Jump to content

Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 47.208.20.130 (talk) at 23:34, 19 September 2017 (→‎175>185?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Hurricane

Ground rules on "potential tropical cyclones"

Since this year will likely include advisories on disturbances, some ground rules on how we'll treat them in the article need to be put forth. Senior members of the project have already agreed that when active, we will treat "potential tropical cyclones" like a normal system. Active TC templates will be used and there will be a section for them under the "Storms" header. If the system ultimately fails to become a tropical cyclone and advisories are discontinued, it will be placed under the "Other storms" sub-section and given less detail. If the system has significant impact, we'll have to discuss what to do then. No statistics will be kept for these systems in the infobox or season effects table. This is because the NHC would only be providing advisories on land-threats rather than all disturbances, so it's not a comprehensive category like with depressions. In essence, they will be treated like unofficial storms after the fact. If you have any questions/input, feel free to comment below. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with all of that, having echoed similar sentiments a few months back (higher up on the talk page). Let's be organized so we have a plan going into the season. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would their be some cases where if the PTC is expected to strengthen to a C2/3 for example and is expected to hit, say, Florida, an article could be created with the title "Potential Tropical Cyclone [Number] (2017)"? Also would "Other systems" be a main section header rather then the subsection it is now? Other then that I agree with all of your points. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A case like that would be very unlikely. If it did happen, however, that would essentially mean the system was a non-event and whatever preparations for the system did take place can be briefly covered in the main season article. If you're talking about creating an article while the system is still active, that would probably be unnecessary and we can simply wait until it receives a name. Wikipedia isn't a news agency so we don't have to have everything immediately. The "Other systems/storms" section could be a main header given that it has a specific set of storms that would be covered. We'll start it off as a sub-header and if there's enough content we can move it to a main header. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've flipped flopped offsite on this in the past, but in the end, I think I'm ok with this. Honestly if the PTC is not a TC but is article worthy, make a flood article. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2016 Louisiana floods is a decent example of a PTC that didn't make the cut but was high-impact. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know I have not edited on here for a while, but I like the idea of doing this. But rather than putting them under the name "Potential Tropical Cyclone (Number)", I would rather have it under its invest designation. So if we were to put Invest 90L (March) on here, its section header would also be Invest 90L (March). HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 11:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we did that, the entire section would be cluttered mainly because of failed invests. I think having just "Potential Tropical Cyclone [Number]" is fine. Plus 90L failed so there is no reason to add it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The advisory header will presumably say Potential Tropical Cyclone X though. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, avoid the invest number. They repeat, anyway. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NHC stated that they will number potential tropical cyclones the same as depressions, and one sequence will be used per season. Depressions will retain their PTC number. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit, Yeah, I get it now. I was confused for a second. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 11:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we include PTC's on timeline graphs? I'd say no since they are not TC's. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the timeline is only for TCs IMO, and I don't think it should be cluttered with PTCs that fail to develop. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A similar situation exists with the SW Indian Ocean where you get Zones of Disturbed Weather and Tropical Disturbances, which eventually end up in the statistical record. For now, I would include them as systems, but after the season, they may end up as "other systems" or "other storms". If they develop though then that is a moot point. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way ZODW and TDI are recorded in the SWIO are different from the Atlantic I think, so I think they should only be in the "Other systems" section. Plus Cyclone said this in April regarding this: "No statistics will be kept for these systems in the infobox or season effects table. This is because the NHC would only be providing advisories on land-threats rather than all disturbances, so it's not a comprehensive category like with depressions." --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They should be added to the timeline and the table at the end, but not given individual sections unless they become actual TC's, just like we list disturbances in the southern hemisphere and "minor" TD's in the western Pacific. Let us please be consistent across different basins.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The basic rule in other basins is too include all systems that have been numbered including tropical disturbances and zone of disturbed weathers in all main sections (Infobox, Systems, Season Effects Charts, Timelines, button bars etc). As a result, I do not see any reason to exclude PTC's that are numbered and am concerned at @MarioProtIV:'s comment about dropping systems just because they failed to develop.Jason Rees (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jason Rees. I think, like in other basins, potential tropical cyclones should be included in the timeline, season effects table, main article infobox, buttons, and so on. The NHC would not have bothered issuing a proper advisory with an actual designation such as Potential Tropical Cyclone Two if the system was not of note - it is more than just a low pressure area. Consequently, I think it would be improper for us to banish PTCs to the other systems section rather than include them in the main area of the article purely based on our own assessment of the systems being 'not strong enough'... because they clearly are strong enough according to the NHC. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna revive this for a short while to ask about POTC 10 and the season effects table. @Cyclonebiskit: you already brought this up in April regarding they wouldn't be added, but since POTC 10 affected the Carolinas (and me indirectly as it becomes extratropical) should it be in "Season effects" or are we just leaving it out all together? I would want to know this so in the future when we get systems/POTCs like this year's 10L, we know what to do with it. Of course, I am going to add the "Other systems" section for it once the last advisory is issued (presumably at 5 IMO) --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It only gets a mention in "Other storms", not the table. This is because they're not uniformly warned upon across the basin. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In case any of you are interested, I've started a sandbox article for PTC Ten in my own userspace, here. I'm going to be keeping it there for the time being, but if any of you decide that there's enough weight to move the article into Wikipedia mainspace, please let me know. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irma article?

At what point does a Hurricane Irma article become appropriate? Would fulfilling the forecast to be the highest intensity hurricane of the season be enough or must it make major landfall? 12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We usually split off an article when it has enough major impacts such that its section in the season article (in this case here) becomes too large to be adequately summarised there. There's no need for one right now since Irma hasn't started to impact the Lesser Antilles; that's at least a week away. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 02:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL we should wait to make this a standalone article. As of right now, there should not be a standalone article on the subject. That being said, I strongly advise editors to start drafting content for a Hurricane Irma article as there is significant data to support the idea that this hurricane will soon be impacting the Antilles as well as coastal areas of the North American mainland, specifically the southeast region. For now, those interested in contributing to this article should find data related to its formation and add it to their personal Sandbox. In the event that Irma (hopefully) causes no noteworthy damage, any data we find can be added to the subsection in the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season article. As Irma is expected to strengthen significantly over the next five days and poses a threat to many, I personally believe that an article covering Irma may be inevitable and we should be prepared to write the article, but let's not create it immediately.
Update - I found that we have articles for minor tropical storms and category 1 hurricanes of this season, so we could reasonably assume that Irma will be worthy of an article. I continue to take the position that we should wait to create the article, but I can say with confidence that it's most likely to be created soon. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because "minor" tropical storms and Category 1's have article doesn't mean Irma can have one. At this point I don't think there's enough content for an Irma article, although that will likely change. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, we should wait to create it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A hurricane watch is now in effect. Most likely we will be able to make a preparations section by tomorrow. Would it require (2017) since the name Irma has been used before? Although most - but not all - indications suggest that it will be a serious storm. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the name has not been used before a 2017 would not be needed.If the name is not retired one can be added after another Irma reaches hurricane strength in 2023 or later.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although this name has been used in '78 if I'm not mistaken, that hurricane has no article covering it, so it's fine for us to name the article simply "Hurricane Irma" rather than "Hurricane Irma (2017)". In the future, we can amend the article name if Irma's name is not retired and a future "Hurricane Irma" warrants an article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only acceptable time to make an article on the storm is if it were to make landfall in a specific location. Right now, there are currently hurricane watches in for the islands of Antigua and Barbuda, in which it is likely to hit. If it hits the United States, the article would become more effective mainly because the storm will be more damaging and destructive. There could be a 50 to a 75% chance that an article will be created by Irma. Woody Floyd (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that we shouldn't create the article until it makes landfall. That being said, as it's expected to make landfall in the Antilles in a matter of days, we should start preparing to make the article as soon as possible by drafting sections such as the background. If we haven't already, we should find sources stating when it developed, possibly why it was able to develop as it did (such as having low shear for many days), the subsequent rapid intensification, how it briefly weakened due to natural eye wall replacement, and being a Cape Verde hurricane. I've also found RS news coverage that comments on the noteworthy amount of fake forecasts circulating if that would be of interest or if it would be useful to include. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started my own draft in my sandbox, and I'm allowing all WPTC to help expand it, as it will be necessary IMO by say Thursday as Irma begins to impact the Lesser Antilles, also noting that it could probably some of the worst impacts there since Luis/Marilyn in 1995, so that may also warrant a page for the storm. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added a few things described in the revision history. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I don't expect this recommendation will be followed since people like drafts, but I think we should expand the seasonal article's section for Irma until the point that it is large enough to split off, then perform the split all in one edit. Master of Time (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we usually split off articles once they make landfall, even if they're not major hurricanes or don't receive very widespread coverage, I personally believe that now is an ideal time to start preparing the article. That being said, we should expand both the seasonal article and the draft for now. All noteworthy informations from the seasonal article should be carried over. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the section as a development space, the need for a draft should be limited. The draft above, even with your change, has very little information. All the information there can easily be fit into a section at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Master of Time (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've only added 1,357 bytes as of now, but additional edits as well as collaboration from other users should be very beneficial. The limited edits to this new draft are not yet a telling indicator. Using a draft article space has much convenience; as it is expected to make landfall as a category 4 major hurricane and it is also still projected to continue to gain in strength and intensity, we should prepare an article because the necessity of one is now imminent. The final product will be an article, so we should make edits that account for that structure. I don't think that we should stop editing the section, though. In fact, I encourage editors to add to both the section and the draft. Anything added to the section can be transferred over to the draft, but in the end it is the draft that will become the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrendonTheWizard: Looks like this article is semi-protected, so I can't edit it - can someone update the infobox and associated info for Irma to indicate that it's reached Cat 4, as per the latest NHC advisory? (nhc.noaa.gov) Thanks. 2605:E000:3557:4400:91AC:465F:4B81:5831 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that another editor has already done this: "and was upgraded into a Category 4 hurricane by 09:00 UTC on September 4 as hurricane warnings were issued for the Leeward Islands." Thank you, though! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already done — IVORK Discuss 22:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is lagging the main article,with the 5 PM data in the infobox and 11 AM info in the main text...the 8 PM interim advisory is out,with 140 mph winds and pressure down to 27.85inHg/943mb.(At this point the main article may need to substitute Irma for Harvey as year's most powerful storm soon,Irma has the wind title while Harvey is barely holding to the pressure title).12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the draft has been submitted and passed. As of now, Hurricane Irma is its own standalone article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but the link to the Hurricane Irma article redirects to the 1978 Atlantic Hurricane Season. 188.10.235.71 (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which link? It seems all the ones on the article point towards the 2017 storm. Titoxd(?!?) 20:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verde hurricane

Based on the storm's track and on forecasts, it seems that Hurricane Irma is shaping up to be a classic Cape Verde hurricane. Should there be a link to that article within Irma's section?

I think there should be one, this would allow the reader to find more information about the formation and path of these hurricanes. This is especially noteworthy as Cape Verde hurricanes are often the most powerful and lethal hurricanes of any Atlantic hurricane season. If we can find a reliable source that mentions this, it should be included and cited. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is CNN considered reliable anymore?
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/08/31/us/hurricane-irma-forecast-weather/index.html
No. 2601:987:401:A275:FDD6:6605:E559:D382 (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the IP editor said "No" in response to "Is CNN considered reliable anymore?" please note that in this instance the source is entirely reliable as there's literally nothing wrong with the article that the unsigned editor linked to. Here's an excerpt from it:
Irma is a classic "Cape Verde hurricane," a type of hurricane that forms in the far eastern Atlantic, near the Cape Verde Islands (now known as the Cabo Verde Islands), then tracks all the way across the Atlantic. Cape Verde storms frequently become some of the largest and most intense hurricanes. Examples are Hurricane Hugo, Hurricane Floyd, and Hurricane Ivan.
It's perfectly fine. I'll agree that we should be skeptic of CNN depending on the situation, but that's usually when there's a conflict of interest such as CNN favoring something corporate in a political context because they're a corporation; unfavorable views of CNN as a news network relate to people feeling that they aren't adequately performing the "watchdog" function of mass media. This is not one of those situations. There's nothing wrong with using CNN for information about weather. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "no". It was someone else's "no" combined with a bot error.

Thank you for the clarification. The response now applies to the someone else that said no, but if you haven't already I strongly recommend signing your posts by typing four tildes at the end. If you are interested, I would also encourage you to edit from an account to join the Wikipedia adventure! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey II (Meteorological history)

Actualy the section on Harveyy is lacking of information on what the storm did after its Texas landfall(s9. No mention of stalling, no mention of returning back to the South East, no mention of getting again over the Gulf of Mexico, no mention of its final (third) landfall and nothing about the degradation oof the system on its way up the Mississippi and Ohio valleys. --Matthiasb (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey*. Well, it isn't the Harvey page. Tybomb124 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the season page, though, so it needs to correctly summarize the storm. It's a fair criticism. Titoxd(?!?) 22:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Four"

I don't think that storm is needed. Tybomb124 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a tropical cyclone so yes a mention is warranted. Whether it gets a full-blown section can be debated. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depressions typically get sections, we should keep it. Jdcomix (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Im afraid it is needed to tell the story of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season since it is a numbered system, however, what might be more acceptable to some of the editors of this page is too drop it to Other systems. After all it was only a tropical depression that had a minimal impact on land.Jason Rees (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention it's a bit strange having an other systems section for a section that describes one system (10L) as it is. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be weird putting it out of order. We typically keep these articles in chronological order. It might be worth bumping the "other storms" section up and renaming it to "failed storm system" or something. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't always put it in order though. See 1979 Atlantic hurricane season for instance. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for separating potential tropical cyclones from depressions and named storms (as mentioned in a section somewhere above) is because PTCs are not a comprehensive category of disturbances; only those that threaten land are monitored. That's why the PTCs that fail to become tropical cyclones are moved into the "other systems" section. As of now there's only one such PTC (10L), which was why the section was titled "other system" (for some reason now it's plural). If another such "failed PTC" appears, then it'll join 10L. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 14:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remember @KN2731: that not all tropical depressions or named tropical systems deserve or need a full blown section in a seasonal article. As a result, I strongly oppose keeping the other systems section to just failed PTC's.Jason Rees (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be the case in other basins (and in older Atlantic hurricane seasons), I feel that we have enough information about Tropical Depression Four for it to warrant its own section. — Iunetalk 00:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katia Article

Since Katia is threatening Mexico, I think an article is needed. EBGamingWiki (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly against an article for now, given it basically just formed. When it gets much closer to landfall (it'll stall over the BOC for a while), sure. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We'll create an article when it becomes sufficiently notable. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should not make articles about things that might be significant before they do. That being said, you may want to start working on drafting up an article for it, so if it should become necessary, we can implement it quickly; that was what was done with Harvey and Irma. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with creating a sandbox article, though. If it becomes notable enough (i.e. the Katia section begins to overwhelm the season article) it can be published to the main article space. Titoxd(?!?) 22:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Titoxd and Titanium Dragon. It shouldn't be an article right now, but as with the other hurricanes of this season, I support sandboxing as it is good to be most prepared in situations where it's difficult to predict whether or not we'll need the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be an article once sufficient information is found, but not until then. We're also so occupied with Irma. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I partially withdraw my previous comment and now support a Katia article, though I still think we should organize any research we can find so we can say with confidence that there's enough information out there to produce a standalone article. The storm killed at least two people. In part due to recovery efforts from the recent earthquake, Katia's impact was much greater than what a non-major hurricane would typically produce, since the amount of rain it brought shortly after the earthquake seems to have triggered mudslides and flooding. If anyone wants to start Draft:Hurricane Katia (2017) I'll add anything I can find, here's an article that I just got information on Katia's impact from. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jose now a Hurricane

As of the 5 pm Wednesday report ( http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at2+shtml/150131.shtml?cone#contents ) Jose is now a hurricane and expected to (at least briefly) become a major one. 2601:8A:C100:84CC:D25:CF36:1C15:F6DD (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I apparently saw an out-of-date page on first look. 2601:8A:C100:84CC:D25:CF36:1C15:F6DD (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Today is twice now that linking from the Hurricane Jose disambiguation page took me to a September 5th version of this page. 2601:8A:C100:84CC:F18C:FF70:14AD:436 (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Jose is a major hurricane threatening the Antilles, I've started a draft on the subject. Any contributions are greatly appreciated. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since it doesn't appear to be a major land threat at this time, it should be at Hurricane Jose (2017) and not given preferential treatment. That may change later depending on its track though. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The draft at on userspace was moved to Draft:Hurricane Jose which became Hurricane Jose (2017) since it so far does not warrant being the WP:PRIMARY article with that name. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I have a couple of questions to ask. First off, I was told that I should not use weather.com. Is there a reason for this? From what I have found, weather.com is reliable in reporting hurricane strengths. Second, I only edited the minimum pressure from 914 to 913, and I was told to use Trump's real name. I'm not sure why this was even mentioned because I literally changed one number by one and made no other edits on the entire page. I get that I have the "Make Donald Drumpf Again" extension on because I think it's funny, but at the same time, I don't understand why that was even stated in the first place.

CobaltYoshi27 (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, apparently that extension mangles the text of textbox if you edit an article. You did change all the examples of Donald Trump on the page to Donald Drumpf; you may need to turn that extension off at points to avoid that change in future edits.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I didn't even know that happened. Next time, I will be sure to turn it off. Why was he even on the page in the first place? And also, what about the first question? I still don't have an answer for that one.
Weather.com while a reliable source is not the official source for intensity - thats the NHC.Jason Rees (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content preparation for potential Jose article

I have started a draft on Hurricane Jose. All editors are allowed to help.
Note: This draft has been submitted, but AfC submissions are highly backlogged. Both "Hurricane Jose" and "Hurricane Jose (2017)" are already redirects, which means this draft will have to be reviewed by an administrator. In a worst case scenario it could take weeks for it to be reviewed, but it will hopefully take less than several days. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale for starting the draft now rather than later

  • Now that Jose is a major hurricane expected to make landfall in the lesser Antilles just as Irma did several days ago (including striking Barbuda again after the PM of Antigua and Barbuda described the island as "90% destroyed"), Jose is very clearly a noteworthy storm. It's currently projected to become a category 4 and it appears to be curving more northward than Irma. It's far too early to know if the eastern US is threatened, but what is known is that it is currently threatening the Antilles. Perhaps the most concerning part is that Jose followed in Irma's path, potentially being another Cape Verde type. (I will have to research that more before referring to it as a Cape Verde hurricane, though.)

Disclaimers about what this does and does not mean

  • Just as with Irma, I will not call for the creation of an article or the publication/submission of the draft until the need for one is very clear and imminent, but we may need to consider drafting content for one early on to ensure that if/when it is published that the reader would have a well-edited article so our draft is less "rough".
  • In compliance with Wikipedia policy, this draft will not be submitted until we have a variety of RS sources to demonstrate that it passes general notability guidelines. A handful of editors helped to prepare the Irma article with many different sources and ensured that the statements produced from the sources were unambiguous and accurate, which led me to the conclusion that drafting is certainly a beneficial approach. If Jose luckily dissipates without causing any noteworthy damage or prompting declarations of emergency statuses, the draft will not be submitted.

BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia really frustrates me sometimes. This article should be published immediately, even in its incomplete format. Every minor league baseball player that ever lifted a bat gets a page on Wikipedia, and you can't even get a page on the third biggest hurricane of the 2017 Atlantic season published without going through some pious, censorious hell. Hurricanes are the number one reason readers are looking at Wikipedia today. Orthorhombic, 01:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd publish it right now despite its multiple empty sections if we were not advised to refrain from creating individual articles on hurricanes, but until further notice RS sources may refer to Jose as a footnote of coverage on Irma so it may take time to prepare the article. That being said, you're more than welcome to help develop this draft to prepare it for publication. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't make decisions here based on stuff in other projects. Hurricane Jose is in the middle of nowhere right now, so it would be best to wait until there are impacts to actually write about. We have the season section, after all. Additionally, Wikipedia is not the National Hurricane Center. Premature article publication is a risky and inadvisable move. Master of Time (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've hopefully stated clearly: this article will not be published prematurely as to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you did not notice my indent, I was replying to Orthorhombic. Orthorhombic is the one who kept trying to recreate the article. Master of Time (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the mention of other projects I assumed from context that you were referring to Orthorhombic; I was just making sure to reiterate that I have no intention of publishing it immediately despite agreeing with the value they expressed towards articles on this subject. Thank you for clarifying. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Publish now! You have 30 million results on Google for "Hurricane Jose", with double inverted commas. Are you saying that island communities have to get destroyed before your notability criteria are met? That's not what Wikipedia's about? Publish the start that you've made, and the world will improve it, and you will have done your bit to make the world a safer place. Orthorhombic, 12:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We must create the article before we publish it to the public. We do need the world to improve it, that's why all editors can edit this draft, including you. I will need help creating the preparations section. Its landfall is expected tomorrow, so we need to add a lot of content tonight if we are to go based on our publication of Irma happening directly before Irma made landfall. I plan on publishing within one or two days. Wikipedia generally discourages creating individual articles on hurricanes that neither affect people nor break records, but Jose is different and clearly is notable as I've already said. That's why the draft was started, and that is why I encourage you to help me write it so we may publish it. Currently it has ten contributions, nine were by me and a tenth was by Jdcomix generously catching a mistake that I made. I wouldn't trust myself alone with the task of providing the best wording for a subject this significant, so collaboration is necessary. We still need content for the preparations section. For now the impact section could either be temporarily deprecated or temporarily filled with content referring to its impact as what factors make the storm important. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't notability. There are plenty of independent sources out there for the storm, but there isn't enough content for a stand-alone page. Your comparison to baseball players is moot point, given that there is nowhere where a short baseball article can be redirected to. Storm articles, if they are short, can be redirected to the season article. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification ad-nauseum, it was a replying editor that made the comparison to the baseball players. As for notability, I did try to mention that the RS sources are currently only referring to Jose as a footnote of Irma, so I am still waiting for more content to add. We published the Irma article just before it made landfall, and a similar situation may occur here if and only if we can add sufficient content. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publish it now. It's nearly a Cat 5, that alone is notable. Jdcomix (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say publish. 150 mph, nearly Category 5. EBGamingWiki (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jdcomix, EBGamingWiki, and Orthorhombic. I've added more content to fill all empty sections, so it should be ready. I'm publishing the article now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Additional note: A redirect from Hurricane Jose and Hurricane Jose (2017) already exist, so I likely must request a move or submission. Regardless, it will be done and soon. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hold off a little longer pending if there's more preparations than what's in your userspace. Reaching 130 knots alone while helps it cause does not warrant an article. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted a request for it to be an article, though acceptance or rejection may take time. Until then, we can continue researching the subject on the draft. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason your requested it to be moved Hurricane Jose and not Hurricane Jose (2017)? Just wondering, I don't think it warrants being the primary topic right away. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it to Hurricane Jose (2017) is also a perfectly viable option if it fails to warrant the primary name. It could later be renamed to drop the (2017) if it gains enough significance to be the primary article on hurricanes named Jose. I've submitted it as "Hurricane Jose" already, but the decision is now to be made by an administrator BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's two sides to the coin here to be honest. One could argue that'd it'd be WP:CRYSTAL to call it the primary topic, but on the other hand, it could be argued that since Jose is currently active, it's temporarily the primary topic. If we do not include the year, please revert this when the time comes. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, though the reason cited was that this subject is already covered on Wikipedia on this article. Per the reasons discussed here that reason does not seem sufficient, so I am attempting to appeal the rejection by reaching out to the user that declined the draft in hopes that the decision is reconsidered. Either way, I intend to continue working on the draft to better prepare it as an article as I still have reason to believe that an article will be necessary (and soon) as Jose is a very powerful storm posing an increasingly imminent threat to some of the same islands that Irma just hit, leaving them more vulnerable than before. It luckily is expected to turn the opposite direction afterwards, but not without making landfall, so there will be people affected and the seasonal article summaries cannot sufficiently do justice when covering the short and long term impacts. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox isn't perfect in quality, but at this point, I don't have a problem with an article. I'll see if I can get someone to move it off-site later today. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, and Titoxd: Pining relevant although busy WPTC admins. Also pretty sure it makes sense to history merge Draft:Hurricane Jose and User:BrendonTheWizard/Hurricane Jose. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they should be merged. Also, I just noticed that Russian Wikipedia already has an article on Hurricane Jose. French Wikipedia has an article on Jose, and even Uzbek Wikipedia already has an article on Jose. We should definitely have the article draft published on English Wikipedia soon; it's already affecting land right now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was twice declined, which as unfortunate as that is, I will continue adding content to the article draft. I'll have to do a lot of research and if possible double the amount of content offered by the draft, and as always it would help a lot to have as many editors helping as possible. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More cold be added from foreign language sources; however, the fact it was declined twice is very outrageous. Hopefully one of the admins I pinged above will move it. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinon a lot more needs to be added to the impact, before it is put out to main space. Also while I can not speak for either @Sulfurboy: or @Whispering:, I suspect that is what held them back from publishing the draft to main space. Also tropical storm force or gale force winds being recorded on a single island does not mean that a system has made landfall or that an article should be published. Also i notice from a quick google that damage was lighter than expected, which makes me wonder if an article is really needed.Jason Rees (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we must expand this section. I've spoken with both Sulfurboy and Whispering on the subject but I've yet to hear from Sulfurboy. Whispering said that their reasoning was we should wait until it makes landfall in some way, but upon telling them that it already did, they stated I was insulting their intelligence and have not responded since. We've been publishing articles based on whether or not they've impacted land, and our Irma article draft was actually published before it made landfall anywhere. As of right now the hurricane is threatening Puerto Rico as it appeared to move further into water and turn around, but this is not an instance of WP:CRYSTAL due to how it's already impacted land past-tense rather than only future-tense. There's a lot to expand on the Impact->Barbuda section which I will be adding to over the next few hours. I'm also going to expand the lead and reorganize the preparations section by region, as well as adding new information on the preparations taken by the newly threatened islands, possibly adding more on how Irma striking them has affected their preparation process. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jose didnt make landfall though - it just produced tropical storm/gale force winds on Barbuda! It also isnt threatening Puerto Rico any more with all hurricane warnings cancelled and is in fact forecast to perform a loop and not affect anymore islands until possibly later in the week. As a result, im not sure an article on Jose is needed just yet.Jason Rees (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As was said, We've been publishing articles based on whether or not they've impacted land, and our Irma article draft was actually published before it made landfall anywhere. However, the article should be expanded. You're also right that Puerto Rico is now not expected to be hit, I've already updated the draft to state that its direction now faces the Bahamas. We can put off publication for a while, but the rationale provided in the previous article rejections were insufficient. If we awaited strictly landfall rather than impact, or even necessitated impact to begin with, Irma wouldn't have been published until the next day or two. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that was true Brendon then we would have articles on every single tropical cyclone around the world - even those that are one warning only. As a result, we generally wait for impacts to be known and i dont see why the Atlantic should be any different, except for special events such as Irma.Jason Rees (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not every single tropical cyclone in the world has affected land, that's a rather poor reduction to draw from this. It already is known that Jose struck Barbuda with tropical storm force. That's not equivalent to making an article on everything with only warning, and that's certainly not equivalent to saying that every single tropical cyclone around the world. Even articles which have the title "spared from Hurricane Jose" go on to say that they were spared from the worst of Jose. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Jose (2017) exists now, it's at least a start class rather than a stub class, but there's a lot left to do. I'll try to find some free-to-use images of the storm, as well as finding recent news coverage of the subject. I've also reorganized the preparations section, but the impact section will need an expansion, so I'll specifically look for the response by Antigua-Barbuda. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About Don.

I don't think the last part was needed because we don't need to bring up politics. Tybomb124 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? Wikipedia is not censored. We bring up politics if it's warranted, so that's a very weak argument. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last part is rather benign, it's not saying very much to add a footnote about how there has been some interest in the coincidence between the storm's name and the name of an incumbent politician. I think it's fine, though I'd be alright with or without it since it's not one of the more important notes of the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why unofficialy second costliest season

Tell me the truth right now! I don't now the unofficially costliest season --FrancoLeymas (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're requesting, but this is now unofficially the costliest season. The rationale for referring to it as "unofficial" is that initial reports on damage assessment may not always be the final numbers, and the confirmed value of damage doesn't necessarily translate to the official costs spent to recover. Time will tell, though, so the label of unofficial is temporary. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Importance Scale

Now that this season has become (technically unofficially) the costliest on record, surpassing even top-importance 2005, would this warrant upgrading the status from high-importance to top-importance? Both are fitting, but I'm interested in what other editors think. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it at high for now. 2005 was record-shattering in many ways, so Top makes sense there. A good analog to this season is 2010, which is still classified as {{High-importance}}. Titoxd(?!?) 22:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are not exactly sure, but it's possible that 2017 could be the costliest or the second costliest in the Atlantic area. Right now, there are estimated guesses/predictions on the total amount of damages for both Harvey and Irma. These two hurricane are very likely going to be very costly, possibly more than what Katrina in 2005 because they made landfall at Category 4 strength. My guess is that this season will probably surpass the 2005 season as the costliest in the Atlantic basin. Woody Floyd (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
High, given the season is still active, since it's getting more attention than normal. 2005 did more than just be (at the time) the costliest season on record (going Greek, ACE record, storm/hurricane record, 2 1K death storms, 3 Cat 5's). Top is reserved for ~1% of all WPTC articles. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

I Have A Question, Are You Sure Irma Made Over 112 Billion Dollars In Damage? 207.172.180.75 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is relevant. Titoxd(?!?) 23:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Not an edit request.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metereological history of Hurricane Irma article?

Should there be an article discussing the metereology history of Hurricane Irma? Woody Floyd (talk) 00:19 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Currently the Irma article has a section on meteorological history, though it's notably outdated and needs expansion. If it does get too long to read and navigate comfortably, which considering the significance of Irma is possible, then we could consider having sub-articles on Irma rather than sub-sections (similar to how Katrina has several individual articles on certain aspects of the storm). It may be too early to tell, since that section still needs an expansion. Typically the meteorological history of the storm is not something that gets put in a separate article, though. I could be wrong about that, but the related articles I see are usually about subsequent tornado outbreaks or the environmental factors. I can see environmental factors and meteorological history being close enough to expand on together if needed. I'm neutral on this right now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Irma Damage Estimate

I am going to ask that nobody change the damage estimate on Irma until better information is available. Currently, the damage estimate is upwards of 120 billion. The Air worldwide estimate is not accurate for overall damages as it only includes insured loses. Uninsured losses and economical damages are not taken into consideration. Please do not change the estimate to any number that does not include total damages caused by Irma. --Figfires (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your version risks overestimating the costs, potentially by a significant amount. What's the problem with using insured losses as a start? It would be much better to use a lower end estimate with a ">" symbol to ensure accuracy versus huge preliminary and potentially unreliable totals. Master of Time (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the insured losses are far below the actual damages considering how many island the storm completely wiped out and states that have been effected. Even the estimates lower than that one are still much higher than only 30 billion. --Figfires (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with not going as high as 100B+ yet now that they're varied, but I don't think going as low as only 30 billion is accurate either when every source I've seen (even some of the sources currently used to cite 30B) are much higher. (One of the sources used to cite 30B says that the range is from minimum 50B to maximum 200B+) The lowest I've been seeing is 49-50B, and most sources I've seen estimate damage greater than or equal to that of Harvey. Unfortunately we do not yet have any truly official numbers and all we can rely on are estimates, but downwards of 30B risks a potentially equal and/or opposite inaccuracy to upwards of 100B. While I do see the value in and the rationale behind starting at numbers low enough to say with confidence that it would cost at least that much, having a number that risks greatly understating it could also be misleading even with disclaimers when it's this much lower than the general consensus of current sources. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria

Even though Maria just became a tropical storm the other day, its path expects very direct impact with the Caribbean islands in a matter of only days.

Per usual, this will not be published prematurely, but for editors' convenience we can start working on it at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Hurricane Maria (2017)

As always, the seasonal article should still be updated as well, but any editors that would like to add to this are free to do so.

I'm still reading through the latest coverage of Maria, but here's links that I found as potential news sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it if we go back to using project sandboxes (WikiProject:Tropical Cyclones/Maria 17) and not use draft space- which only create a hassle for Jose. But yes this will obviously merit an article. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would prefer that (or draftspace) over using user subpages (since they are the hardest to find, and it is weird having one user's name on the draft). When you say "which only create a hassle for Jose," do you mean the AfC review? It is possible to use draftspace and just never tag it for review, permitting an instant, discretionary move to article space. Master of Time (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with whichever is best for the editors. I planned on moving the Userspace draft to "Hurricane Maria (2017)" (upon it reaching hurricane status of course), but I'd also gladly put it on the WikiProject draft space. You are right that Jose's submission process ended up becoming a hassle as the unwarranted rejections made publication days late of when editors requested its publication, so whichever method is ideal is what will ultimately be used. I'll see if I can copy the existing content over to WikiProject:Tropical Cyclones/Hurricane Maria (2017) (name can be different if you prefer). I'll just make sure that this process will be much smoother than last time. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that someone started a draft at last night.Jason Rees (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could merge content from this draft into theirs, it seems that they're currently pending review on their draft. If it gets published as an article, then we'll definitely add content there. If the draft runs into the same issues we had trying to get Jose's draft published, we could reach out to the draft editors to move from draftspace to the WikiProject sandbox as suggested by Yellow Evan. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove the AfC tag and move the original draft. Just because an article is in draftspace does not mean there needs to be an AfC review. You can go through that process -- if you really want to. It is not necessitated, though. Also, Yellow Evan must have typed up the wrong title; that 'should' say Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Maria 17. The draft you created is actually in mainspace now. Master of Time (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue, is there a way to quickly move this from mainspace to the Wikiproject? BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are an autoconfirmed user (which you are), all you need to do is use the "Move" button at the top of the page. This really should be combined with the other draft, though. Master of Time (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been moved, but I agree that it should be combined with the other draft, I'm just unsure of which is the best place to host it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonTheWizard (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like MarioProtIV created a separate draft too. In my opinion, they should all be consolidated into Draft:Hurricane Maria (2017), the oldest and longest draft. Master of Time (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there's several separate drafts, we definitely need to merge them and fast. We may want to ping other editors to see what they think about this. If you are confident that we can publish the draft without having to go through the AfC process then that's perfect. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We may need to wait a little bit longer (probably under 24 hours) for mainspace publication, but I don't think we'll need to wait for an AfC reviewer to examine the page. Master of Time (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, once the article is published we can ping MarioProtIV and move any information+sources from our drafts into the mainspace article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about article splitting

Quick dumb question: Is the general standard that tropical cyclones get separate articles when they impact land? Is this standardized anywhere, or just custom? Thanks. Trivialist (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typically storms that demonstrate their significance often through making landfall, breaking records, or for one reason or another receiving notable coverage by reliable sources. As the importance of articles is on a scale that allows for low and mid importance, simply having an article doesn't say very much about its importance, but impacting land, damaging structures, or causing harm often guarantees that a standalone article is preferable to simply being in the season section as the most damaging storms are of the highest importance. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Thanks! Trivialist (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they have enough content, they get split up. See other season articles like 1995 Atlantic hurricane season. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Article

Maria will most likely be upgraded to a Category 3 Hurricane within 30 minutes at the next advisory, and I think a article is appropriate at this time. EBGamingWiki (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the section above the one above this one. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)

175>185?

In the info-box, it shows Maria has the strongest storm, even though Irma was 10 mph more. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=801486971"