Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Dorian

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.81.198.147 (talk) at 22:06, 7 September 2019 (→Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Adding Hurricane Andrew to See Also?

I think that the media and the nature of the storm has been compared to Andrew enough - particularly the perpendicular approach to the coast - warrants Andrew in the See Also section. Because it is such a significant storm, I think this should be something discussed rather than just done. INFOWeather1 (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps wait a bit until it makes the western turn? I can see the similarity with the current GFS and EURO models. – The Grid (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non encyclopedic writing?

The last paragraph of the lead of this article is concerning for me, it sounds less like Wikipedia and more like a news report... Is it normal for it to look like that? James-the-Charizard (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@James-the-Charizard: No, it was just originally written in that manner. Im sure it will get fixed once the article gets more attention. NoahTalk 11:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Thanks for fixing that. James-the-Charizard (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take out that bit in the lede paragraph about the guy dying while cleaning his gutters? It's already mentioned firther down in the article, and taking it out will make ot sound less like a news article. 2601:644:877F:F6D8:7D3C:1732:D3BB:9531 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2PM advisory is out

Why is the 12:45 statement still listed as the current information? Note that hourly updates will be issued by the NHC starting at 3PM.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS ST47 (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane articles here keep the current information window up to date while a storm is active.(And the 3PM update was duly reflected).12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Dorian

The first paragraph of Hurricane Dorian needs to be edited to acknowledge the fact that it is now the strongest ever named storm in the Atlantic, even surpassing Hurricane Irma with maximum sustained winds of 185mph and a pressure of 913 millibars. Irma had peak winds of 180mph and a pressure of 914 millibars before making landfall. Saintlaurentdon (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the strongest ever by either one of those metrics. The records are 190mph sustained (Allen) and 882mbar (Wilma). ST47 (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking Saintlaurentdon is distinguishing the Atlantic Ocean proper from the rest of the basin?...Allen and Wilma reached peak strength in the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean.(Dorian has reached 910mb/26.87 InHg,were any of the more intense storms NOT in the Caribbean/Gulf?) 12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly, that’s what I’m pointing out here. It’s currently raging in the Atlantic Ocean basin. Surprising to me, Dorian continues to gain strength and has reduced to 910Mb pressure as of 1500 EDT Saintlaurentdon (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, "the open Atlantic region" is the term we used for Irma's record.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5PM advisory is out

The "watches and warnings" section of the article needs to be updated given the new warnings for Florida.12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current information

The last edit listed "September 2" which hasn't occurred yet for the eastern seaboard of the US for at least four more hours. Someone with ECP please fix. Gwenhope (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit is that Gwenhope ~ the last one I see is here about the speedway ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Current Storm Information Gwenhope (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about this ~ 9:00 p.m. EDT (01:00 UTC September 2) September 1 ~ ? ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed. Hurricane Dorian#Current storm information. — Wyliepedia @ 01:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~ Photos ~

Starting conversation ~ this hurricane will last several days ~ we can't be set on saying "too many" photos and then adding one yourself ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First I would like to start doing this to the photos that are not weather related (clouds etc..) For those not familiar with this type of photo ~ hover your mouse cursor over the photo ~
We can have some, but hurricane articles generally do not have galleries. NoahTalk 15:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Noah, I'm going to try one (later when I return) ~ I'm not married to it, but just trying to not take away from the article about the hurricane and forcing you to focus on the politics ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a better picture to replace the one already there in 'Mainland United States' section. You have Hurricane Dorian on the monitor in the background and you can actually recognize the president. Thoughts? ~mitch~ (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
President Trump at FEMA

Usage of knots in info-box

I have removed this value as it does not go with all of the other hurricane and tropical storm articles that use mph and km/h. I propose if we are going to do this going forward that a consensus be put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: The knot is the dominant unit used by the NHC for scientific purposes, and using knots also eases use of {{convert}} here (important while the article needs to be updated very frequently). If anything, a consensus against the use of the knot will be needed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other articles on tropical systems use knots as a unit of measurement, it is potentially confusing to readers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2019 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Juliette is a counterexample. There's nothing confusing, we give mph and km/h. There's no harm.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a request for comment as I see it as an issue. We cant go around explaining different articles in different units of measurement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we can. The NHC uses knots, which per WP:DUE means we are justified in doing so as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we need an established practice put into place. If MPH and KM/H are used in different articles then it can cause an issue, the same goes for reading half an article one way and half the other way. I see this as a British English vs. American English sort of issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I have not ever come across an article that is incomprehensible due to a WP:ENGVAR choice.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look under that there is a section on MOS:CONSISTENCY. Units should not be changed if the primary creation editor makes them a certain way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which does not apply here. We have an international audience and our audience includes storm trackers. These readers are all used to different units.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it applies here just as international varieties of English apply to articles. There is a reason why we don't mix American and British English on articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that's because editors will otherwise just edit war over it since no variety is a more natural choice than another in most cases. That's not at all applicable here, where different units can coexist.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87 and Jasper Deng: I support the usage of knots: Knots have always been used and should continue to be used as it is the main unit of measuring wind speeds by NHC. Jayab314 22:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait for others to weigh in, if knots are decided then I propose using the unit in all Tropical cyclone related articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our audience is different after the storm dissipates. The knot is not as useful when storm trackers don't read as much.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the usage of knots ~ I kinda like this better ~ for all the articles ~ you get all the info you need at the same time ~ Sustained winds: 70 kn (80 mph; 130 km/h) (1-min mean) ~ gusting to 85 kn (100 mph; 155 km/h) ~mitch~ (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment ~ "most readers" that fly an airplane ~ command a boat/ship at sea seems to know what a knot is ~ most some readers that only drive a car/truck don't ~ me I still like the three in the info box ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the usage of knots. WP:METRIC states "Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate 'primary unit', displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses." and "The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of 'strong national ties', where applicable: In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary, e.g. 97 pounds (44 kg). Sure, you can argue that this is technically a science article, but the way this article is written is not like a science article, but more like a history article. Since knots (or nautical mile) is a US customary unit, having it in this article is necessary. INeedSupport :V 00:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usage of knots seems a little ridiculous to me, as most readers are not familiar with that unit of measurement. Just stick with mph/kph. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Free (?) rides

"Uber started offering free roundtrip rides to and from shelters for up to $20." What does this mean? (Wild guess: Rides are free if the normal charge would be $20 or less?) 216.255.165.198 (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@216.255.165.198: Yes, normal Uber rides that would cost up to $20 would be free if they are heading to or leaving an emergency shelter. Jayab314 22:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested change - "up to $20 value". - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas fatalities

Someone on Reddit reported seeing someone on TV claiming to have heard someone say there have been 50+ fatalities in Bahamas.[1] FYI. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the tribune ~ [2] ~ 5 as of 5.35pm ~mitch~ (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the confirmed number is older and lower. I posted an unconfirmed number as a heads up for what might be coming. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So far,I only heard of six fatalities,in Puerto Rico and thd Bahamas
@67.164.113.165: We need to wait until reputable sources come out and specifically state that "X amount of people died." We cannot trust Reddit sources as they can be factually unsound. Jayab314 02:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2019

Additionally, Hurricane Dorian is one of the stillest hurricanes, and people are bracing for impact for nothing as it weakens. I think that should added because it is very important information as it is barely moving and should be covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This statement does not have a source and is not factually sound. It is already mentioned in the article that Dorian is practically stationary and is not moving. Jayab314 02:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jayab314,now it says it is not nearly stationary,and is in fact moving at 2 kilometers an hour can you add it in now — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled (talk • contribs) 13:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MH Article

If anyone would be interested, this storm will need a MH article due to its extreme complexity and its longevity (given it lasts a few more days). There will definitely be enough content for a separate article. NoahTalk 03:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested,include the stillness — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled (talk • contribs) 11:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Seeing as it made landfall on Mainland US and is also expected to make landfall as a hurricane on Canada, I would be open to an MH article. Jayab314 01:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayab314: We already made the article. NoahTalk 02:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: oh my b. Jayab314 02:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of National Data Buoy Center and Other Land Based Observations

The NDBC station Settlement Point GBI reported maximum sustained wind of 54 knots during the entire stationary period over GBI:

https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=spgf1

I was unable to locate other wind speeds. The comparison of modern hurricane strengths based on aircraft measurements with estimated wind speeds of earlier times is problematic. At a minimum, the inclusion of land based measurements is important.

The following text is a proposal:

The National Data Buoy Center reported maximum wind speed of 54 knots during the period when Dorian remained stationary over GBI.

JAQUINO (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is that in mph or kph? ImtheOneKhaled (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The values I cited were reported in knots. 1 knot is equal to about 1.15 mph. JAQUINO (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2019

The last sentence of the meteorological history section needs to updated, as Dorian has been downgraded to a Category 2. It doesn't say this anywhere under the "current storm information" subsection. 2601:640:8880:3304:BC56:10E7:849A:13E3 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could be updated before the next update at 2pm(posted 1:13pm Eastern Time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thank you. — Wyliepedia @ 17:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2019

The title of the page, "Hurricane Dorian" should have a (2019) to the right of the name of it. Eradian (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Hurricane Dorian does not need the disambiguating title of "(2019)" since there has never been another Hurricane Dorian. Unless there is another Hurricane Dorian in the future (which is unlikely due to the name probably being retired), then the "(2019)" would be added to the title. Jayab314 22:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In all likelihood, the name Dorian is getting retired, which would give it the primary title anyway even if there was another Hurricane Dorian. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. as Crazy said, it probably wouldn't get (2019) next to it because this is probably going to be the worst one, and that is because people would most likely be looking for this one, unless another Hurricane Dorian with more effects came along. DerpieDerpie:D
20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
There was no other Hurricane Dorian,but it should be added because of Tropical Storm Dorian
There is no Tropical Storm Dorian article, just a redirect to the season, so the disambiguating title of "(2019)" is uneeded. Most hurricane articles don't have their year so I don't see the need for this one to have one. Jayab314 01:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move preparatory deaths to Preparations?

As of now, two mainlanders have fallen off ladders preparing for the wind. Hard to call this Impact, since the wind hadn't even shown up yet. I can't cut and paste, so would someone else? And yeah, I get how anticipating the wind is partly to blame, so perceptions of Dorian sort of psychologically affected those guys. But it's hard to accuse a natural disaster of using preemptive mind tricks, isn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, September 5, 2019 (UTC)

Also a Puerto Rican "trying to clean drains in advance", if anyone's looking. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, September 5, 2019 (UTC)

"Sharpiegate" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sharpiegate. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lmatt (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annular characteristics

Currently, there is mention in the article of Dorian developing annular characteristics at landfall citing NHC discussion number 35, 11 PM Sunday September 1, which noted symmetry: "Satellite images show an [sic] symmetrical cyclone with a circular 10 n mi diameter eye and intense eyewall convection with lots of lightning being detected." However, this was noticed much earlier in discussion number 25, 11 PM Friday August 30, at the time of Dorian's initial rapid intensification to category 4 strength: "The eye has become very distinct and is surrounded by a very symmetric ring of deep convection." Unofficially, the hurricane's presentation remained symmetrical and highly stable on IR from the time of that discussion until the eyewall replacement cycle began Monday evening. The last mention of its symmetrical appearance was made in Advisory 37, 11 AM Monday September 2: "The hurricane remains quite symmetric and still exhibits a very well-defined eye, but there is somewhat less evidence of concentric eyewalls in Bahamas radar imagery."

My account, despite being very old, has not made enough edits to be auto-confirmed, and so I cannot edit the article myself. However, citing the advisories above, I would like to make the following edits:

After the sentence in the Meteorological History section: "Rapid intensification continued, and the storm eventually reached major hurricane status several hours later, on the same day." I would like to add the following sentence to the article: "Around this time, it was noted that Dorian had began developing annular characteristics, with a highly symmetrical region of deep convection surrounding its distinct eye."

I would like to replace the later sentence "Around that time, Dorian acquired annular characteristics, becoming highly symmetrical in appearance." with the sentence "Dorian continued to display annular characteristics, remaining highly symmetric around a distinct circular eye." or something of the like, that makes sense in context.

If someone could make these edits for me, I'd really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fintuition (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fintuition: To conclude annularity without the NHC explicitly labeling it as such is original research. In this case, you would be wrong because microwave imagery such as this shows it never quite lost its outer banding (significant banding remains to the north and south here), a prerequisite for annularity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Videos here

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/706886/coast-guard-conducts-hurricane-dorian-response-efforts

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/707156/coast-guard-continues-response-efforts-bahamas-due-hurricane-dorian

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/706619/coast-guard-responds-hurricane-dorian-bahamas

Victor Grigas (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Official landfall in US

Despite all of the news media saying that landfall occurred in the United States, I have not seen this reported by the NHC. Does the source used in this article say as much? I can not seem to find it. 20:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollyjeff (talk • contribs)

Update - The source used in the lead says "...DORIAN STILL CAUSING LIFE-THREATENING STORM SURGE AND HURRICANE-FORCE WINDS...". This should be changed to the one cited by the CBS news article, which indeed says, "...DORIAN MAKES LANDFALL OVER CAPE HATTERAS..." [3] Bollyjeff | talk 20:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It actually has not made landfall and is now between Cape Hatteras,NC and Nautucket,MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this special advisory. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Watches/Warnings table

I just wanted to let everyone know that I am working on a collapsible watches/warnings table to summarize all the changes. It should be done in the next couple of days. NoahTalk 03:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sub topic "Alabama controversy" should be removed.

wp:Not wp:CCOS This is a Opinion pieces about a current event, also is gossip surrounding Trump, the News articles would go against "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. ie singling someone out. Compare it to hurricane Katrina, there is one for what the government did around mismanagement and lack of leadership, they might have gotten people killed (most likely). There is no aftermath or signefect event around the hurricane, it's an event around Trump, this is a sub topic about one individuals tweets and remarks and the effects are his continues fake news shtick. It seems likes it's just a current event surrounding Trump, this should be in the Donald Trump wiki page if it falls under wp:CCOS. Dwightks11 05:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Katrina communication and lack of communication hovers around actions which should have been taken and were not taken. (Also around the ability of people to evacuate without having cars, especially when some transportation facilities were closed prematurely.) Trump's tweet is on a different scale. It is also true that the tweet and subsequent controversy centres around Trump. The original tweet raised a ripple, the determination to double down is what is raising the wave. I won't pretend to guess whether that kind of coverage is sought for its own sake, whether it is just standard hitting back, or whether it is something else entirely. Nonetheless, reaction to that tweet exceeds standard gossip and/or "fake news shtick" because of two factors. First, under U.S. law, altering official government weather forecasts is illegal. There are some very solid life-saving reasons for that law. Second, there is a casualty cost associated with evacuation as well as with direct effects of the storm. Extremely few evacuations are carried out without at least a few people dying or suffering life-altering injury as a consequence of the evacuation. If a misleading statement at high level had led to unnecessary evacuation -- as might well have happened had the NWS not immediately countered the tweet -- it would also (with statistical certainty) have led to unnecessary deaths. While both aspects probably do belong on one of the Trump-related pages, they also have direct relevance to the preparation aspect of this particular hurricane, as well as to the reliability of future disaster-related statements from the same source. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dwightks11: - CCOS is an essay, not policy. Exactly which of the sources are opinion pieces? Also, if someone did something which could be viewed as negative, reporting it is not singling them out. As an exmaple, are articles on mass shootings singling the suspects out? starship.paint (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep this information, since it has been so heavily reported and since Trump has insisted on bringing it up again and again. But (what I actually came here to say) it is way, way too long and detailed. It should be reduced to a single paragraph. I may do some trimming myself later today. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "see also" to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Hurricane_Dorian soibangla (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sides to this. One is that the sharpie was just to show where the hurricane could have gone, the NOAA is right, and therefore Trump was genuinely mistaken about Dorian's eventual path. The other side is that he purposely drew the line (or, at least, had it drawn by someone) to prove his point. As long as we give readers a chance to come to a conclusion, it ought to be fair and acceptable. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The original NOAA map from that date is still readily visible online and it does not contain that mark. That was newly added to the map Trump showed on television. (We don't know who added it, but we do know who uses sharpies all the time.) Trump certainly was genuinely mistaken when he mentioned Alabama as one of the states that should prepare for a hurricane. An innocent mistake; he misremembered his briefing or something. If he had just let it go, there would be no controversy. It was his days-long insistence on trying to prove that he had been right that created the controversy. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a fart in the wind and has no lasting impact compared to the death and destruction that was caused by the hurricane in the Bahamas. It should be removed of course.--MONGO (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas sub-article

Given the incredible scope of damage in the Bahamas, I created a subarticle for effects there - Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Looks good this far. What do you think about the article KN and I made? NoahTalk 15:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you update the “Dorian related” template? I’m on mobile. NoahTalk 15:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019

It says in the beginning that Hurricane Dorian is a post tropical cyclone.A CNN post at 5:22pm Eastern Time stated it is a category 2 hurricane and never went extratropical 67.81.198.147 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Dorian&oldid=914515724"