Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Milton

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

Tornadoes

[edit]

Due to (what appears to be) a large amount of tornadoes spawned from the outer bands of Milton, would the tornadoes be necessary to have a separate article once more info comes out? Something along the lines of Hurricane Beryl tornado outbreak Wildfireupdateman (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:NWEATHER, the entire Weather WikiProject has had a massive dispute over this since the April 1-3 outbreak, I'd say that an article is not needed as of now. SirMemeGod  19:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a mention in this article though of any tornadoes confirmed. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Clyde (talk · contribs) Someone's already made a page. It's May all over again (funny enough). :) SirMemeGod  21:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I have draftified it. SirMemeGod  00:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is off-topic, but shouldn't we add the image of the wedge tornado? SillyNerdo (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is public domain or freely licensed then yes. If not then we probably shouldn’t. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s an FDOT image, someone can correct me if I’m wrong but I think stuff coming from the state of Florida are ineligible for copyright. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 00:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It probably falls under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-automated as it specifically mentions traffic cameras. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And plus, FDOT cameras are managed by the state government of Florida; which releases nearly everything they produce into the public domain. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be a candidate for Commons nonetheless (presuming it’s a free image); whether or not it’s notable enough for inclusion here is to be determined. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir MemeGod: A record number of TC-induced tornado warnings is an easy claim to notability. An article should be made.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't. A mention of the warnings could easily be done here. Nobody knows how many tornadoes actually touched down, and making an article would 100% be TOOSOON. SirMemeGod  12:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why TOOSOON? There's enough content for a separate article. Notability isn't in question yet. GNG does not mean the content has to be decidable now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why TOOSOON? Because Wikipedia isn't news. We still don't even know exactly how many tornadoes have occurred, something essential to an outbreak article.
Striking out, my opinion still stands though. We'l see how information looks either later tonight or tomorrow. :) SirMemeGod  17:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's complete and utter nonsense. Tornadoes are often discovered well after the fact as they get surveyed and then get gradually added. Project-wide policy supersedes what NWEATHER says, and NOTNEWS is not violated when we report things after the fact as reported by reliable secondary sources. Your argument makes zero sense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all the points above in mind, I do support the creation of a separate article that covers Milton's tornado outbreak. I really don't think TOOSOON is the case here; the coverage of the tornado outbreak itself is already attracting significant attention with fatalities as a result of it contributing to that (e.g. Associated Press). Additionally, the record amount of tornado warnings from a tropical cyclone could also establish notability of the outbreak as well, as aforementioned. There is a draft here – though it'll need substantial updating and improvement. ~ Tails Wx 13:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voicing my strong support for the publication of an article as soon as possible. It's been several days since the outbreak, and already some early surveys have been conducted, so TOOSOON no longer applies. This is undoubtedly a major tornado outbreak, possibly one of the largest and most impactful on record associated with a TC (though it would be nice to have an RS to back that up!); several large, violent, deadly, and widely-reported tornadoes struck populated areas, so this passes GNG with flying colors. ArkHyena (it/its) 13:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – Similar to the points that have been made before, the scope, deadly nature, and widespread effects swiftly blow out any tropical storm-related tornado outbreak we've covered. Only one I can remember even coming close to this one may be the one related to Hurricane Isaias, and this one had many more unfortunate fatalities, as well as injuries. As such, a standalone article is more than warranted, even if only, as of now, in draft format as presented by Tails Wx. Mjeims (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's many tornadoes and there has been multiple fatalities. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose/Wait while the tornado outbreak did cause some fatalities and damage, I do not believe that is the most notable part of Milton nor the deadliest and would be better off as a Florida subsection. The draft is oh so small for a tornado outbreak of a tropical cyclone and waiting until more information comes out would be the best solution. ZZZ'S 18:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The outbreak has broken several records, such as the largest tornado outbreak to ever occur in Florida, the most tornado warnings in 1 day in Florida, the deadliest tornado spawned by a tropical cyclone, the second most EF3 or higher tornadoes spawned by a tropical cyclone, the second most tornado warnings in 1 state in 1 day, ect…, I see no reason it shouldn’t be split, the outbreak is more notable than Beryl’s if we are being honest. 2603:80A0:C00:137:7170:5C0E:94C1:D1FC (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not justify splitting material from a page that does not meet the size guideline. ZZZ'S 22:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is 15,552 bytes, and the list of tornadoes is 51,862 bytes, which would mean an outbreak article would be a minimum of about 67,500 bytes, which is about 8,000-12,000 words, which is definitely enough for an article. 2603:80A0:C00:137:7170:5C0E:94C1:D1FC (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it likely would be 10,000-14,000 words due to aftermath and synopsis sections 2603:80A0:C00:137:7170:5C0E:94C1:D1FC (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is only 5 163 words. The hypothetical size of the article after expansion is not a good reason to split it since such an estimate is inaccurate. Bytes do not count since it does not accurately show the amount of information present in an article. Unless a significant expansion greatly increases the article's size, then there is no reason to include it. ZZZ'S 22:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Milton’s article could easily be expanded to 7 or 8 thousand words editors add more information to the article 2603:80A0:C00:137:7170:5C0E:94C1:D1FC (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean it is appropriate to split the article now. ZZZ'S 23:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s my point 2603:80A0:C00:137:7170:5C0E:94C1:D1FC (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? ZZZ'S 00:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that if it expanded it can be split, if it is not, then it will not be split 2603:80A0:C00:137:7170:5C0E:94C1:D1FC (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you accept that the article should not be split now? ZZZ'S 00:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 2603:80A0:C00:137:C277:3BDB:719B:B997 (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado section

[edit]

So there definitely is a need for information about the tornadoes in the article, especially since tornado reports are starting to come out now. I think tornadoes should get their own sub-section within Florida, since that's where all of the tornadoes are. Milton's article is only 4,000 words right now, so I don't think a tornado sub-article should be split off yet, but I do think the makings of one can be started within the tornado section. There could be information why there were so many tornadoes - a sting jet I believe? And then since there were so many tornadoes, there could be individual accounts of the tornadoes, but at a certain point I imagine that could get split off. Thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was over 200 words of disputed content that Got removed. Also, 6 deaths in a tornado outbreak almost always guarentees an article. And with expand section templates, an article is reasonable. I will try to find more specific tornado-related content. --Crete44 (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyobons mots 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a tornado killed 90 million people (hypothetically) and absolutely zero sources talk about it (also hypothetically), then it doesn't warrant an article. Deaths don't determine what does and doesn't need an article. See the 2023 Bethel Springs-Adamsville tornado, which in itself killed nine but doesn't deserve an article. SirMemeGod  15:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing individual tornadoes to outbreaks isn't a viable strategy. Plenty of sources already talk about it, but many of them don't add anything. Much of the info in the article is heavily tornado-specific and should be trimmed. Plus, there are multiple "expand section" templates as I said earlier, so there should be enough content once those are resolved. --Crete44 (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyobons mots 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was just an example, since you talked about tornado(es) fatalities. SirMemeGod  16:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the article is only 4,500 words right now, I still don't think there should be a separate tornado sub-article (at least not yet). I moved the Florida impact section around, with the first paragraph being the meteorological impacts (winds/rains/surge). The second paragraph is deaths/injuries. The third paragraph is examples of the individual damage. Then the tornado info is its own section. Hopefully the organization has been improved to make it easier to navigate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s actually officially only 3931 words (which should be over 4200 if my contributions weren’t thrown away.) There is a really bad lack of coverage with this, with too much information focusing on the broad impacts but refusing to discuss specifics. As an example, not a singular source mentions rainfall totals in Orlando or the surrounding area, mentions any impacts in the Jacksonville area, and the only source I found regarding a radio station from NWS Melbourne going down was Twitter, which should generally be avoided. If we had good coverage of this and the tornadoes, a sub article is a no brainer. I did find another piece of information regarding the tornadoes I put in the draft, but for whatever reason, there is a major lack of coverage with this storm.Crete44 (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyobons mots 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink and Sir MemeGod: I expanded the tornado article by adding an article and am attempting to build a section for the Spanish Lakes tornado. Also, this article is slowly expanding, so the tornado outbreak article should be ready soon. Crete44 (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyobons mots 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then feel free to keep adding to the main article. There's a chance that the tornadoes are such an integral part of the story that the sub-article isn't even needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subarticle will be needed, as there is no adequate way to summarize each of the tornadoes in the article, especially when the section is finished, and when the main article is finished. This is going to be a historic tornado outbreak for the state of Florida, and shouldn’t be lumped in with the rest when both articles are finished. Crete44 (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyobons mots 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of United States tornadoes from August to October 2024#October 9 event? SirMemeGod  14:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which won't be able to handle all of the Spanish Lakes tornado content once completed. I know you don't want an article, but several others above do, and the info to support one is finally starting to build.--Crete44 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyobons mots 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tornado outbreak part transcends two areas of interest. It definitely warrants an article on impacts alone though. It would almost certainly have one already if it was not part of a tropical system. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A draft was submitted and has been thoroughly improved, including accounts of information that would be inappropriate for the main article but fits nicely into the sub-article. It's pretty likely to be accepted, although the process might take up to 6 more weeks to accomplish. Also, as the main article continues to grow, we are beginning to get to a point where a size split-off is justified, anyway. Crete44 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyobons mots 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not anywhere near - Milton's article is still under 5,000 words. I think there could be an entire paragraph in the main article for the EF3 tornado in Spanish Lakes, since that's one of the more important tornadoes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we can give an entire paragraph to the Spanish Lakes tornado without cutting out any information and also incorporate the entire aftermath section of the tornadoes to the aftermath section of the main article while not cutting any information out and it’s still under 8,000 words, then the tornado sub article doesn’t need to be made. However, we cannot cut out information to not get an article - the entire contents of Draft:Hurricane Milton tornado outbreak need to be incorporated as if we were merging a main space article. 2600:4808:290:1040:A0F7:E229:B04:E442 (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: I merged some of the contents from the draft. I don’t think I got to all of it and now Wikipedia is saying 4800 words (though it doesn’t include the tables.) If more of the merge needs to be complete, would it still not justify a sub-article? --74.101.118.218 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I don't think a sub-article is warranted for the tornadoes. More information about the tornadoes should be included in the main article, such as preparations - was there a hurricane watch or high risk warning? The EF3 in Lakeport could probably have its own paragraph, and so should the Spanish Lakes tornado. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So preparations for the tornadoes was sort of lacking per research, this might’ve come as a surprise. That might’ve been why it was so deadly. I did make Spanish Lakes its own section, so the tornado section now has 4 paragraphs. NCDC will come out in January and maybe then they’ll be enough for a sub-article.172.85.138.229 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: would we have to mention all the tornadoes here like we did in Hurricane Isaias? Or would we leave some of them out. 104.246.112.81 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The weaker ones are mentioned in the tornadoes of October 2024 article. If Milton were to become a featured article, I don't think missing a few EF0 tornadoes would matter that much. The most important aspect is just how widespread the damage is, and what's being done to remedy it. The recovery is going to take a while, and there is a lot of logistical stuff happening. The weaker tornadoes aren't a worry for me. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: It’s at the point that ChessEric is cutting tornado info from the article saying it’s too much. Can we consider a split either now or when NCDC comes out in January? 107.122.189.83 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just my observation, but it does not appear that anything substantive was cut in the edit you reference. Drdpw (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, doesn't seem like anything was cut. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak draft

[edit]

It should be worked on more now that surveys are finished 72.46.58.62 (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to wait until NCDC data comes out, or more info comes out on the storm. This article will likely need to reach around 7,000 words before we can make a draft, or the tornado section would need to be 6-7 paragraphs. 71.246.109.203 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2024

[edit]

In the aftermath section, please add that Tom Brady [1] and the Baltimore Orioles [2] donated for Hurricane Milton relief efforts, while the Saints hosted a Milton relief game ahead of their game against the Buccaneers.[3] 24.188.43.47 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Shadow311 (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the conspiracy theories have 1 or 2 sentences in the lead?

[edit]

There is a disagreement between editors on if the conspiracy theories/A.I.-generated images related to this hurricane should be mention in the lead at all, or if it should be given one or two sentences (see this previous revision for the attempt of addition to the lead). For background see the split article, Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — As the editor in the disagreement who initially added the content, it if worth mentioning. The lead is support to mention a summary of the content in the article. A lot of the “Aftermath” section mentions conspiracy theories and things related to FEMA-related conspiracy theories. Heck, the split article for the conspiracy theories has “Hurricane Milton” in its own respective lead. This article even has a “Political discrimination report” section. To note, we have a FEMA employee who was fired for telling relief workers not to aid those who supported Donald Trump. So yes, it seems noteworthy enough to mention one or two sentences about it in the lead…not to mention help summarize the article’s content. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drdpw: As the initial disagreeing editor, your thoughts here on why it is not noteworthy at all for the lead would be very much appreciated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such a paragraph in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. Drdpw (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So mentioning it in the lead automatically would be UNDUE weight, despite there being a completely split article as a result of it? Like, I straight up started this discussion for adding one or two sentences, not a paragraph. With your statement here, I am presuming you mean it is entirely UNDUE. I have to have a strong opposition to that view. If no one else chimes in within about 24-48 hours, I will be requesting a third-party opinion on whether or not a single sentence on the split-article conspiracy theories would be UNDUE or DUE weight. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles covering conspiracy theories but we do not mention them in the lead: for example, flat earth and earth or Deep State and Federal Government of the United States. ✶Quxyz✶ 11:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – There is no mention of conspiracy theories in the aftermath section of this article, not even in the the FEMA controversy paragraph mentioned (nor was there at the time it was initially added on November 8). Drdpw (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1-in-1,000-years

[edit]

Welp, another discussion necessitated by Drdpw being Drdpw. It’s necessary to include given how rare and notable these occurrences are. 72.36.119.94 (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be insulting. The rarity and notability of the flooding is already demonstrated through pertinent details in the article; extraneous, sensational tidbits are not, IMO, needed to demonstrate this. Drdpw (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@73.X: open a proper discussion without potshots at other editors. Acroterion (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cost

[edit]

Where is the reference for the cost of damage being >$85 billion????? Pierre cb (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The very first source in the article... JayTee⛈️ 17:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Milton&oldid=1265096404"