Jump to content

Talk:2020 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 71.172.254.114 (talk) at 21:58, 21 October 2020 (→‎Ace). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCurrent events
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles

Template:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Bumping thread for 180 days. NoahTalk 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). NoahTalk 12:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving Schedule
  • Every 15 days during the active season
  • Every month outside the active season
  • As needed after May
Archive Links
@Hurricane Noah: Thanks! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archived again due to extreme activity. NoahTalk 22:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update-Destroyeraa changed archiving to 10 days. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
What does trivial even mean? 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

TS Kyle Or TS Omar Article?

None of these storms have consensus to be made an article. DO NOT make articles out of them. Further discussion is futile.~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is not enough notability to spin out an article for either of them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    What does everyone think of merging Arthur per 67.85.37.186? 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 12:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Merge TS Arthur?

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    FYI, all TC articles use the NHC as the only source. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You still have not said how the formation of Arthur was not routine? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that something that isn't routine needs an article (for example Pablo 2019). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
WP:POINT.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ok but i did make the proposal. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh sorry, yeah I agree with you 100% which is why we have WP:FORUMSHOPPING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good :) Gumballs678 talk 21:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - The main season article is already long enough, and there is enough details in the storm article to keep it. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we don’t need all of that information. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight incline to merge...I've read the article in full and much of the events associated with Arthur are quite typical for many weather systems, even for non-tropical lows. However, I don't believe those non-tropical systems get an Wikipedia article. My location gets far worse weather than Arthur yet Wikipedia has no article about them.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're definitely right about that. Some non-tropical systems do get pages, but they are primarily European Windstorms or Nor'easters, with little more than that, and they bring impacts and weather conditions many times over worse than Arthur. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 21:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • because some of the content, mainly the impact section, describes what is to be expected for hundreds of similar weather events around the world year in year out so it is not very notable.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you judge a book by its cover or would you actually take the time and look through it to decide? if we were going by argument strength I see almost nobody refuting my points made about the article. DarkSide830 is the only one who suggested the article has "unique information" without going into detail on how the information is unique. Merging an article does not require you to merge the entire article.... if the information can be condensed and merged then it can be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hurricanes, typhoons etc should only receive a separate article if they are long enough not to be considered a stub. If there isn't enough to write about, the text can go inside the article for the hurricane season."

a r t h u r ' s a r t i c l e i s n ' t a s t u b Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll update everything using that format. Hurricane21 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. NoahTalk 16:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I'll update again to include "total" next to the number. Hurricane21 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just because we had a high amount of storms this year doesn't mean it was Hyperactive. It is above average in terms of Ace, but for a season to be truly hyperactive it has to have a certain amount of ace per what the users above said. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 18:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I prefer image 2. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Past discussion (this is rough)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Come on guys, really? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!Votes

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • The first pic when Delta was strengthening fast as I believe it was the most notable time. Not buying the idea that the pic to be used is simply for its aesthetics.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not getting the aesthetic argument here. Cyclone structure is subjective and not entirely represented in infrared or visible satellite imagery. I think the first picture should be used because it represents Delta as a category 4 hurricane, which I think would be the most common descriptor of peak intensity, around the end of the record breaking rapid intensification run that it had. Leave the second image for the storm article. – atomic𓅊7732 03:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Atomic7732. If anything, Delta's unusual structure at peak intensity should be emphasized.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it funny a referendum is needed to settle the matter on a profile picture, and when does such a poll close?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • support 2nd image. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Delta's 2nd image. Has an eye, and looks more like a tr🌀pical cycl🌀ne than the first img. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 12:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second image due to the better organization the system shows in this image. Better defined eye, better depicts the storm for what it was. I still think the first image should be somewhere in the article, but you can shuffle it down a bit while moving the second up to the featured spot. (on the season summary and in the infobox that is DarkSide830 (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image that is first isn't that bad, and it represents the storm intensifying rapidly. The second image does have an eye though, and it looks more like a major hurricane. I'm leaning first picture though, however both pictures are fine. 🌀HurricaneJanor (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Number 2 though there is a compelling argument for both sides, I honestly think that the second image is the better choice. The first image does show a rapidly intensifying storm, but it is small, and it was just a blob of convection,with little more than that, plus the eye is barely even visible. When the eye tried to come out it went away, and the storm began to have a sprawling and more disorganized look to it all the way up until it made landfall on the Yucatan, though the same did happen before its second landfall. The second image though show a more well-defined storm that has an eye, and bands of convection and whatnot. It better represents the hurricane, and honestly, I think that a lot of people probably wouldn't think that the first image of the storm was a category 4, unless you showed them the recon data and things like the NHC advisories. Honestly the first pic could be of a tropical storm or weak hurricane to the unsuspecting user. The second image though paints a clearer image as to what people think when they see a strong hurricane, plus that was more memorable because it was yet another hurricane that threatened the Gulf Coast, whereas though the intensification was notable, it was only part of Delta's strengthening, and it weakened almost as quickly as it had intensified. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 14:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Number 2 for sure. Whenever anyone thinks of Hurricane Delta, mostly everyone thinks of Delta striking Louisiana and being the forth of the year to do so. Yes, impacts in the Yucatan were also significant, but an image that 1. more looks like an actual hurricane with an eye and 2. is of the actual "peak" intensity by pressure, it should be the image, not this high-resolution blob excuse for a hurricane image. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Number 1 It does show the hurricane at its maximum wind speed. A couple arguments for the second image I don't really buy into. Yes, its appearance could be that of a tropical storm or weak hurricane, but I think that actually serves some educational value in showing that an intense hurricane does not necessarily have the classic appearance of a mature tropical cyclone. Second, I think weighing the images based on proximity to the U.S. shifts toward an overly U.S.-centric focus on a storm that had impacts in other countries. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it did have impacts in other countries like Mexico, but in the U.S, it affected an area already severely damaged by Hurricane Laura prior, and it also had a far wider scale of impacts on the United States than it did elsewhere, which is why it would seem to be U.S -centric. the images weren't weighed based on proximity to U.S, but rather on what people were primarily talking about, which was the fact the Delta was going to make landfall right around the same area that was hit only a few months prior from Laura itself. As for the educational purpose, yeah I agree that it is educational for showing that a powerful storm doesn't always look like a mature storm, but any image of a storm that caused damage and had impacts could also serve an educational purpose. Also,(you should) read some comments at the beginning of the vote, they provide details as to why image 2 would be better that image one for the page. I don't know though, I don't feel like getting into an argument over this, I respect your opinion, that is just what popped into my head when I read that. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 20:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread the arguments at the beginning of the poll, and I don't think it's misleading to use the image 1, since that's what Delta actually looked like as a cat 4. The only thing that might (might) be misleading would be to imply that an intense hurricane always looks neat. The image of a strong hurricane with a cloud-filled (but still somewhat visible) eye is more representative of this rather unusual storm. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, and I respect what you say, and I see what you mean, I just don't know at this point. I didn't mean to tell you earlier to read them, I meant that as a suggestion, not as a demand, so my apologies at that. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 01:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Number 1. We don't always have to choose the image that looks the prettiest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems more reasons for the second pic are for what they perceive to be a sexy image. And now a second reason is they suppose that no one cares about what happens anywhere in the world outside the US of A, as if the world revolves around this only nation...ugh--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not what I am trying to say at all. I am saying that a major focus of the storm was on the U.S, and that many people remember it because it was on the Gulf Coast where Laura had just made landfall prior. That does not mean that the world revolves around America only. I know there was damage in Mexico, and I hope they recover there, but as HurricaneHink said above, we want to use the most iconic image there is, and the one in the Gulf is remembered by more people than the first image. Please don't be WP:Passive Aggressive, towards me as I can clearly see that that comment was directed at me for what I said on the subject. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 22:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was not sure whose comment I was thinking about when I wrote it. As for the idea of the iconic image, however, I could argue the first image is as most iconic as it can get as it was when Delta was intensifying rapidly not seen since 2005.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies then, it just really seemed directed at me as I was the one who originally said something about America and the storm. I guess that is true about the image being iconic, I honestly just thought that it was worth mentioning, as maybe it would help someone decide, and also as to why I thought the second image should be picked. My apologies 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 23:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't even sure that it is really the fastest intensifying TC on record. The NHC revised its BestTrack to 120 kt, or 140 mph. That's 5 mph below the original. Also, this image is not iconic, things are not iconic for just rapidly intensifying. Many people will remember Delta as the storm that hit Louisiana and the same place that was devestated by Laura, which equals the second image. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so you're not sure about the rapid intensification rate so that would mean the info is unreliable. Why then has this fact not taken down from the article yet? I see it was described by an expert on Twitter from the ref. As for the part about remembering Delta in the US, prove that. Show me an expert who said everyone is going to remember Delta hitting the US and let us just forget the Yucatan part.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lowering the peak wind speed (which won't make it onto Wikipedia until the TCR comes out) doesn't change the RI record, since the reported record is on the increase from 30 kt to 115 kt. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa: I meant the second image was more iconic, not the first one. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 01:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that an expert is needed to know that it is going to remembered. The storm made landfall 12 miles from where Laura hit,which as it is, is memorable enough. No one is forgetting the Yucatan, sure it got damaged by the storm, but The US had a larger range of impacts besides just winds and flooding, and also Mexico got spared worse damage because the storm had weakened to a low end category 2, to even a high end cat 1. when Delta made landfall in America, damaged was worse that what it would've been if not for Laura. This made an already damaged and hurt area even worse compared to what it was already, which makes it memorable, especially those who have had to deal with it firsthand. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 01:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Weatherman27: My bad. Sorry. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Destroyeraa: It's alright, I just wanted to clarify. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 14:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delta appears healthier in the second image, making it, IMO, the more representative of the storm's overall force/power of the two. Additionally, the image itself (#2) is of better quality than the other. Drdpw (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrator comment I am glad to see you all talking, but the edit warring seems to have continued while you talk. I have locked the article for 24 hours. Hopefully by the end of that time you all will have reached some kind of consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think this discussion should just be closed. Things are getting out of hand, there hasn't been a clear consensus as to what is the better pic, and besides we're all in the WPTC so it sucks seeing everyone argue and edit war over this. My apologies to anyone I may have argued with, and my apologies for starting the argument towards the bottom of the discussion. I did not intent for things to get out of hand more than what they already were. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 01:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Weatherman27: The thing about closing this right now is that people will edit-war again after the protection is lifted. I don't want to argue either, though I agree this is getting a bit outta hand. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay I understand, I just looked and saw that you said that at the top of the discussion too. My apologies @Destroyeraa: 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 14:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s a very reasonable proposal, but some people want their image in the info box. We can keep both images in Delta’s article, but people are going to get mad about the season article. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on options, slightly in favor of Image 1 - I'm fine with either image, but given our past practices, I think that Image 1 (showing the storm rapidly intensifying) may be a more appropriate option, unless Image 2 captures a more iconic moment of the storm. I personally prefer Image 2, but I think that Image 1 may be more appropriate for the storm, hence my vote. BTW, enough of the edit warring already. This is ridiculous. This is probably the most extensive image war I've seen on TC articles in 2 or 3 years, and it needs to stop. If this continues, the users responsible for most of the warring might end up getting sanctioned. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sally damage revision

Guys chill! I swear yesterday it said Sally's damages were at 5 billion. Now it's at 7 billion. These revisions are happening everyday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclonicStormYutu (talk • contribs) 14:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CyclonicStormYutu: that’s what the sources say. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 15 October 2020

I feel Fay and Isaias affected the same area, so should be mentioned. IE, we talk about Fay and then Isaias. We can mention Hannah later. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification-this is because they hit the area. We could say, "throughout the seasons, 2 tropical storms struck the NYC Metro Area. While Fay wasn't a major deal, Isaias was the worst storm in the region since 2012's Hurricane Sandy. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean against this. It's better to keep the storms in chronological order. It's not all that uncommon for somewhere to be impacted by two tropical cyclones in a season, an NYC doesn't warrant that much special attention. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isaias was the worst storm since Sandy. We should add that. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done These are disputed questions to be worked out here on the talk page. It is also not an urgent enough issue to require editing through full protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Records page

I think there should be a separate Wikipedia page on the Records of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IDK if it's needed. There aren't that many records set by the season, and most of them are activity records, which can be covered in the "Season summary" section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second that. If it's just a page saying "x storm formed before y storm" then we already have that under each storm and in "Season Summary," as you mentioned, and these records already fit into the general Atlantic Hurricane Records page. A seperate page would probably just be redundant. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Hurricane Laura had the fastest wind speed of a storm striking Louisiana
  2. Hurricane Sally was the first hurricane to strike as a category 2 peak intensity since 2014
  3. Alpha was the first storm to hit Portugal
  4. Isaias was the costliest cat 1 and Sally was the costliest cat 2
  5. Delta had the fastest intensifcation from a tropical depression to category 4, in 36 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Tropical Storm Fay was the first fully tropical storm to hit New Jersey since 2011
  2. Hurricane Teddy was the 4th largest hurricane on record
  • I have no idea why some of these "records" are considered to be notable. It feels like every season records are broken which makes them a common thing in regards to tropical systems. I mean do we really need to put that x storm was the 3rd strongest in or since y? As an encyclopedia we can't stray into WP:FANCRUFT related things (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section?

  • nah. not a page, because that's excessive, but maybe a section in the summary because god DAMN this season Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • .Section instead of article. We only have a few records. We could also make a record for Isaias, as again, it was the worst storm in the NYC Area since 2012.
  • I don't even think that is needed. Most individual storm sections and pages have most of the records on storm formation, "worst storm in x since y," etc. Many of the others file in well in the dedicated Atlantic Hurricane Records page. (formation speed, speed of intensification, # of total storms in a year, etc) We can just save this section and it should cut down on the length that this article will have (because it will be massive already) and help expedite the article's later review. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose It's not uncommon for individual storms in a season to set local/regional records. A lot of storms could break records if you set narrow enough criteria. Those records probably aren't really worth noting outside of the individual sections for the storms. The most notable records are all the instances of "earliest xth name storm," which is sufficiently summarized in the table we currently have. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The records were already mentioned in various parts of the article. Do we have to make another section repeating them?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is honestly one reason a we shouldn't have a dedicated records section. If a particular storm broke a record worth mentioning, it should go in that storm's section. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TornadoLGS: I can agree if you add the following records.
  1. Laura tied the 1856 Last Island Hurricane for fastest winds on landfall in Louisiana, and had the 4th most intense pressure
  2. Fay was the first fully tropical storm to hit New Jersey since Hurricane Irene in 2011
  3. Teddy was the 4th biggest tropical system on record
  4. Delta underwent the fastest intensification from a tropical depression to a category 4: 36 hours
  5. Alpha was the first tropical or subtropical storm to directly hit Portugal
  6. Including the extratropical portion of Paulette; it lasted 23 days-a record in the Atlantic.
--67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, another person already mentioned making a separate page about the same exact thing, and it was found to be too trivial and pointless to make a page for records only, as you can put the storm records on the page of the system itself. Also, the records you mention are exactly the same as those on the previous discussion on the same topic. It sort of seems to be WP:POINTy, or possibly WP:DEADHORSE, but I am not completely sure.🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 21:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No for section. Seeing these pointless discussions, I'm beginning to feel like a dead horse. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just mention them in prose when sourced and appropriate. No need for a separate page. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose any records section/article per TornadoLGS who highlights the problem well. Nearly any storm can be framed as record-breaking with sufficiently narrow criteria, so where do you draw the line? Listing "record" after "record" (some of which I note are of questionable accuracy and others nearly impossible to source) reeks of sensationalism and almost certainly violates WP:NPOV. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faster Archiving

IMO 14 days is too long for the amount of threads we have. I propose we reduce this to maybe 7 days? --67.85.37.186 (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll reduce it to 10 days. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected edit request on 15 October 2020

Epsilon's nhc track isn't shown next to the storm in it's infobox. Can you please fix this? CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Epsilon Article!?

Hello, I’ve noticed every Greek storm in 2005 has an article even if there is no impacts on land. So should that still be done for 2020, and should we make Epsilon an article even though it will likely only have minimal effects on land. What do you guys think? Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda premature to say it will only have minimal effects on land, with Bermuda in the track. I think it's a little early to discuss the article. As for 2005 Greeks, all but Epsilon and Zeta affected land, and those two were meteorological oddities. We'll see how the rest of the 2020 storms go. If impacts are minimal, then Epsilon 20 probably won't need an article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robloxsupersuperhappyface: Agreed with Hurricanehink. Wait until TC watches are issued, and then a article can be created. IMO, a draft can be created in as soon as 12 hours, when the storm intensifies a bit more. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if impacts in Bermuda are minor to bad an article could be made. Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Draft:Tropical storm Epsilon (2020) Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No draft exists. Right now it's too early to have this discussion. We should wait until whatever impacts occur in Bermuda (and perhaps Atlantic Canada in the long run) are known before we make any decision on an article. Yes, all the Greek named storms from 2005 have articles but remember WP:OTHERSTUFF. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TornadoLGS, yes we are keeping that in mind but right now we’re just discussing the possibility of needing an Epsilon article. Also, we need to remember WP:Crystal Ball because this can turn out to sea or directly hit Bermuda so we’ll have to watch it carefully. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. WP:CRYSTAL is also why this discussion is early, since it could still end up being a fish storm. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I create a draft article at Draft:Tropical Storm Epsilon (2020). 71.172.254.114 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why, though? We don't even need a draft right now because we don't know what kind of impacts the storm will bring to Bermuda, if any. Gumballs678 talk 21:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to correct spot. Anyway, let the draft stay, It'll probably cause some impact within a couple of days. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I was expecting this discussion, and I feel the same way. No need to publish until we know there will be impacts of note, but a draft is a good idea knowing there might be. (and to be honest, I wish this was precedent because I think it's the best way to avoid articles being created that then result in endless merger wars) DarkSide830 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose an article at this time per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with them. It is too early to have this type of discussion. Maybe when we see some impact in Bermuda, then we can see about that. Aegeou2 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been moved out of draftspace and is now redirected until there a change of consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say put a possible article on hold until Epsilon has already impacted Bermuda – if Epsilon actually does. I don't think a draft has to be made now, as someone could always write an entire article right at the time such a storm becomes notable.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC) ...Okay I get it, a draft made so a nice written article could be made before publishing it. Just hope someone else unaware of the draft does not steal the creation or the draft effort would be wasted...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm has become stronger since then and then NHC has said it has rapidly intensified Alphabet Genius (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article now It's a hurricane, it may still rapidly intensify, it's threatening land, and it might break some more records. If Hurricane Epsilon (2005) has an article, this should too.~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Destroyeraa: Epsilon in 2005 received an article because it was a meteorological anomoly and set multiple records for its strength and duration while occurring in December. This Epsilon hasn't really done anything record-breaking. I still say we hold off on the article until its impacts on Bermuda become clearer. Gumballs678 talk 14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87, true but its guaranteed to bring some impacts to Bermuda since its already extremely close, whether it be swells or rain-showers. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is still WP:NORUSH as we are not wikinews. Why not wait until the storm is actually being covered in WP:DEPTH (not just passing mentions) by the sources so we have more to work with? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as the watch is now a warning and it's strong, we might need a draft sooner than we thought. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is true, we still should wait (somewhat) and see what happens in terms of impacts, but I am not opposed to someone starting the draft. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 17:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 100% for a draft and 100% against publishing right now. Might as well have a draft ready, but we can't know for sure if impacts will warrant an article. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkside830, Weatherman27, Knowledgekid87, and CyclonicStormYutu: I reverted Knowledgekid87's bold edit of redirecting the draft. The draft is at Draft:Hurricane Epsilon (2020). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa: I really like the draft, so I think it should be the actual article. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No... you reverted my edit of turning the published article into a redirect. [2] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CyclonicStormYutu: Thanks. It will be the actual article once Epsilon affects Bermuda.~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Epsilon's life story is no more than: rapidly intensified into a hurricane, approached and brought heavy rain and high surf w/minimum damage to Bermuda, before turning away, became extra tropical on its way toward Iceland; then it does not warrant its own article. Drdpw (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for prematurely moving the article. I didn't know there was a discussion on it. LOL!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Destroyeraa: The outer bands of Epsilon are starting to affect Bermuda, so should it be the article now? CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's WP:NORUSH. Are there reliable sources with the impacts? If no, then hold off. --intelatitalk 19:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CyclonicStormYutu: No. It's still too early to judge if it warrants an article yet. Gumballs678 talk 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea why editors are in such a rush to get this article made. If the storm has minimal impacts on land then it is not noteworthy. Yes I understand the potential hype of this being a record season but we still have to be encyclopedic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean. I am pretty sure that that is the reason why we have it as a draft and not as an actual article yet, so that if the storm does end up becoming notable we can easily move it to the main-space, and if it ends up being a fish storm, we can easily get rid of it, but I am not completely sure, that is just what I thought is being done with the draft. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 20:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with it as a draft here, if the storm causes damages and loss of life then it should certainly have an article. For now though the wait continues for the scale of the impacts (if any). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: Probably way over the excitement since we are already in the midst of using the Greek alphabet. But I do agree with a lot of people here that there is no need to rush things. By the looks of how this storm is turning out to be, I am personally leaning towards of a no-article stand anyway. Typhoon2013 (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you, we definitely need to wait and see what happens, as it is, it still isn't completely clear if Bermuda will get any severe or major impacts from the storm (Based of some of the forecasts I have seen), but then again it could end up being a major storm and have enough impacts to be article-worthy. Patience is definitely key. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 20:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon dab page

Currently, the dab page for Hurricanes Epsilon from 2005 is located as Tropical Storm Epsilon, to which Hurricane Epsilon is a redirect. It Since both storms reached hurricane status, should that be the other way around? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a recently created List of storms named Epsilon, which I have redirected to the current DAB page. Drdpw (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ace

I know that this has been brought up before, but I want to get some opinions on it. Lately I have been seeing discussion in which people say that this season has been "Hyperactive." This sort of stemmed from the previous discussion on the talk page, that kind of just went old without any clear idea as to whether this season truly is hyperactive. I know that it is Above average in activity, but I honestly don't know that this season is truely hyperactive. Two points:

  • Many of the storms this year have been weak and short-lived. That isn't to say that we haven't had the major impacts of Laura, Isaias, Sally, Delta, and Hanna that have become severe hurricanes along with all of the other hurricanes that have formed out over the Atlantic, but even so, our Ace is only in the 120's.
  • 2017 was a hyperactive year, and despite having less named storms, had an Ace of over 200. (225-226)

I am just confused on how exactly ace is measured and how seasons are measured on storm strength. Is it classified on how many storms form in a season and how many rack up a large number of ace points? Is it determined by the number of ace points is made by each system only? Any thoughts and replies would be much appreciated. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 21:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ACE is measured by a storm's duration and intensity once it reaches tropical storm strength and only measured on full advisories."hyperactivity" from how I understand it is only used for ACE, which 2020 does not yet meet the threshold for. Hyperactivity begins at about 153 units as long as a season has at least 10 hurricanes or 5 major hurricanes. Hope this helps a little bit! Gumballs678 talk 21:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. Yeah that does help, Thank you! That clears up a lot about what I was wondering about. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 21:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 is close to hyperactive. We only need 20 more ace and one more major to be hyperactive. It will do it soon. 71.172.254.114 (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=984752982"