Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season

Thoughts on a re-evaluation of importance scale

The only season that seems comparable with regard to hyperactivity and confirmed damage is 2005, a top importance article. There is no doubt that this season is worthy of at least a High Importance rating in the WikiProject, but should the 2017 season article join the list of currently 24 top-importance articles in the tropical cyclone WikiProject and become the second season article rated as top importance? This season produced two top-importance storms (Harvey & Maria). While 2005 still holds the record of most active, I personally believe that the 2017 season warrants the status. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please maintain some global prospective. This would be the ninth Atlantic related article to be given top importance, and third in 2017 alone. With that in mind, it's not exactly a bad idea either. Ideally, I'd prefer to add a typhoon article or two but since there are so many typhoons, they all kinda blend in, and it's harder to justify one getting the top rating. Maybe swap 2017 AHS with another Atlantic hurricane? YE Pacific Hurricane 01:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your apparent mindset that high-importance ratings should be distributed equally. Some seasons will naturally be more noteworthy than others. If 2017, the most damaging system, had to have the same number of high-importance articles as…say…1986 Atlantic hurricane season, we'd either end up with $50,000,000,000+ storms not having high importance or high importance also assigned to fish storms. Also, basin equality doesn't necessarily hold true either. The Southern Atlantic has only ever produced one hurricane since tracking of those storms began. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 16:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC) High-importance ratings shouldn't and aren't distributed equally. Generally speaking, most season articles are given mid importance, excluding pre-satelite era seasons, and only a select few are given high. I don't think you understand what I mean about basin equality. The NIO and WPAC have the deadliest and most severe land impacting tropical cyclones on Earth, so I'm hesitant about them being underrepresented. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC) However, North Atlantic hurricanes tend to be the most damaging. Harvey is currently the most damaging tropical cyclone worldwide. Before Harvey, it was Katrina. Without either, it would probably be Maria. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 21:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC) True but in terms of human impact, deaths outweigh damage. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC) That doesn't make damage non-notable. There's no rule that only one metric of human impact can be emphasized, and while NIO and WPAC are practically competing with each other for being the deadlist, the North Atlantic basin seems to have a relatively secure monopoly on highest costs. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Yeah, agreed. Getting back towards the subject, I'm fine with 2017 AHS being added if another ATL article gets cut (Mitch, Andrew, and Maria come to mind). YE Pacific Hurricane 01:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC) I'd go with Andrew. Mitch is still the deadlist in modern times, and Maria is the third-costliest, five spots above Andrew. Also, Andrew is the least recent. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 04:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC) I disagree with 2017 AHS being top-importance. It didn't have the activity of 2005 AHS, and of the three big storms (H, I, M), only Irma isn't top-importance, and it shouldn't be. I dropped Andrew, since Harvey and Maria topped it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Harvey, Irma, and Maria were all damaging and strong storms of importance, but its not as hyperactive as the 2005 season for sure. HurricaneCalebN (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC) The 2017 left an even greater impact than seasons like 2004, 2005, and 2012. I think that this would deserve the top-importance rating by all means. If we were to take an article off of the top-importance level and replace it with this one, I would suggest it to be Harvey's meteorological history article. While Harvey was the costliest tropical cyclone on record, its meteorological history article doesnt really have any need to be top-importance. I would suggest making that high-importance while making this season article top-importance. What do you think? , , ?Cooper 15:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Harvey's MH defenitley should not be top importance in my opinon and im tempted to downgrade it now - Not sure if 2017 AHS qualifies for top importance with only 2 really significant storms.Jason Rees (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC) I'd honestly say that all four retired names were very significant. Also considering the amount of media coverage and attention the season got, I think it could be top-importance. Cooper 14:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Given that Harvey and Maria are already top, I don't agree. Hink and I have agreed about six years ago to generally keep top importance to a 1% quota as a way of maintaining due weight between the classes. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Honestly, I'd say 2017 deserves top importance as it was costlier than 2005, could be deadlier with the higheat estimate calling for over 8000 deaths, has three storms over$50 billion, and four retired names. This should mean a top importance article as seasons like these are very rare. To adress everything, Jason Rees I think that Irma was very significant as it claimed more lives than Harvey; 134 to 92 and caused a similar amount of damage as Maria 64 billion to 91 billion. Yellow Evan, there's a reason why there are 9 Atlantic top impotance articles there's plenty of warm water and minimal land and then there's a ton of land, the U.S., Mexico, the Carribean, Bermuda, the Azores, Cabo Verde, and the Canary Islands. About your 1% quota I still believe that the season article is still worth top importance as this kind of season is extremely rare, how many are notable enough to have one top importance article? Two? Now look at the season thoroughly, it was deadly, costly, numerous tropical cyclones, numerous records tied or broken such as most consecutive hurricanes tying 1893's record of 10, and four retired names, this kind of season is extraordinarily rare, and hence why it deserves three top importance articles. My reason on why the season itself and not just the big three should get top importance is that other storms; like Nate and Ophelia were costly and deadly except overshadowed by H.I.M.and there were numerous systems, the fifth most, and other little things the build up makes me believe that the 2017 season article should be top importance. Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cyclone of Foxes (but not that Ophelia should be top importance despite being a very unusual storm and the worst storm to hit Ireland in half a century). It's been half a year since I started this thread and I maintain that 2017 is a fine candidate for top importance. It's very easily the only season that can compare to 2005. It surpassed 05 to become the most destructive season, it may have been deadlier than 2005, it was one major away from matching 05's seven major hurricanes, it produced four retired storms (Harvey which matched Katrina's damage, Irma which was deadlier than Harvey (don't forget that Irma obliterated Barbuda; I strongly disagree with the statement that there were "only two notable storms," Maria is worst disaster in Puerto Rican history, and let's not forget that Nate was the worst natural disaster in Costa Rican history. 2017 is the only season to produce three storms with over 40 ACE unlike any one storm from 05, and 2017 produced three of the top 10 most destructive storms by cost. It is fair and accurate to say that 2005 was more hyperactive as 2017 didn't enter the Greek alphabet, but most of the 05 storms had little to no impact and the real effects of the two seasons are comparable. 2017 was objectively more destructive, but perhaps deadlier as well. 2017 was the only season that can compare to 2005. Brendon the Wizard 23:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The Capitals of the Hurricanes names

The NHC uses caps on the names like this Hurricane IRMA, not like Hurricane Irma. Maybe you should put caps on the Hurricanes names. Random user —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Generally NHC uses mixed caps and I would personally prefer to keep it to mixed capitals.Jason Rees (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Fully capitalized names are only used in advisories and their respective advisory archives as well as the link to their respective tropical cyclone reports. Otherwise, they use mixed capitals. It would not be sensible to change them to full capitals. Cooper 15:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Math

A certain user on here is disputing simple math. Four hurricanes caused almost all of the damage; yes Nate was slightly less than one billion but the percentage of .279 is quite a bit. Bleucheeses (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter when Harvey Irma and Maria each did over $50 billion in damage which dwarfs in comparison with Nate. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 11:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC) You are being difficult as you have been before. Bleucheeses (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC) NOAA recognizes one billion in damages as severe. Bleucheeses (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC) I don't see anything wrong with including Nate along with Harvey, Irma and Maria. The big three might have done much more damage than Nate, but the storm did cause just about a billion in damage. — 16:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Comment Though I'm not completely certain what is being proposed, if it is a request for Nate to be included alongside Harvey, Irma, and Maria, I actually agree because Nate was retired. I still understand rationale for excluding Nate because Harvey, Irma, and Maria were all significantly stonge and more devastating, but all four were retired. Brendon the Wizard 21:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Those are the points I was making. Bleucheeses (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC) You clearly don't know the meaning of "almost all" in the mathematical sense. If you read that article you will see that we cannot use it in the true mathematical sense here, so please do not call this "simple math". So what should we use? I think Nate should be kept out because the other three's damages each exceeded Nate by well over an order of magnitude. In addition, please see WP:BRD: you know the content is disputed now, so please do not attempt to re-insert it unless and until a consensus is reached to do so, which has not been done here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC) It's already solved, back to normal programming or a movie. KN has and hit upon a solution. Too much discussion on the site about the importance or lack thereof of tropical storms. Get a new hobby? Topic is over. Bleucheeses (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Oh? Then I will assume you're fine with my removal of the mention of Nate you re-inserted earlier today.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC) No, get a new hobby. Let KN put it in. Mathematics is a favorite field of mine; I understand it very well. Bleucheeses (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Mathematics is also a favorite field of mine. A mathematician like you should know not to misuse phrases like "almost all" so don't call it "simple math". I oppose the inclusion because we need to be succinct in the introduction. If you think "almost all" is itself misused as-is in the article, then we can use a weaker phrase like "much of" – but we should avoid overtly intricate sentences in the lead. A billion dollars is no small deal and would often be the story of the season, but as you know, this season was catastrophic and less than a billion pales in comparison to Harvey's$125 billion alone.
Simple math for me consists of problems like ${\displaystyle \int _{0}^{\infty }{\frac {dx}{1+x^{4}}}}$, certainly not what we mean here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Calculating calculus, do you see my perspective. Entirely too much thinking on your part and a few others - mind you, not many more... that try to evaluate things. Realize the name for the hurricane was retired. A billion in damages is a benchmark figure also in looking at disasters. KN has the right idea. Bleucheeses (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not about absolute damage numbers. It is a true statement that the majority of the damage was due to 3 hurricanes alone, and that each of those hurricanes caused at the least almost two orders of magnitude greater damage than Nate.
By this argument, we should list every single Pacific typhoon that caused a billion dollars in damage every single season, when that can be many storms a season. Also, consider WP:DUE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
You may lack debate skills at times, regardless... talk about KN's edit. You know already that typhoons are sometimes much less known than hurricanes in many places or overall. KN's post would solve this discussion and somehow I think our paths will cross again. Jasper, you seem to do this sort of thing quite a bit but maybe only about certain things. I say let KN's edit stand, otherwise I guess we're off to polling and you'll probably not succeed. Bleucheeses (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Another argument probably even you can figure out. Kilauea's volcano eruption lately in Hawaii has destroyed more than 80 homes. Are you saying that scale is all-important? Of course not. The mud slides in Santa Barbara or anywhere in the world... the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean WHICH has no name. See? You have faulty reasoning. You can't use the criteria you do; it's erroneous. Bleucheeses (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record I am fine with excluding Nate from the first paragraph to leave the most significant and well-known bits (i.e. Harvey, Irma, and Maria) up front. However, the fact that Nate was the costliest natural disaster in Costa Rican history should at least be mentioned somewhere in the next paragraph, as that is almost certainly more notable than being the fastest tropical cyclone in the Gulf of Mexico which is currently mentioned. ~ KN2731 {tc} 06:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

KN, you had a solution though. The phrase you posted works for pretty much any situation. We already have a few users agreeing with me. No consensus appears ahead. One of the points I am emphasizing is the debates of this nature are odd; why weather, natural disasters brings this out in people I don't know. Bleucheeses (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
NOAA and other agencies deal with this sort of thing daily and they know how to express facts. Wikipedia IS not the place for actions that are happening on here. Bleucheeses (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Good article

Should the article be nominated for GA status? Grammarguruguy (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A lot of the article was written while the season was active, meaning the bigger storms could use a better summary (damage totals, better description of damage by each area). It's not in bad shape, but it could probably use a good once-over before it's nominated for GA. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 06:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Not close to being ready yet.

1. It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
"due to their high damage costs and loss of life", "asymmetrical structure", "Having already acquired a well-defined circulation, the development of a persistent mass of deep convection around 03:00 UTC the following day prompted the NHC to upgrade the wave to Tropical Depression Four" (wrong sentence subject), and various other grammar/usage and diction problems with the prose. Lead section is way too long for an article of this length. Much of it belongs in the season summary section or in individual storm articles.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Reference section has bare references. "these forecasts were proven to be over-amplified as a result of a phenomenon known as the spring predictability barrier" – no, by this argument, every forecast made during the spring predictability barrier would be wrong. "Hundreds, if not over a thousand deaths" – not appropriate before Maria's death toll is confirmed to be sufficient for that. References to advisories generally need to be replaced by references to TCR's for storm intensity information.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Season summary is lacking and some hurricanes' sections, particularly Irma's, give insufficient weight to the impacts of the storm in those sections. The season forecasts could be elaborated on with more specific rationales cited by each agency.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Per previous point, WP:DUE weight is likely not achieved by the current state of the article.
5. It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article has long history of edit wars.
6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
There are many opportunities to add images in addition to the storm pictures, particularly in the season forecast and summary sections, where (respectively) graphs or damage pictures could be displayed.
7. Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Needs substantial work.