Talk:Hurricane Michael

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2019

At the end of the first paragraph in the "Florida" sub-section, please change

Several F-22 fighters were also damaged, with a replacement value of about $6 billion if repair is not possible.

to

Seventeen F-22 fighters were not able to be evacuated from the base; while there were early fears that they had been destroyed, all were able to be flown off the base after minor repairs.

Other points in the article referring to the $6 billion value of fighters left behind at the base should probably be updated, as all are based on outdated references written prior to recovery efforts. In the meantime, to prevent reference errors, also change

<ref name="destroyed US fighter jets" />

in the third paragraph of the article lede to

<ref name="destroyed US fighter jets">{{citenews|url=https://www.democracynow.org/2018/10/26/while_trump_calls_climate_change_a|title=While Trump Calls Climate Change a Hoax, Hurricane Michael Damaged US Fighter Jets Worth $6 Billion|publisher=Democracy Now!|date=October 26, 2018|accessdate=October 26, 2018}}</ref> 130.216.208.173 (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 23:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Revision of MH

@ModulatedRotation: Exactly what is wrong with the current version of the meteorological history that requires us to much more closely paraphrase the TCR? There are numerous other issues too:

• Using unnecessarily jargony wording like "vorticity center" (WP:AUDIENCE)
• Numerous grammar errors, such as excessive conjunctions in "The pause was temporary, and rapid intensification resumed by 12:00 UTC on October 9, and the hurricane turned north-northwestward that day under the influence of the aforementioned mid-level ridge.", and "the maximum winds dropped below the category 3 equivalent on the SSHWS scale before the eye moved into southwestern Georgia at around 21:30 on October 10"
• Numerous styling errors, such as "and a hurricane a day later by 12:00 UTC on 8 October" (purely redundant) and "85 knots (98 mph; 157 km/h)" (use of knots and not following NHC rounding conventions)
• Clustering all of the first few references out of context, in violation of citation guidelines

You have yet to specify what exactly is "wrong" with the current description, and in any case you should not merely paraphrase the TCR.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Nothing is wrong with those sentences that you have provided, except the knots value, which I should've made MPH and KM/H with the correct rounding conventions. The paragraph isn't a paraphrase, but a rewrite based on the TCR and discussions (clearly you haven't made the effort to look at that and I'm not surprised looking at your ignorance). ModulatedRotation - Talk here 18:44, 9 July 2020 (GMT)

@ModulatedRotation: No, there is something clearly wrong with the quoted sentences (and others – this is only a selection). And this is a close paraphrase, with lots of phrases left unmodified, such as "Michael rapidly weakened after its landfall" (use [1] and it will be evident). Another poorly-written sentence: "Dry air northward of the system caused initial decay in the eyewall, and subsequent pausing of intensification occurred as it reached the southeastern Gulf of Mexico late on 8 October." Also, stop trying to harass me off-wiki with personal attacks; you will be blocked if you continue.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Protecting admin comments

This page has been protected for 48 hours due to this edit war. Please note that protecting the current version of the page is not an endorsement of its content (see WP:PREFER), and I am not taking a position in this content discussion. However, in regard to the discussion above, I will note that there doesn't have to be anything "wrong" with the current version of the page for an edit to be an improvement. I encourage you both to work congenially above to reach a consensus. –Darkwind (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darkwind: First, let me say that my choice of "wrong" was not the right word choice, but it's still clear that (s)he needs to justify why their version is better than the status quo especially with the problems I pointed out above. Also, they are on a wikibreak and it is unlikely the protection will have much effect.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Split?

Should we split the Florida section off? I personally don't think we should as the current one is bloated a bit and it is the primary area of impact. Without it, the article would be small even if everything else got expanded. What does everyone else think? Noah^Talk 14:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Unless someone has plans to significantly expand the content in the Florida impacts section, there would be absolutely no benefit to an article split here. Most of Michael's impacts were in Florida. Additionally, we are nowhere near the readable prose limit for Hurricane Michael's article, so a split isn't even necessary to begin with. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons listed by LND, I don't see a reason why it needs to be split off when it can easily be covered in the main article. Perhaps something like "Effects of Hurricane Michael in the southeastern United States" would fill an article better. AveryTheComrade (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's just like the 1900 Galveston hurricane, where most of the impacts were in Texas. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 00:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose literally no point because most of the impacts were in Florida, so there is no need. HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 01:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose for Florida but maybe Georgia or Honduras or Mexico could have an article. 170.24.150.111 (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose — Same as with every other split discussion I've commented on: work on the main article first and revisit after. It's not long enough to warrant splitting at present and no effort toward expansion has been shown. Without actual improvements splitting just creates a needless WP:CFORK and leads to articles rotting away. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- I looked over the article and there is a great deal of Florida content. I could see having a separate subarticle for Florida, and simply using its lede within this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)