Talk:Hurricane Jose (2017)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Hurricane Jose (2017). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Improving Article

Help in improving the article would be appreciated. Orthorhombic, 19:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I redirected the article due to lack of content outside the season section. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if the article could be given a chance. I am currently working to update and improve the article. Orthorhombic, 20:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Expand its season section first. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional languages

The languages section of the article currently links to its French and Hungarian articles. Here are the Russian and Uzbek articles, my attempted save when editing the links failed. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could add them.BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Done Never-mind the original request, I was able to resolve the save error by removing these languages from what appears to be a past deleted version of the article with ID Q39169112. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it is a current active hurracan) --75.188.227.45 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly why it should be deleted. I am going to move a page here that has information on this event when this page is deleted. Thank you. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP has pages on all named storms, it would be very curious if the named hurricane on Irma's coat-tails didn't have a page and there is already a validated story to tell about Jose. Given the potential threat it posed to Barbuda etc. it is useful simply to be here explaining how it tracked north. there si also the expectation that it will track west again and strengthen (see NOAA forecast discussion) with the unfortunate possibility it could make landfall on the US eastern coast. People should at least be able to see it's current situation on WP. Stub Mandrel (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The version being discussed for a speedy deletion may have been from when a different editor repeatedly made the article without content. RileyBugz is actually the user that approved this article's draft for publication as an article. Edit history seems to show that a past version of the article was quickly deleted, but shortly after deletion Draft:Hurricane Jose was moved here to become the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletions

I would be really grateful if contributors could stop deleting this article. Jose is already the third largest hurricane of this season. This is not an obscure topic. Hurricane Irma currently features on the front page of Wikipedia. If there are deficiencies with the article, then I would be grateful if other authors could improve on it, rather than expecting me or someone else to produce a pitch perfect article first, particularly given the hurricane's status as an ongoing event. Also, please bear in mind that this article has the potential to provide people with lifesaving (encyclopedic) information: a consideration before the next undiscussed deletion. Orthorhombic, 01:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The thing was that no information was lost when it was "deleted". The old article contained little content that the season section currently does not have. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And the reason it had no new information was because it kept getting deleted... :) Orthorhombic, 15:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You could have easily waited for there to be more content to be available before making a sub-article though. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this Jose follows a path similar to its 1999 counterpart. Eventually, this year's version deserves an article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 01:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to remind editors coming here within the last two days: the section above (and below) discusses deletions of different versions of the article created by Orthorhombic without content. The current version of the article is from Draft:Hurricane Jose. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

On the significant condensing of Preparations & Impact

I can understand removal of statements that apply solely to Irma so long as they genuinely don't inform readers about Jose, and I can understand removal of quotes if they are not governmental or authoritative commentary on the noteworthiness of the subject, I can't say that this reduction is more beneficial than detrimental. As for the removal of the statement "Although the inner core remained far offshore, strong winds and heavy rains exacerbate flooding in Barbuda." since it was not backed up by the source, it appears that this statement was heavily reworded from when it was initially added from the source, meaning it should have been reverted rather than removed. Per WP:BOLD the next step is to discuss the reduction from and merging of the preparations & impact sections, so I encourage editors to share their thoughts on this. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Cleared up I hope. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The recent change does improve this. I'm still uncertain towards how we should display this section now that I've looked at other standalone articles from the season which had a structure similar to the pre-reduction one, but this is better than it was directly before this talk section was started. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge?

A draft for Jose was created due to its potential to make a direct landfall on the northeastern Leeward Islands, a location already devastated by Hurricane Irma just days prior. However, Jose ended up passing northeast of the island, with only negligible effects. The six sentences in the prep/impact section can easily be relegated to the season subsection. Merge? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be for it but nothing from the impact is dated newer than September 9 and there are no foreign language sources, so I'm not convinced of the negligible impact part yet. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not article-worthy imo, so yea I support for a merge. Jose did not caused direct impact to any landmasses. And @Orthorhombic:, doesn't mean a storm reached major hurricane intensity, doesn't mean we need an article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be for a merge so long as information isn't lost and can be found in a convenient place. As for @Typhoon2013:'s response to Orthorhombic, I should clarify that this article's current version was published from a draft a couple of days ago, while any discussion from before then was discussing when Orthorhombic repeatedly made the article without content. For now I don't yet vote for the merge, but I'm not strictly opposed to it. I will admit it's been difficult finding newer sources on Jose that talk about anything other than its projected path and where it might go now that Irma is inactive, but the latest NHC discussion comments that it's starting to reorganize itself so I'll wait and see what happens. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

1 and 2 should be added pre-merger. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose merge – Given that for one it nearly attained C5, threatened the Leeward Islands that were devastated by Irma, I see no reason to merge this. Plus, it is still alive and is expected to curve westward and near The Bahamas and the East Coast which could see impacts (even some models have it drifting offshore about ~100 miles or so). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Strong support for merge - Notwithstanding its weakening trend and increasingly slim chances of impacting land, the storm as is has been quite uneventful and would not be relevant if it weren't for Irma. The meteorological history is meager and can easily be merged in the season article, and the preparations and impact section is fluffed up with Irma's impact. We can cover the evacuations it prompted on Barbuda in the season article and in Irma's aftermath just fine. Auree ^★★ 22:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The storm passed dangerously close to the portions of the Leeward Islands flattened by Irma near Jose's 155 mph peak, that is definitely noteworthy imo. Plus even though it won't directly affect land it may definitely cause some bad indirect impacts in Bahamas, the East Coast and even Bermuda. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What does it coming close to the Leeward Islands after Irma have to do with anything when only a few sentences about that can be written about it in the season section? If more content becomes available whether it's through MH or impact, we can bring it back but right now everything can fit in the season section without removing any detail. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm still neutral on the merge discussion, but I'll back up versions of the article to my userspace solely to ensure that there will be a conveniently accessible copy of the article to access so editors could easily transfer information back into the seasonal article or to build off of in the event that the subject is later considered more notable. This is in case of a support result. Additional comment: For contrast of this article and other less significant hurricane articles of the season, consider viewing the Hurricane Franklin article. Prior to the significant reduction of the Jose article's preparation & impact sections, this article had more significant content than the Franklin article when comparing mentions of steps taken by government, the number of people affected, the degree to which they were affected, and the subsequent aftermaths. Jose unquestionably cannot compare to Irma or Harvey, but it seems to have its place on Wikipedia more than I would have thought before reading other standalone hurricane articles. This is a potentially legitimate reason for an oppose result. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In Franklin's case, impact can easily be added from Spanish sources, so there's at least more room for Franklin to grow. Plus the content in Franklin's can't be trimmed down in the manner I was able to trim down Jose's, meaning Franklin's impact+MH can't fit in the season section easily. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm questioning if Franklin does have more room to grow because right now there appears to actually be slightly more bytes of text on the subject on English Wikipedia than Spanish Wikipedia (1.7 KB vs 1.66 KB respectively for size of preparations & impact section) and the two seem to mostly mirror each other. It may be difficult to tell at the moment, though. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What does the Spanish wiki have to do with anything? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Generally foreign-language sources with more to add than what is available to English ones are utilized first by the Wiki language of the affected areas, but it still may be too early to tell. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to be harsh or anything but that isn't true with WPTC, even though I see why you're saying this as an outsider. Franklin's obviously expandable though - in addition to not a single reference to a national spanish newspaper, there's no impact in it's article for when it actually made its second landfall. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Type of Hurricane

Does this hurricane belong to Cape Verde Hurricane category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.46.22.7 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been wondering this too. Jose formed shortly after Irma and originally followed a path similar to hers, but whether or not it is a Cape Verde is questionable. There's usually only one or two per season and they're usually some of the strongest, and as Jose's peak intensity was more powerful than Harvey's this seems to fit, but I haven't added this yet because I haven't found sources that mention whether or not it's a Cape Verde, so for now I can only assume that it's not. I may want to reread old NHC discussions to check. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Cape Verde-type tropical cyclones are simply those that form from tropical waves spawning off the coast of Africa and bypassing the Cape Verde islands. It has nothing to do with intensity. Jose's MH reads: "A westward-moving tropical wave exited the west coast of Africa on August 31.[2] The wave passed south of Cape Verde;" therefore, it is by definition a Cape Verde-type hurricane. Hope that clears up the confusion.Auree ^★★ 03:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up, while notable intensity is frequent in Cape Verde storms it is true that this does not define them. I've wondered due to Jose's path originating after Irma, a classic Cape Verde. I've added that description to the lead, though there may be a better place for explicit mention of it as this type. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox error

The infobox says that Jose is a Category 1 hurricane, yet it says that sustained winds are only 70 mph. Can someone please fix it? 32ieww (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Done Another editor has updated this. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Records on active hurricane participation

Although right now there is no guarantee that this question will be needed as it's still to early to know if Lee and Maria will become hurricanes at a time when Jose is still a hurricane, is there any Atlantic storm in history known to have been one out of three hurricanes multiple times throughout its life? BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this question most likely won't be needed as Lee appears to be dissipating. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Jose currently the longest-lived storm this season?

Jose has continued to be active for an impressively long time, but what date officially marks the start of his activity? The monitored wave, reaching tropical depression status, reaching tropical storm status, or reaching hurricane status? Depressions and storms are both still considered tropical cyclones due to their rotation, but when Jose dissipates (which surprisingly is still not expected to happen for at least three or four days) what date will be used? BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

When it becomes a tropical cyclone - so tropical depression status. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

So Jose's activity started on September 5th, that answers the question. Thanks! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

II think this page needs to be moved.

I think this page should be moved to Hurricane Jose because it is recent, I remember Hurricane Harvey having it being move from Hurricane Harvey (2017) to Hurricane Harvey, im using a example to clarify it. So I think it should be moved. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

What does it being recent have to do with anything? Jose is not clearly the primary topic; Harvey is. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved, only if Jose's significance becomes great enough that no other storms of the same name would be associated with it. In the future there may be a small chance that it changes if it is retired (which is unlikely), but for now it is not the primary. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, Jose hasn't been as catastrophic as Harvey, nor its predecessor. — Wylie pedia 19:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify I was using Harvey's move as a example, not Talking about Harvey itself. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The 2017 Hurricane Jose is not clearly any more important than the 1999 one; it makes more sense for Hurricane Jose to be a disambiguation page, as there have been a number of Jose tropical storms and hurricanes, but none of them have been hugely significant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If the name "Jose" is retired it should be the primary, but as of right now there is no indication that retiring Jose's name is necessary or likely, so the current name is fine. We can revisit this discussion if that changes, though. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Visuals?

I feel that the article would be more engaging with visuals, but I don't know which images other editors would believe would be useful in the article. I've selected a few and put them into a table:

Image A Jose near peak intensity, does not include Irma	Image B Eye of Jose	Image C Jose near the Antilles while Irma nears Florida while both are major hurricanes	Image D Jose strengthening during rare occurrence of three active hurricanes (left to right: Katia, Irma, Jose)

Which if any of these images should be included? BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There's not much room for another image, especially since Yellow Evan trimmed the text, but I like image D because it illustrates one of the most salient facts about the hurricane, rather than its ephemeral position. Carlstak (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I also like Image D, with Jose at the far right. Irma has her color radar in motion image. This one should be here as well. — Wylie pedia 18:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Now that another editor has added an image displayed on the right, text was pushed down enough that another image can fit nicely, so I've added Image D to the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

After the current storm section was removed due to the storm dissipating, there doesn't seem to be enough room for it anymore. Further elaboration on its aftermath remains a possibility, so the image could be added back in the future. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring over Jose's dissipation

The history appears to be filled with edit warring over whether or not we can consider Jose to be dissipated. An objective definition is necessary.

The National Hurricane Center says as follows:

As of right now, its post-tropical remnants are to be considered active. (Description: "POST-TROP/REMNT LOW")
Tomorrow (25th September) at 18:00 it will be considered dissipated. (Description: "DISSIPATED")

Source: The NHC's final discussion on Jose

For now, we can accurately display as "Dissipated: Currently active" above "(Extratropical after September 21)"
Tomorrow we may change it to "Dissipated: September 25, 2017" above "(Extratropical after September 21)"

BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: you do realise you're citing a prediction that we have no way of knowing if it will come true until roughly 13 hours later when it becomes September 26 in UTC. As of 06:00 UTC, Jose's remnants still show up as a 1014 mbar low on the WPC's surface analysis. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The underlying intention when creating this section was to prevent further edit wars that claim Jose has already dissipated, and that we should instead wait. However, you are correct that Jose's remnants are still active on the WPC. We will know when it is inactive, but until then I would discourage editors from making further changes to describe it as dissipated. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Downgraded

Today, Jose got downgraded to a tropical storm. How do you think this page should be changed to reflect that? Should we keep the title but change the infobox? Should we change both? What should we do? Phil roc^{My contribs} 16:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Standard practice, in case you did not know, is to keep the title (since once the storm dies, it'll be known as Hurricane Jose in future documents and update the current infobox. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't change the name or redirect the article when it downgrades; after the storm dissipates, Jose's infobox will refer to it as a category 4 major hurricane. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, even after it has dissipated, there is no need to add hurricane-level infoboxes to the page, except its full strength one after dissipation. Just keep updating the main one up top with the changes until dissipated. — Wylie pedia 18:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Titles must always reflect the storm based on their peak intensity, no matter what happens afterwards.--OfficerAPC (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Efforts to improve overall quality

Although this is a rather broad question, based on the Tropical Cyclone Quality Scale, what areas of this article are most in need of improvement? The start class is at least preferable to the stub class, but I'd like to help improve it wherever possible. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I upped this to C, but some work is still needed. Mostly need to fill the MH more with details on why the storm moved the way it did, and on whether any major structural changes happened after peak (ie when did the eye collapse, when the the storm's center become displaced from the deep convection) from the NHC discussions. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to find information on those subjects by rereading some of the NHC discussions on Jose; I recall one that commented on the factors that influenced its unusual movement which could be beneficial. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Jose (2017). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/628YSV4hQ?url=http://www.weather.bm/climatereport/climateReport.asp to http://www.weather.bm/climatereport/climateReport.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Preferred infobox image

The image in the infobox has been changed several times recently. The article has been fully protected by an administrator to allow time for us to discuss which version to use and end any edit wars, but no discussions took place or were started, so I'd like to start one here.

I prefer using "File:Jose 2017-09-08 1425Z.jpg" because it has a better view of the eye and takes place at peak intensity rather than near peak intensity, both of which are valuable. Other editors are in favor of "File:Jose 2017-09-08 1615Z.jpg" stating that it is clearer; while I do not notice a significant difference in image quality, it is not at peak intensity and there is a poorer view of Jose's eye. A couple of weeks ago, the image "File:Jose 2017-09-08 1347Z.jpg" was also used by an editor.

To any prevent further editing conflicts, I request that editors state which image they believe is ideal and provide a brief explanation for why it would be more beneficial to use it. Thanks! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Jose peaked at 08/18z through 09/00z according to its TCR today, therefore the 1615z image is actually closer to peak. In addition, that image is higher quality (it doesn't have the sunlight artifact that the 1425z does in the bottom right corner), better focused, and has more vibrant colors. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 06:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)