Wind Glitch

NOAA, NHC And The Weather Channel (TWC) Has Officially Downgraded Delta To A Tropical Depression I Tried To Put Delta To 35 MPH But Just Stays At Storm! Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanestudier123: There is no glitch; you have to change other parameters in the infobox. You need to have category= depression and type= tropical depression. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I Did It And Did Not Work Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanestudier123: You may have been editing the hidden hurricane infobox instead of the then-visible "current hurricane" infobox. And please stop capitalizing the first letter of every word.TornadoLGS (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

We need to update the Delta advisory from 7am to 10am. It's now a depression. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. "7am" doesn't appear anywhere in the article, nor is it clear what this even means. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

irrelevant now, but it was the 7am advisory, but it was supposed to be the 10am advisory. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Record activity

Would we be able to create a new section (or subsection, as in the article for the 2005 hurricane season) dedicated to discussing the records set or tied during the 2020 season? I feel there have been enough to justify this. Just a partial list I can think of, mostly mentioned somewhere in the article in its current state:

Seasonal records

1. Earliest named storms (including the table currently there)
2. Consecutive seasons with pre-season activity
3. Most active May
4. Most active July
5. Most active September
6. Most US landfalling tropical cyclones
7. Most Louisiana landfalling tropical cyclones
8. Most storms named in a single day (by the way, did the three in 1893 also occur within 6 hours, or were they only the same day?)

Individual storm records

1. Hurricane Laura: Strongest hurricane at landfall in Louisiana
2. Hurricane Paulette: Possible records including most other tropical cyclones forming during lifespan, also I think I saw something that had to do with its redevelopment
3. Hurricane Sally: Record one-day rainfall at Pensacola, FL (18.17 in)
4. Subtropical storm Alpha: Easternmost forming tropical or subtropical cyclone
5. Subtropical storm Alpha: First tropical or subtropical cyclone to make landfall in mainland Portugal
6. Hurricane Delta: Fastest intensification from tropical depression to category 4 hurricane (28 hours) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvhcmaniac (talk • contribs) 17:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mvhcmaniac: There doesn't need to be an entire section for records because most of them can either be included in the storm's article--or on the storm's summary if it does not an article. Because many of these are trivial, an entire section is unnecessary. And most of them are summarized in the lead. Gumballs678 talk 18:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Too trivial so I removed it. 🌀HurricaneJanor (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mvhcmaniac: Maybe we could add this for post season shenanigans, but we should probably wait until the season is over. Also, I don't believe data from the 19th century is usually acceptable, (though maybe I'm just an idiot) so you're probably good on the wind thing. Gex4pls (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mvhcmaniac, Gumballs678, HurricaneJanor, and Gex4pls: I numbered the records. For the season records, 1 was already listed, 2, 3, and 4 are all trivial, 5 is ok, 6 is ok, 7 is too trivial, 8 is original research. For the individual storm records, 1 is probably already listed, 2 is too trivial, 3 is absolutely not important, 4 is already put, and 5 is already in the article. 6 is also in the article. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What does trivial even mean? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that trivial. Yes, it is for the main article. If we create Records of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, a page meant to be trivial, I'll support this proposal. I agree that Delta's record should be mentioned. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Damage

See [7]. Sally damage at least $8 billion, Isaias close to $6 billion, Laura is at most $12 billion. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

We already determined the damage from AON, a mostly reliable source. We don’t use disaster philanthropy. Ask @Hurricane21: for questions. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC) ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

TS Kyle Or TS Omar Article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I Can't Seem Too Chose What Article To Make! Kyle Or Omar? What Seems Best? Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Neither storm is notable enough for an article. Both went out to sea with minimal impacts and received little attention. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Neither Kyle nor Omar is notable enough for their own article. Both can be adequately covered in this article. Drdpw (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The truth is, this user is making rather disruptive editing in TCs. Just today he violated WP:OR and WP:TOOSOON at the nio article by adding in a "Future BOB 03" section. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There Is No Need To Change The Conversation Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Aslo Yes I Know I have Been Making A Little Disruptive Editing. I'll Try To Stop Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, thank you, though Please Stop Editing In Caps Like This ~ 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure Thing! 🐔 Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If you’re gonna make an article, make it of TS Vicky-effects were minimal but as it killed someone, it could warrant an article. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Vicky Is Not Necessary Too, It Did Not Affect Any Land (Not Counting As A Low) and Yes It Killed Someone But As A Low Not As The Storm. Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Gonzalo Fine? Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Neither. They are not notable enough, and fail GNG. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don’t mean to be rude, but to put it bluntly - all the past storms that don’t currently have articles won’t have articles. And also, please Don’t Do This. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

TS Omar and TS Kyle did minimal effects. Really, I'd support merging Hurricane Epsilon. Tropical Storm Vicky was a low, but a life is a life. It did do more damage. I'd support closing this as no consensus. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why the argument for Vicky keeps being brought up as the storm doesn't really warrant an article, just like Omar, Kyle, and Edouard don't. Furthermore, I'm not sure why Epsilon was brought into the discussion. Hurricane Epsilon warranted an article because 1) it became a hurricane in December, 2) set multiple records as a hurricane in December, and 3) is the record 27th named storm of its season. Gumballs678 talk 16:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright I’ll make an argument why we are not following other stuff exists -

1. Edouard did minimal damage to Bermuda. Mostly a fish storm
2. Gonzalo actually did do a bit of damage, but not enough to warrant an article
3. Josephine was a fish storm
4. Kyle was a fish storm
5. Omar was a fish storm
6. Rene caused minimal damage, not enough to warrant an article
7. Vicky did cause one death, but a lot of storms with one deaths do not get an article. Damage was too limited,
8. Wilfred was a fish storm.

Did I get all of them? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Dolly was a fish storm as well. That covers every named storm that didn't get an article. Every storm from this year that warrants an article already has one. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS and Destroyeraa: we forgot one. Tropical Depression 10 was a fishspinner that had extremely minimal, if any, effects on Cape Verde. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is not enough notability to spin out an article for either of them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dolly, Edouard, Gonzalo, Josephine, Kyle, Omar, Rene, Vicky, Wilfred, and More-To-Come are simply not notable and any attempts to create articles on them will be quickly squashed by an AGF revert. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose-we forgot Tropical Depression Ten. Now, Vicky could be an article for two reasons, but only two.
  1. First, it claimed a life, but second(my new justification)
  2. It was a "V" storm and broke numerous formation records, as well as having 5 tropical cyclones concurrently, which I believe happened twice while it was active.
• However; Dolly, Ten, Kyle, Omar, and Winfred were fish storms, Eduoard and Rene did extremely light damage, and Gonzalo and Vicky are bordering on an article but we didn't make one.
• Also, we could merge Tropical Storm Arthur, which did extremely light($112,000)in damages and didn't make landfall.
• Hurricane Vince also did less damage then Vicky and was the other "V" storm, but just an article striking Iberia is significant. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  What does everyone think of merging Arthur per 67.85.37.186? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Not every storm has to make landfall to have an article. Arthur brought impacts to the US, which typically warrants an article. Furthermore, not every storm that breaks a record needs to have an article, especially considering every storm after Edouard has broken a record. Vicky still doesn't need an article, even if it impacted Cabo Verde because multiple storms throughout a season do the same and don't necessarily end up with articles, especially if they don't impact land later on. The same goes for Gonzalo. I don't know what argument is being made for it, but it doesn't need to have an article. Every storm that has one, deserves one, and the ones that don't, do not need one. Gumballs678 talk 12:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I, personally, am an inclusionist, and I do not believe that Arthur should be merged, as to not make the 2020 AHS article become even more bloated than it is. Its readable prose size alone is... wait for it... 74 kb. Too much, I believe. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. And with potentially more storms coming in the season, that will only grow larger. I'll accept merging Arthur if someone has a good explanation on why it should be Gumballs678 talk 13:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. And that should be a message for anyone who likes creating articles for non notable fish storms. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I withdraw my Vicky and Arthur claims, but Gonzalo could use an article. Yes, it only did a few thousand dollars in damage, and didn't kill anyone, but it's rare for a tropical storm to affect S America, and it was expected to be worse(we can make a huge preporations section). --67.85.37.186 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed because of WP:POINT) Merge TS Arthur?

This whole discussion is getting off topic and pointy. I'm closing this for humanity's sake - if you wish to merge Arthur (again), do it on Arthur's talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quicklink for reference: Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) I am making this section in response to the suggestion above. I encourage editors to read my objections before making a quick judgement by looks or current article size alone. The entire "Meteorological history" section of the article uses a single primary source (WP:PRIMARY). The formation and events surrounding any given tropical system are considered to be routine unless something is unusual in the way they form or develop. Damage was limited in the Caribbean according to the sources used. "Although Arthur never directly impacted Florida as a tropical system, the precursor system to Arthur caused heavy rainfall and gusty winds in the Florida Keys and South Florida throughout May 13-14. Over 4 in (101.6 mm) of rain fell in many sections of the Middle Keys and a peak rainfall total of 5.35 in (135.8 mm) fell in Marathon on May 14, where it was the tenth highest rainfall amount for the city on record and second most for May." This is a bit of a stretch... if the sources are not directly blaming the rainfall on Arthur then it could be seen as WP:SYNTH. The rest of the impacts section is full of WP:ROUTINE news reports about rainfall during a tropical system. When tropical systems hit, there is going to be rainfall and flooding. Nothing unusual or WP:LASTING about that unless it is noted otherwise. So in conclusion... I do not think Arthur needs an article. The information can be condensed into a summary that does not go into run of the mill detailed information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Comment I tried to merge it less than a month ago, and in May this was nominated for merging. Both discussions ended with speedy close and keep. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Sometimes you have to wait until the air is cleared to propose things. I know editors are eager to make articles to help inform readers, but we also have policies in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC) The MH section uses the National Hurricane Center as its only source. The impact section can be condensed to only include the most relevent information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC) FYI, all TC articles use the NHC as the only source. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Yeah which is wrong and against policy. Not all articles use it for their MH sections... Hurricane Andrew uses NOAA, the National Weather Service, and historical societies for example. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC) You still have not said how the formation of Arthur was not routine? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC) I'm not saying that something that isn't routine needs an article (for example Pablo 2019). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC) I meant to say this before but we are going into WP:OSE. Does the following give a good enough summary of the MH section: "On May 14, The NHC began monitoring an area of disturbed weather which was expected to form just north of Cuba in a couple of days. The interaction of an upper-level trough and a stalled front over the Florida Straits led to the formation of a low-pressure area in that region on May 15. The system moved north-northeast and developed into a tropical depression east of Florida around 18:00 UTC on May 16, before an Air Force reconnaissance aircraft found that it had become Tropical Storm Arthur six hours later. Arthur weaved along the Gulf Stream and changed little in intensity as it encountered increasing wind shear. After passing east of North Carolina, the system reached peak winds of 60 mph (95 km/h) as deep convection partially covered the center. Shortly after, Arthur interacted with another front and became an extratropical cyclone by 12:00 UTC on May 20. The low turned southeast before dissipating near Bermuda a day later." Why do we need to include intricate detail into routine events covered by the NHC? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Merge-didn't make landfall, minimal damage, WP: PRIMARY, Vicky doesn't have an article, etc. etc. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC) This whole discussion just sounds wishy-washy, we're arguing that Arthur shouldn't have an article because of improper usage of a source, which I have yet to see a "policy" on that, as well as having intricate detail, but most of the storms this system do both of those things. Should we merge all of them? There's not really an argument here. Furthermore, a storm doesn't need to make landfall or cause excessive damage to have an article. Are we maybe cutting the rope a little short by giving Arthur an article? Sure, but I have yet to see ample evidence or reasoning as to why Arthur shouldn't have an article. The storm summary is already bulky enough as is, why do we need to add more to it for a storm that brought relative, albeit small, impacts to the United States? Hurricane Gert (2017) has an article and it brought even less impacts to the United States. Is there an actual guideline on how we decide which storms get articles and which don't, and if there is, where I can find it? Gumballs678 talk 20:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Off-topic discussion about WP policies The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Sadly not @Gumballs678: but you can make one with the help of our admins. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC) So then what is the point of this discussion if there's inconsistencies on how we decide which storms get articles? Gumballs678 talk 20:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC) WP:OSE is not a good argument to use. I am talking about this article.... I gave plenty of reasons why Arthur shouldn't have an article with WP:LASTING and WP:ROUTINE rationales. You are not dismissing my arguments but are saying "what about x...?" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC) That's my point though, you're arguing that because Arthur isn't notable, it shouldn't have an article, but I brought up Gert because it the storm is also not notable, but has an article. We can't have a discussion about merging a storm because it isn't notable while still having another storm that fits the same criterion keep its article. It's inconsistent. Furthermore, I'm not sure how routine knowledge applies to Arthur, you're argument there is because its a tropical cyclone, its going to bring rain and flooding, but in every tropical cyclone article, there is at least mention of the rain and flooding impacts the storm brings. That is also inconsistent. This is why I still believe this discussion is unnecessary because the rationales and arguments being used are not being used consistently. We can't just talk about Arthur, even though this about Arthur, because then inconsistencies arise. Gumballs678 talk 20:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC) We have WP:N for a reason, so notability does indeed count when deciding to make an article. There is nothing at Wikipedia:Consistency that says article x gets to stay because article y exists. In fact most of the arguments point to things you should avoid in deletion discussions. I am fine with articles for storms as long as they are notable enough for inclusion, its how it is everywhere on Wikipedia from shootings to storms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC) That's kind of the point of WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't it? If you want to be consistent, perhaps a merge discussion for Gert is warranted as well. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Arthur's lack of notability isn't the issue, I agree that the storm isn't notable. Consistency needs to be discussed here, because the project relies and thrives on consistency across the board. We can't agree to merge one storm because it doesn't meet the "requirements" of an article, when we're ignoring other storms that also don't meet those same standards. If it comes down to Arthur's article being deleted and merged based on its lack of notability, then we need to go back and at least discuss the same standard for other storms that have articles that aren't notable, like @TornadoLGS: mentioned above. Gumballs678 talk 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Im sorry but like it or not WP:N is a Wikipedia guideline that states: "Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". If you want to propose a section on article Wikipedia:Consistency when I suggest the WP:PUMP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Consistency is also a Wikipedia guideline. But, you missed the point of both mine and TornadoLGS's post, we're not arguing that Arthur isn't notable. We're arguing that consistency needs to take precedence in the future if it is decided that Arthur's article should be merged. Gumballs678 talk 21:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Consistency is not a Wikipedia guideline and does not go before the notability of an article. If Arthur is merged then this discussion can be used as a baseline based on policy arguments rather than referring to WP:WAX. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC) stop arguing. I suggest we merge Gert as well. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC) I am not going to discuss something off topic and want to focus on Arthur as I have cited specific examples. We can always have further discussions down the line regarding storms as a whole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC) The notability guideline only applies to whether we include the storms in the first place in a season article, and we generally include any storm recognized by an official agency (which establishes the notability). I recommend waiting until after the season is done. Considering the length of the season article, I think we should keep Arthur's article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Keep as I don't think we should be merging storms that had impact into an already 300k season article. NoahTalk 21:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC) WP:POINT. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Comment I recommended we merge Gert. Check out this discussion. Signing off. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC) No. This discussion on this talk page is not about merging Hurricane x, y, and z. It’s about merging Arthur. Let’s keep with the proper merge discussion, and not get off topic. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC) We can discuss merging Gert on that storm's page. Gert was only brought up as an example within my argument. Gumballs678 talk 22:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC) ok but i did make the proposal. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Slightly off-topic comment with respect to the arguments about the season article being >300 kB: FWIW I think most of the individual sections are too long and likely need to be trimmed when the TCRs are released. E.g. Cristobal and Hanna having 2 long paragraphs of MH each doesn't seem right when they have their own articles. Excessive details about wind/pressure going up and down every few hours, like in Omar's and Rene's sections, should also be condensed. This isn't likely to drop the readable prose below 60 kB, however (currently it's 76 kB), which means a lower-than-normal standard for splitting should be considered. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Strong keep The MH has FIFTEEN REFS. And, as a reminder, if we merge Arthur, then we will bloat the season article above 76 kb, perhaps to 80kb. See WP:Article size. Pages for Dolly, Edouard, Gonzalo, etc. don't exist because of no or minimal impact. But minimal impact is like $25 thousand in damage. Arthur's figure is $112 thousand. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC) The MH has 15 references all supported by a single primary source. We need secondary sources to establish notability for a stand alone article. As I pointed out above the information is nicely put into a summary on the main page without bloating things with un-needed details. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Comment-Arthur did $112,000. However, there was nothing else notable. Just a week later, Tropical Storm Bertha was a bigger threat. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC) This is why both have an article. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC) k e e p because merging it with the season would just bloat it up more; its already, like, the length of the f e a t u r e d article Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007), and then the 15 refs, so that adds up to a keep. (btw there are 4 keeps, and 1 merge as of now) Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC) yeah, we don’t need some of the info. I suggest we trim the article before continuing. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC) MergeNo landfall, minimal damage., I always thought it was iffy to have an article for such an inconsequential storm. The calls to keep outnumbering the calls to merge is irrelevant, per WP:NOTDEM. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Lean keep, comment The article seems to be long enough and have enough unique information, though the fact that this debate was already had on Arthur's page itself and it only seemed to survive by the skin of its teeth suggests that it shouldn't have even survived to this point. My vote is keep, but I think we should honor the votes cast in that discussion too when factoring in the votes cast here. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Comment —3 for merge, 6 for keep. Also, Destroyeraa i know Bertha has an article-I'm saying it was more notable then Arthur as it claimed a life and did $133,000-which is $21,000 more then Arthur. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Bertha also has an article because it made landfall, which makes Bertha irrelevant to this discussion. I'm personally for keeping the article, because the article contains enough information to warrant keeping. But, merging the article would only swell the main page more than it already is. Gumballs678 talk 19:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Again - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Also, Gumballs678, you just said above that you support merging this article. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC) I said I would agree to merge the article, if its decided that it should be merged based on the storm's lack of notability, but that does not appear to be the case, as those who are in favor of merging it, are more so for the storm not making landfall and having minimal impacts. If me "changing" my vote throws a wrench in things, then we don't have to use it. Gumballs678 talk 19:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Arthur lacks notability because its impact was minimal. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC) We should really have this on the Tropical Storm Arthur talk page. I added a quicklink. This direly needs subsections, as well.--67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC) There already was a discussion about merging Arthur on its talk page and it was voted to stay. It seems rather counterintuitive to do it twice Gumballs678 talk 21:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Actually the discussion was closed for being "stale" with most of the opinions in favor of a merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Right. It's counterintuitive to bring it up on the storm's talk page again, because of the first discussion and its end result. What should happen, since it's already happening, is continue the discussion here, and then incorporate any and all arguments from that first discussion into this one. Gumballs678 talk 21:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Oh sorry, yeah I agree with you 100% which is why we have WP:FORUMSHOPPING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC) All good :) Gumballs678 talk 21:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Keep. It's going to bloat up 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, and it might keep 2020 Atlantic hurricane season out of the gate for GA. Note that this isn't 2008 Atlantic hurricane season, which is in a reasonable size. SMB99thx my edits 08:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Comment I was originally going to say this at 11:25 UTC or 7:25 AM for me but I had to go to school. Now that I'm home and it's 2:19 PM, I want to say that yes, it may bloat the article, but we can trim other stuff. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC) To expand a little, have of Arthur is literally just about preporations and can be merged. This is literally why Gonzalo doesn't have an article. I also say this is organized into Merge, Keep and then comments are left scattered, to give it more organization. The last one had support, but it was Stale . --67.85.37.186 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Listing fatalities

Is there a "standard" way of displaying fatalities on each hurricane's page? As of now I'm noticing three different ways, first being in the "X total" format, second being in the "X direct, Y indirect" format, and third being in the plain "X" format. Shouldn't we display everything in the same format? If you agree let me know which method you think is best. Hurricane21 (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Option 3, I believe, is the standard one. Option B is for very recent seasons. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 09:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll update everything using that format. Hurricane21 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No... the word total is used when we cant figure out the direct and indirect numbers. The plain Jane is when only direct deaths occur. Noah^Talk 16:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I see, I'll update again to include "total" next to the number. Hurricane21 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you said the word "total" is used when we can't figure out direct vs indirect numbers but I have seen the number listed in the "X total" format even when we do have the direct vs indirect count. My original question was shouldn't we just stick to one format instead of randomly displaying the numbers in different formats on different pages? Also how about on the season page itself? Sometimes I see the total listed as one number and sometimes I see it broken down into direct and indirect in the "X (Y)" format. Should we stick to one format there as well? And If so which one? Hurricane21 (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane21: The X total and the X direct, Y indirect are both acceptable. For example, some articles use the X total format, while others like Hurricane Florence use the X direct, Y indirect format.~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane21: I prefer X and Y format. For example, Andrew killed 60% of people indirectly and some post storm. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hyperactive

@MarioProtIV: per WP:BRD, I disagree about calling this season hyperactive unless there is an authoritative source explicitly referring to it as such. While this is an extreme season in terms of the number of named storms, the only definition of hyperactivity that I am aware of is based solely on ACE. I'm afraid calling it hyperactive on any other basis would be original research. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. I'm not sure if there's an official "definition" for hyperactivity other than how its described in an ACE value, which as it stands, the season does not yet meet that requirement. I think its better-suited to say that activity has occurred at a record pace, or however, it was worded prior to the addition of the "hyperactive" in the lead. If the season ends up with an ACE that qualifies as hyperactive, then we can mention it then. Gumballs678 talk 18:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

2017 was hyperactive due to a high ACE, but also 17 storms making it the 12th most active season(behind 2019,1969,1887,1995,2010,2011,2012,1933,2020 and 2005). It had 3 storms with ACE's over 40-Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Maria and Hurricane Jose. However, I would call this season hyperactive–even due to the lack of category 5s, hyperactive, because clearly it's a rough season. Then again, only 36% of our tropical storms even intensified to hurricanes, and not until Hurricane Hanna. Therefore, I oppose this sentence. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Delta image

Alright I don't want to violate WP:3RR, and I brought the discussion here so more people can participate:

Images

image 1

image 2

Image 1 is of Delta rapidly intensifying and possibly at peak wind intensity on October 6. Image 2 is of Delta intensifying east of Texas with an eye on October 8.

The past discussion is below. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer image 2. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Past discussion (this is rough)

I was hoping this wouldn't happen because it was going to be annoying to add in, but it has, so I'm going to lay it out.

Delta reached a peak 3 different times. The first was when it reached Category 4 intensity (130 mph; 954 mb). The second came shortly after the first (145 mph; 956 mb). The final came this morning (120 mph; 953 mb). How do we list this in the article? I'm not going to act like I know how right now.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We usually go by peak wind speed. It's the same deal as with Hurricane Sandy, which had its maximum winds and lowest pressure on different dates. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The lowest pressure is officially the peak intensity, since the intensity of a TC is based on its pressure. In this case, the pictures of peak intensity all have a blob of a system that is ugly and small. The one with the lowest pressure actually has an eye. Per WP:WPTC/S, we don't always have to put the peak intensity as the picture. An important stage in the TC's lifespan, such as landfall, lowest pressure, the best "looks" (eye formation) also is fine. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

An also, the NHC redacted its peak intensity on the besttrack, and the peak intensity is now 120 kt (140 mph). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In any case, we list both the maximum winds and the lowest pressure for the peak, even if they dad different time. Again, see Hurricane Sandy. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is true TornadoLGS. I was mistaken, I was thinking about the image in the infobox. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We usually go by minimum central pressure when referring to the storm's peak intensity. But given this storm's unique behavior (including the mismatch between the intervals with maximum winds and lowest pressure), I think it would be well worth mentioning each of the storm's 3 peaks in the lead. As for the main infobox image, I personally prefer the image of the 3rd peak - it looks better and the storm is at its lowest recorded pressure at that point. We have no hardline policy regarding the main images, but even following WPTC precedent, Delta is not a clear-cut case. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As @LightandDark2000: said, we should mention all three peaks, since a Delta is such an unique storm. I do feel that the NHC will revise the peak intensity, as they already did on the BT (it was downgraded to 120 kt, 140 mph, but protocol requires us to follow the advisories until the TCR comes out). However, as the storm isn’t done now, it’s a bit too soon for us to put it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If we go by peak pressure rather than peak wind speed, then why does Hurricane Sandy's infobox image show it at peak wind speed? Is it because it was going through extratropical transition at that peak? TornadoLGS (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that was Sandy's actual peak. Sandy's minimum pressure of 940 mbars also coincided with the time at which it reached Category 2 intensity, a pattern that is typical of most tropical cyclones. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The TCR for Sandy shows peak wind speed on October 25 at 100 knots with pressure at 954 mbar. The 940 mbar pressure was on October 29 when winds were 80 knots. The page satellite image shows it at the earlier peak. So, either that image should be changed, or we can show Delta at its initial 120-knot peak. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, we don't have a hard requirement here to do either in the case of such mismatches. And Sandy was undergoing extratropical transition when it reached its peak (as measured by pressure), which is probably one of the reasons why the October 29 image wasn't used. And I see an inconsistency in the Sandy article. I'm going to have to correct that. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind, if we use peak intensity by pressure in the images here, that has many loopholes. One, Delta reached Category 4 intensity, yet we are showing an image of it while it a Category 3 hurricane, which is rather misleading. Two, Matthew's image of peak intensity is while it is at Category 5 intensity, yet the storm reached its minimum pressure as a Category 4 hurricane. Same can go for Sandy, which was a Category 1 hurricane when it reached its peak intensity, yet it was a Category 3 hurricane at its initial peak, and the image rightly used is where Sandy is a Category 3 hurricane in the Caribbean. I think that we should give this storm the Sandy treatment, because the general public considered Delta at its peak in the Caribbean, as it weakened and struck Louisiana in the gulf, because the general public doesn't care about minimum pressure whatsoever. They care about the winds and what damage it causes. Therefore, since this is an encyclopedia, I believe that we should be using Delta's peak intensity image as its wind speeds, and not the image of it at Category 3 strength, due to how misleading and confusing it is. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 13:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneGonzalo: The initial "peak" of Delta is a trash image that has no eye and isn't clear. The new peak is a better image with an eye and has a lower pressure. Also, the NHC redacted its peak intensity of 125 kt (145 mph) and instead put a new PI of 120 kt (140 mph). The Sandy treatment won't be used because Sandy was an ugly half-extratropical cyclone at the 940 mbar peak. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: The only reason Sandy didn't get its 940 mbar peak put down because that image was ugly and not representative of the storm. On the other hand, the 953 mbar peak of Delta is arguably the best image we have of the storm - an eye, outflow, lowest pressure, etc. The 956 mbar/140 mph peak image is of low quality and has no eye feature. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: There are several problems with your argument. The main one is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not to be edited with opinions, but rather facts. The image of the storm currently is misleading. And, so? Delta was 140 mph...which is still Cat 4. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 15:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Destroyeraa. Sandy and Matthew had eyes at their peak winds, but Delta showed ZERO signs of a visible eye when it had winds of 145 mph. Therefore, I don't like displaying that peak image of Delta despite the fact that the hurricane was 13 mph short of Category 5 intensity there. I'm more willing to display the image of it when it was barely a major, BUT with a clean, well-formed visible eye with an eyewall. It would give the wrong impression if we put the other image because that is not the common appearance of an intense hurricane and lay people may get confused when they see it.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Delta did have a hint of an eye feature at its wind peak, and as TornadoLGS said, we typically use wind speed peak when it comes to images. Not appearance. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 15:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Typically does not mean always. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, obviously. But keep in mind, the general public does not care about a storm's appearance. They heard that Delta was a "dangerous, Category 4 hurricane in the Caribbean", so they are going to expect to see a dangerous, Category 4 hurricane in the Caribbean when they find an image of it, not a reorganizing Category 3 in the Gulf of Mexico. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 15:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hint of an eye and eye are to different things. Also, if you want to talk about always showing peaks, look at Hurricane Michelle and Hurricane Nicole (2016), storms with images that were (a)showing peaks at minimum pressures and (b)showing a pic well after peak.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As I have now said multiple times, not a single person in the general public cares about the appearance of a storm. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 15:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

And don't forget Hurricane Sally. We have a pic of it at peak intensity, yet the image we are using for it is when it was a Category 1. Besides, how long was Delta a Category 4? Delta made both its landfalls at Category 2 intensity so just because it reached Category 4 in the Western Caribbean doesn't mean we have to show it there.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

So why are you not using images at peak? Doesn't that defeat the point of your entire argument against trying to change the image of Delta from peak pressure? HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 15:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I tried to. I was overuled.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I also tried to put it in the article itself (which is where I also put the Delta peak wind pic) and it got removed because there were too many pics. The point is that you may say putting in peak pressure is a matter of opinion, but peak winds is matter of opinion too. However, I think the biggest flaw on the Category 4 pic is the lack of an eye. People looking for a "dangerous hurricane in the Caribbean" are going to see a storm with no eye and instead inquire about whether or not the storm was as strong as they said it was. I don't want the pic to just display a hurricane; I want the pic to give a meaningful, accurate, familiar appearance to the storms we all know and come to fear (or love or whatever you do with these storms. LOL!). The Cat 4 pic ain't cutting it for me. People will remember Delta for what it did in the U.S. more then Mexico anyway.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There is zero logic to using minimum pressure for peak intensity if the winds did not peak at the same time. if we followed Destroyeraa’s flawed reasoning you’d have to go and change Matthew and Sandy’s images to much sloppier images. Omar 2008 had a ragged peak and barely an eye yet we use it’s peak image. So there’s absolutely no reason to change this so people should stop complaining about looks and deal with it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy that we need to put the peak wind intensity for every single tropical cyclone. I disagree with changing all of the systems to peak pressure intensity, such as Sandy or Michael. I just want to want a picture that accurately represents the best look of the storm, while being close to a peak intensity. See Hurricane Hugo, Hurricane Michelle, Hurricane Nicole (2016), among others. The image Mario wants to put up is sloppy and does not show an impressive hurricane. There is no eye on that picture. We don't always have to put storms at peak intensity is my point. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As for the images, they don't have to be when the storm was at peak intensity. It should just be whatever is the most iconic image of the storm, and in this case I think it should be the GoM pic. Mario brought up Sandy - maybe that should be it nearing its US landfall, as opposed to its peak. But that's for a different discussion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: The "old" picture in the Gulf is fine as it is until you changed it. And you changed it back without notifying everyone on this [Delta's] page. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

!Votes

Don't don't get off-topic (like Arthur) please. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of Delta's second image. I think the first image, which depicts its peak intensity, could be misleading to readers who look at it because the storm at peak intensity didn't show a clear, visible eye (it did have a very small eye at one point during its rapid intensification phase, but the eye never cleared fully to be visible by the human eye), whereas the storm's secondary peak, when it regained major hurricane intensity in the Gulf, shows a clear eye. Gumballs678 talk 01:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Alright, I'm going to put my opinion here. I support the second image of Delta, as Gumballs678 has said, it is the most representative of the storm, with a clear eye. In addition, the WPTC guidelines never say that we need to use the pressure or wind peaks as the storm's image. Whatever image that is most iconic, as Hurricanehink said, is used (though this differs in some cases, for example Sandy was iconic for it's US landfall, but the image shows an post-tropical cyclone). In addition, the first image is not of the best quality, since it is too colorful with too many blues and greens and sun reflections. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)