Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Irma article?

At what point does a Hurricane Irma article become appropriate? Would fulfilling the forecast to be the highest intensity hurricane of the season be enough or must it make major landfall? 12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We usually split off an article when it has enough major impacts such that its section in the season article (in this case here) becomes too large to be adequately summarised there. There's no need for one right now since Irma hasn't started to impact the Lesser Antilles; that's at least a week away. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 02:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL we should wait to make this a standalone article. As of right now, there should not be a standalone article on the subject. That being said, I strongly advise editors to start drafting content for a Hurricane Irma article as there is significant data to support the idea that this hurricane will soon be impacting the Antilles as well as coastal areas of the North American mainland, specifically the southeast region. For now, those interested in contributing to this article should find data related to its formation and add it to their personal Sandbox. In the event that Irma (hopefully) causes no noteworthy damage, any data we find can be added to the subsection in the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season article. As Irma is expected to strengthen significantly over the next five days and poses a threat to many, I personally believe that an article covering Irma may be inevitable and we should be prepared to write the article, but let's not create it immediately.

Update - I found that we have articles for minor tropical storms and category 1 hurricanes of this season, so we could reasonably assume that Irma will be worthy of an article. I continue to take the position that we should wait to create the article, but I can say with confidence that it's most likely to be created soon. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because "minor" tropical storms and Category 1's have article doesn't mean Irma can have one. At this point I don't think there's enough content for an Irma article, although that will likely change. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said, we should wait to create it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

A hurricane watch is now in effect. Most likely we will be able to make a preparations section by tomorrow. Would it require (2017) since the name Irma has been used before? Although most - but not all - indications suggest that it will be a serious storm. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that the name has not been used before a 2017 would not be needed.If the name is not retired one can be added after another Irma reaches hurricane strength in 2023 or later.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Although this name has been used in '78 if I'm not mistaken, that hurricane has no article covering it, so it's fine for us to name the article simply "Hurricane Irma" rather than "Hurricane Irma (2017)". In the future, we can amend the article name if Irma's name is not retired and a future "Hurricane Irma" warrants an article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The only acceptable time to make an article on the storm is if it were to make landfall in a specific location. Right now, there are currently hurricane watches in for the islands of Antigua and Barbuda, in which it is likely to hit. If it hits the United States, the article would become more effective mainly because the storm will be more damaging and destructive. There could be a 50 to a 75% chance that an article will be created by Irma. Woody Floyd (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right that we shouldn't create the article until it makes landfall. That being said, as it's expected to make landfall in the Antilles in a matter of days, we should start preparing to make the article as soon as possible by drafting sections such as the background. If we haven't already, we should find sources stating when it developed, possibly why it was able to develop as it did (such as having low shear for many days), the subsequent rapid intensification, how it briefly weakened due to natural eye wall replacement, and being a Cape Verde hurricane. I've also found RS news coverage that comments on the noteworthy amount of fake forecasts circulating if that would be of interest or if it would be useful to include. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I've started my own draft in my sandbox, and I'm allowing all WPTC to help expand it, as it will be necessary IMO by say Thursday as Irma begins to impact the Lesser Antilles, also noting that it could probably some of the worst impacts there since Luis/Marilyn in 1995, so that may also warrant a page for the storm. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a few things described in the revision history. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Now, I don't expect this recommendation will be followed since people like drafts, but I think we should expand the seasonal article's section for Irma until the point that it is large enough to split off, then perform the split all in one edit. Master of Time (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

As we usually split off articles once they make landfall, even if they're not major hurricanes or don't receive very widespread coverage, I personally believe that now is an ideal time to start preparing the article. That being said, we should expand both the seasonal article and the draft for now. All noteworthy informations from the seasonal article should be carried over. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you use the section as a development space, the need for a draft should be limited. The draft above, even with your change, has very little information. All the information there can easily be fit into a section at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Master of Time (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I've only added 1,357 bytes as of now, but additional edits as well as collaboration from other users should be very beneficial. The limited edits to this new draft are not yet a telling indicator. Using a draft article space has much convenience; as it is expected to make landfall as a category 4 major hurricane and it is also still projected to continue to gain in strength and intensity, we should prepare an article because the necessity of one is now imminent. The final product will be an article, so we should make edits that account for that structure. I don't think that we should stop editing the section, though. In fact, I encourage editors to add to both the section and the draft. Anything added to the section can be transferred over to the draft, but in the end it is the draft that will become the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: Looks like this article is semi-protected, so I can't edit it - can someone update the infobox and associated info for Irma to indicate that it's reached Cat 4, as per the latest NHC advisory? (nhc.noaa.gov) Thanks. 2605:E000:3557:4400:91AC:465F:4B81:5831 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears that another editor has already done this: "and was upgraded into a Category 4 hurricane by 09:00 UTC on September 4 as hurricane warnings were issued for the Leeward Islands." Thank you, though! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Already done — IVORK _Discuss 22:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The draft is lagging the main article,with the 5 PM data in the infobox and 11 AM info in the main text...the 8 PM interim advisory is out,with 140 mph winds and pressure down to 27.85inHg/943mb.(At this point the main article may need to substitute Irma for Harvey as year's most powerful storm soon,Irma has the wind title while Harvey is barely holding to the pressure title).12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the draft has been submitted and passed. As of now, Hurricane Irma is its own standalone article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but the link to the Hurricane Irma article redirects to the 1978 Atlantic Hurricane Season. 188.10.235.71 (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Which link? It seems all the ones on the article point towards the 2017 storm. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Cape Verde hurricane

Based on the storm's track and on forecasts, it seems that Hurricane Irma is shaping up to be a classic Cape Verde hurricane. Should there be a link to that article within Irma's section?

I think there should be one, this would allow the reader to find more information about the formation and path of these hurricanes. This is especially noteworthy as Cape Verde hurricanes are often the most powerful and lethal hurricanes of any Atlantic hurricane season. If we can find a reliable source that mentions this, it should be included and cited. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Is CNN considered reliable anymore?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/08/31/us/hurricane-irma-forecast-weather/index.html

No. 2601:987:401:A275:FDD6:6605:E559:D382 (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If the IP editor said "No" in response to "Is CNN considered reliable anymore?" please note that in this instance the source is entirely reliable as there's literally nothing wrong with the article that the unsigned editor linked to. Here's an excerpt from it:

Irma is a classic "Cape Verde hurricane," a type of hurricane that forms in the far eastern Atlantic, near the Cape Verde Islands (now known as the Cabo Verde Islands), then tracks all the way across the Atlantic. Cape Verde storms frequently become some of the largest and most intense hurricanes. Examples are Hurricane Hugo, Hurricane Floyd, and Hurricane Ivan.

It's perfectly fine. I'll agree that we should be skeptic of CNN depending on the situation, but that's usually when there's a conflict of interest such as CNN favoring something corporate in a political context because they're a corporation; unfavorable views of CNN as a news network relate to people feeling that they aren't adequately performing the "watchdog" function of mass media. This is not one of those situations. There's nothing wrong with using CNN for information about weather. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not say "no". It was someone else's "no" combined with a bot error.

Thank you for the clarification. The response now applies to the someone else that said no, but if you haven't already I strongly recommend signing your posts by typing four tildes at the end. If you are interested, I would also encourage you to edit from an account to join the Wikipedia adventure! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Content preparation for potential Jose article

I have started a draft on Hurricane Jose. All editors are allowed to help.
Note: This draft has been submitted, but AfC submissions are highly backlogged. Both "Hurricane Jose" and "Hurricane Jose (2017)" are already redirects, which means this draft will have to be reviewed by an administrator. In a worst case scenario it could take weeks for it to be reviewed, but it will hopefully take less than several days. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Rationale for starting the draft now rather than later

• Now that Jose is a major hurricane expected to make landfall in the lesser Antilles just as Irma did several days ago (including striking Barbuda again after the PM of Antigua and Barbuda described the island as "90% destroyed"), Jose is very clearly a noteworthy storm. It's currently projected to become a category 4 and it appears to be curving more northward than Irma. It's far too early to know if the eastern US is threatened, but what is known is that it is currently threatening the Antilles. Perhaps the most concerning part is that Jose followed in Irma's path, potentially being another Cape Verde type. (I will have to research that more before referring to it as a Cape Verde hurricane, though.)
  

Disclaimers about what this does and does not mean

• Just as with Irma, I will not call for the creation of an article or the publication/submission of the draft until the need for one is very clear and imminent, but we may need to consider drafting content for one early on to ensure that if/when it is published that the reader would have a well-edited article so our draft is less "rough".
• In compliance with Wikipedia policy, this draft will not be submitted until we have a variety of RS sources to demonstrate that it passes general notability guidelines. A handful of editors helped to prepare the Irma article with many different sources and ensured that the statements produced from the sources were unambiguous and accurate, which led me to the conclusion that drafting is certainly a beneficial approach. If Jose luckily dissipates without causing any noteworthy damage or prompting declarations of emergency statuses, the draft will not be submitted.

BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia really frustrates me sometimes. This article should be published immediately, even in its incomplete format. Every minor league baseball player that ever lifted a bat gets a page on Wikipedia, and you can't even get a page on the third biggest hurricane of the 2017 Atlantic season published without going through some pious, censorious hell. Hurricanes are the number one reason readers are looking at Wikipedia today. Orthorhombic, 01:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd publish it right now despite its multiple empty sections if we were not advised to refrain from creating individual articles on hurricanes, but until further notice RS sources may refer to Jose as a footnote of coverage on Irma so it may take time to prepare the article. That being said, you're more than welcome to help develop this draft to prepare it for publication. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't make decisions here based on stuff in other projects. Hurricane Jose is in the middle of nowhere right now, so it would be best to wait until there are impacts to actually write about. We have the season section, after all. Additionally, Wikipedia is not the National Hurricane Center. Premature article publication is a risky and inadvisable move. Master of Time (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

As I've hopefully stated clearly: this article will not be published prematurely as to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just in case you did not notice my indent, I was replying to Orthorhombic. Orthorhombic is the one who kept trying to recreate the article. Master of Time (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on the mention of other projects I assumed from context that you were referring to Orthorhombic; I was just making sure to reiterate that I have no intention of publishing it immediately despite agreeing with the value they expressed towards articles on this subject. Thank you for clarifying. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Publish now! You have 30 million results on Google for "Hurricane Jose", with double inverted commas. Are you saying that island communities have to get destroyed before your notability criteria are met? That's not what Wikipedia's about? Publish the start that you've made, and the world will improve it, and you will have done your bit to make the world a safer place. Orthorhombic, 12:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

We must create the article before we publish it to the public. We do need the world to improve it, that's why all editors can edit this draft, including you. I will need help creating the preparations section. Its landfall is expected tomorrow, so we need to add a lot of content tonight if we are to go based on our publication of Irma happening directly before Irma made landfall. I plan on publishing within one or two days. Wikipedia generally discourages creating individual articles on hurricanes that neither affect people nor break records, but Jose is different and clearly is notable as I've already said. That's why the draft was started, and that is why I encourage you to help me write it so we may publish it. Currently it has ten contributions, nine were by me and a tenth was by Jdcomix generously catching a mistake that I made. I wouldn't trust myself alone with the task of providing the best wording for a subject this significant, so collaboration is necessary. We still need content for the preparations section. For now the impact section could either be temporarily deprecated or temporarily filled with content referring to its impact as what factors make the storm important. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't notability. There are plenty of independent sources out there for the storm, but there isn't enough content for a stand-alone page. Your comparison to baseball players is moot point, given that there is nowhere where a short baseball article can be redirected to. Storm articles, if they are short, can be redirected to the season article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarification ad-nauseum, it was a replying editor that made the comparison to the baseball players. As for notability, I did try to mention that the RS sources are currently only referring to Jose as a footnote of Irma, so I am still waiting for more content to add. We published the Irma article just before it made landfall, and a similar situation may occur here if and only if we can add sufficient content. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Publish it now. It's nearly a Cat 5, that alone is notable. Jdcomix (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I would say publish. 150 mph, nearly Category 5. EBGamingWiki (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jdcomix, EBGamingWiki, and Orthorhombic. I've added more content to fill all empty sections, so it should be ready. I'm publishing the article now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Additional note: A redirect from Hurricane Jose and Hurricane Jose (2017) already exist, so I likely must request a move or submission. Regardless, it will be done and soon. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd hold off a little longer pending if there's more preparations than what's in your userspace. Reaching 130 knots alone while helps it cause does not warrant an article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I've submitted a request for it to be an article, though acceptance or rejection may take time. Until then, we can continue researching the subject on the draft. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Any reason your requested it to be moved Hurricane Jose and not Hurricane Jose (2017)? Just wondering, I don't think it warrants being the primary topic right away. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Moving it to Hurricane Jose (2017) is also a perfectly viable option if it fails to warrant the primary name. It could later be renamed to drop the (2017) if it gains enough significance to be the primary article on hurricanes named Jose. I've submitted it as "Hurricane Jose" already, but the decision is now to be made by an administrator BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There's two sides to the coin here to be honest. One could argue that'd it'd be WP:CRYSTAL to call it the primary topic, but on the other hand, it could be argued that since Jose is currently active, it's temporarily the primary topic. If we do not include the year, please revert this when the time comes. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The draft was rejected, though the reason cited was that this subject is already covered on Wikipedia on this article. Per the reasons discussed here that reason does not seem sufficient, so I am attempting to appeal the rejection by reaching out to the user that declined the draft in hopes that the decision is reconsidered. Either way, I intend to continue working on the draft to better prepare it as an article as I still have reason to believe that an article will be necessary (and soon) as Jose is a very powerful storm posing an increasingly imminent threat to some of the same islands that Irma just hit, leaving them more vulnerable than before. It luckily is expected to turn the opposite direction afterwards, but not without making landfall, so there will be people affected and the seasonal article summaries cannot sufficiently do justice when covering the short and long term impacts. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The sandbox isn't perfect in quality, but at this point, I don't have a problem with an article. I'll see if I can get someone to move it off-site later today. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, and Titoxd: Pining relevant although busy WPTC admins. Also pretty sure it makes sense to history merge Draft:Hurricane Jose and User:BrendonTheWizard/Hurricane Jose. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged. Also, I just noticed that Russian Wikipedia already has an article on Hurricane Jose. French Wikipedia has an article on Jose, and even Uzbek Wikipedia already has an article on Jose. We should definitely have the article draft published on English Wikipedia soon; it's already affecting land right now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It was twice declined, which as unfortunate as that is, I will continue adding content to the article draft. I'll have to do a lot of research and if possible double the amount of content offered by the draft, and as always it would help a lot to have as many editors helping as possible. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

More cold be added from foreign language sources; however, the fact it was declined twice is very outrageous. Hopefully one of the admins I pinged above will move it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

In my opinon a lot more needs to be added to the impact, before it is put out to main space. Also while I can not speak for either @Sulfurboy: or @Whispering:, I suspect that is what held them back from publishing the draft to main space. Also tropical storm force or gale force winds being recorded on a single island does not mean that a system has made landfall or that an article should be published. Also i notice from a quick google that damage was lighter than expected, which makes me wonder if an article is really needed.Jason Rees (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we must expand this section. I've spoken with both Sulfurboy and Whispering on the subject but I've yet to hear from Sulfurboy. Whispering said that their reasoning was we should wait until it makes landfall in some way, but upon telling them that it already did, they stated I was insulting their intelligence and have not responded since. We've been publishing articles based on whether or not they've impacted land, and our Irma article draft was actually published before it made landfall anywhere. As of right now the hurricane is threatening Puerto Rico as it appeared to move further into water and turn around, but this is not an instance of WP:CRYSTAL due to how it's already impacted land past-tense rather than only future-tense. There's a lot to expand on the Impact->Barbuda section which I will be adding to over the next few hours. I'm also going to expand the lead and reorganize the preparations section by region, as well as adding new information on the preparations taken by the newly threatened islands, possibly adding more on how Irma striking them has affected their preparation process. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Jose didnt make landfall though - it just produced tropical storm/gale force winds on Barbuda! It also isnt threatening Puerto Rico any more with all hurricane warnings cancelled and is in fact forecast to perform a loop and not affect anymore islands until possibly later in the week. As a result, im not sure an article on Jose is needed just yet.Jason Rees (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

As was said, We've been publishing articles based on whether or not they've impacted land, and our Irma article draft was actually published before it made landfall anywhere. However, the article should be expanded. You're also right that Puerto Rico is now not expected to be hit, I've already updated the draft to state that its direction now faces the Bahamas. We can put off publication for a while, but the rationale provided in the previous article rejections were insufficient. If we awaited strictly landfall rather than impact, or even necessitated impact to begin with, Irma wouldn't have been published until the next day or two. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If that was true Brendon then we would have articles on every single tropical cyclone around the world - even those that are one warning only. As a result, we generally wait for impacts to be known and i dont see why the Atlantic should be any different, except for special events such as Irma.Jason Rees (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No. Not every single tropical cyclone in the world has affected land, that's a rather poor reduction to draw from this. It already is known that Jose struck Barbuda with tropical storm force. That's not equivalent to making an article on everything with only warning, and that's certainly not equivalent to saying that every single tropical cyclone around the world. Even articles which have the title "spared from Hurricane Jose" go on to say that they were spared from the worst of Jose. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Jose (2017) exists now, it's at least a start class rather than a stub class, but there's a lot left to do. I'll try to find some free-to-use images of the storm, as well as finding recent news coverage of the subject. I've also reorganized the preparations section, but the impact section will need an expansion, so I'll specifically look for the response by Antigua-Barbuda. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

New storm after Maria?

A new storm with a clearly recognizable eye is visible on Google Earth ~1400 km east to Bahamas "S+130°18'19.4"E/@32.3719671,-43.8317166,4063781m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d-5.5439!4d130.3054?hl=en. Is there no information about it??--Prandr (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM and two, that’s Lee your talking about. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah alright. I thought Lee had been already over. I should have put a question mark in the title, so I am doing it now.--Prandr (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably no more for at least for five more days. Caesar Panda I (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This season is super active

WP:NOTAFORUM. Jdcomix (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This season is super active,and it has been a decade since the last time 2 cat 5 hurricane formed in the Atlantic,and prob the first time that 2 hurricanes hit the same area(cough cough,Maria and Irma?).I was not expecting this,espcially Harvey (cwy cwy T~T).Also,though Maria is weaker than Irma,it had lower pressure,and its 10 on top 10 most intense hurricanes(by pressure)!QuitenBases (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Storms are typically ranked by pressure, and by that metric, Maria is stronger, not weaker than Irma. Anyway, Wikipedia talk pages are not intended for general discussion of the topic but are for discussion of article changes. Master of Time (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Oh,because i use customary,but thanks for the info!and ok because this my first time on a talk pageQuitenBases (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

I Have A Question, Are You Sure Irma Made Over 112 Billion Dollars In Damage? 207.172.180.75 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is relevant. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Not an edit request.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Harvey II (Meteorological history)

Actualy the section on Harveyy is lacking of information on what the storm did after its Texas landfall(s9. No mention of stalling, no mention of returning back to the South East, no mention of getting again over the Gulf of Mexico, no mention of its final (third) landfall and nothing about the degradation oof the system on its way up the Mississippi and Ohio valleys. --Matthiasb (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Harvey*. Well, it isn't the Harvey page. Tybomb124 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the season page, though, so it needs to correctly summarize the storm. It's a fair criticism. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"Four"

I don't think that storm is needed. Tybomb124 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It was a tropical cyclone so yes a mention is warranted. Whether it gets a full-blown section can be debated. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Depressions typically get sections, we should keep it. Jdcomix (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Im afraid it is needed to tell the story of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season since it is a numbered system, however, what might be more acceptable to some of the editors of this page is too drop it to Other systems. After all it was only a tropical depression that had a minimal impact on land.Jason Rees (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention it's a bit strange having an other systems section for a section that describes one system (10L) as it is. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be weird putting it out of order. We typically keep these articles in chronological order. It might be worth bumping the "other storms" section up and renaming it to "failed storm system" or something. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't always put it in order though. See 1979 Atlantic hurricane season for instance. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason for separating potential tropical cyclones from depressions and named storms (as mentioned in a section somewhere above) is because PTCs are not a comprehensive category of disturbances; only those that threaten land are monitored. That's why the PTCs that fail to become tropical cyclones are moved into the "other systems" section. As of now there's only one such PTC (10L), which was why the section was titled "other system" (for some reason now it's plural). If another such "failed PTC" appears, then it'll join 10L. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 14:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Remember @KN2731: that not all tropical depressions or named tropical systems deserve or need a full blown section in a seasonal article. As a result, I strongly oppose keeping the other systems section to just failed PTC's.Jason Rees (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

While that may be the case in other basins (and in older Atlantic hurricane seasons), I feel that we have enough information about Tropical Depression Four for it to warrant its own section. — Iunetalk 00:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Jose now a Hurricane

As of the 5 pm Wednesday report ( http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at2+shtml/150131.shtml?cone#contents ) Jose is now a hurricane and expected to (at least briefly) become a major one. 2601:8A:C100:84CC:D25:CF36:1C15:F6DD (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I apparently saw an out-of-date page on first look. 2601:8A:C100:84CC:D25:CF36:1C15:F6DD (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Today is twice now that linking from the Hurricane Jose disambiguation page took me to a September 5th version of this page. 2601:8A:C100:84CC:F18C:FF70:14AD:436 (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Now that Jose is a major hurricane threatening the Antilles, I've started a draft on the subject. Any contributions are greatly appreciated. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Since it doesn't appear to be a major land threat at this time, it should be at Hurricane Jose (2017) and not given preferential treatment. That may change later depending on its track though. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The draft at on userspace was moved to Draft:Hurricane Jose which became Hurricane Jose (2017) since it so far does not warrant being the WP:PRIMARY article with that name. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I have a couple of questions to ask. First off, I was told that I should not use weather.com. Is there a reason for this? From what I have found, weather.com is reliable in reporting hurricane strengths. Second, I only edited the minimum pressure from 914 to 913, and I was told to use Trump's real name. I'm not sure why this was even mentioned because I literally changed one number by one and made no other edits on the entire page. I get that I have the "Make Donald Drumpf Again" extension on because I think it's funny, but at the same time, I don't understand why that was even stated in the first place.

CobaltYoshi27 (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, apparently that extension mangles the text of textbox if you edit an article. You did change all the examples of Donald Trump on the page to Donald Drumpf; you may need to turn that extension off at points to avoid that change in future edits.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't even know that happened. Next time, I will be sure to turn it off. Why was he even on the page in the first place? And also, what about the first question? I still don't have an answer for that one.

Weather.com while a reliable source is not the official source for intensity - thats the NHC.Jason Rees (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

About Don.

I don't think the last part was needed because we don't need to bring up politics. Tybomb124 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

What? Wikipedia is not censored. We bring up politics if it's warranted, so that's a very weak argument. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The last part is rather benign, it's not saying very much to add a footnote about how there has been some interest in the coincidence between the storm's name and the name of an incumbent politician. I think it's fine, though I'd be alright with or without it since it's not one of the more important notes of the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Importance Scale

Now that this season has become (technically unofficially) the costliest on record, surpassing even top-importance 2005, would this warrant upgrading the status from high-importance to top-importance? Both are fitting, but I'm interested in what other editors think. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd keep it at high for now. 2005 was record-shattering in many ways, so Top makes sense there. A good analog to this season is 2010, which is still classified as {{High-importance}}. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

We are not exactly sure, but it's possible that 2017 could be the costliest or the second costliest in the Atlantic area. Right now, there are estimated guesses/predictions on the total amount of damages for both Harvey and Irma. These two hurricane are very likely going to be very costly, possibly more than what Katrina in 2005 because they made landfall at Category 4 strength. My guess is that this season will probably surpass the 2005 season as the costliest in the Atlantic basin. Woody Floyd (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

High, given the season is still active, since it's getting more attention than normal. 2005 did more than just be (at the time) the costliest season on record (going Greek, ACE record, storm/hurricane record, 2 1K death storms, 3 Cat 5's). Top is reserved for ~1% of all WPTC articles. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Metereological history of Hurricane Irma article?

Should there be an article discussing the metereology history of Hurricane Irma? Woody Floyd (talk) 00:19 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Currently the Irma article has a section on meteorological history, though it's notably outdated and needs expansion. If it does get too long to read and navigate comfortably, which considering the significance of Irma is possible, then we could consider having sub-articles on Irma rather than sub-sections (similar to how Katrina has several individual articles on certain aspects of the storm). It may be too early to tell, since that section still needs an expansion. Typically the meteorological history of the storm is not something that gets put in a separate article, though. I could be wrong about that, but the related articles I see are usually about subsequent tornado outbreaks or the environmental factors. I can see environmental factors and meteorological history being close enough to expand on together if needed. I'm neutral on this right now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Question about article splitting

Quick dumb question: Is the general standard that tropical cyclones get separate articles when they impact land? Is this standardized anywhere, or just custom? Thanks. Trivialist (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Typically storms that demonstrate their significance often through making landfall, breaking records, or for one reason or another receiving notable coverage by reliable sources. As the importance of articles is on a scale that allows for low and mid importance, simply having an article doesn't say very much about its importance, but impacting land, damaging structures, or causing harm often guarantees that a standalone article is preferable to simply being in the season section as the most damaging storms are of the highest importance. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks! Trivialist (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If they have enough content, they get split up. See other season articles like 1995 Atlantic hurricane season. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Maria

Even though Maria just became a tropical storm the other day, its path expects very direct impact with the Caribbean islands in a matter of only days.

Per usual, this will not be published prematurely, but for editors' convenience we can start working on it at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Hurricane Maria (2017)

As always, the seasonal article should still be updated as well, but any editors that would like to add to this are free to do so.

I'm still reading through the latest coverage of Maria, but here's links that I found as potential news sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if we go back to using project sandboxes (WikiProject:Tropical Cyclones/Maria 17) and not use draft space- which only create a hassle for Jose. But yes this will obviously merit an article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I personally would prefer that (or draftspace) over using user subpages (since they are the hardest to find, and it is weird having one user's name on the draft). When you say "which only create a hassle for Jose," do you mean the AfC review? It is possible to use draftspace and just never tag it for review, permitting an instant, discretionary move to article space. Master of Time (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with whichever is best for the editors. I planned on moving the Userspace draft to "Hurricane Maria (2017)" (upon it reaching hurricane status of course), but I'd also gladly put it on the WikiProject draft space. You are right that Jose's submission process ended up becoming a hassle as the unwarranted rejections made publication days late of when editors requested its publication, so whichever method is ideal is what will ultimately be used. I'll see if I can copy the existing content over to WikiProject:Tropical Cyclones/Hurricane Maria (2017) (name can be different if you prefer). I'll just make sure that this process will be much smoother than last time. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Be aware that someone started a draft at last night.Jason Rees (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

We could merge content from this draft into theirs, it seems that they're currently pending review on their draft. If it gets published as an article, then we'll definitely add content there. If the draft runs into the same issues we had trying to get Jose's draft published, we could reach out to the draft editors to move from draftspace to the WikiProject sandbox as suggested by Yellow Evan. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Just remove the AfC tag and move the original draft. Just because an article is in draftspace does not mean there needs to be an AfC review. You can go through that process -- if you really want to. It is not necessitated, though. Also, Yellow Evan must have typed up the wrong title; that 'should' say Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Maria 17. The draft you created is actually in mainspace now. Master of Time (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

That's an issue, is there a way to quickly move this from mainspace to the Wikiproject? BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are an autoconfirmed user (which you are), all you need to do is use the "Move" button at the top of the page. This really should be combined with the other draft, though. Master of Time (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's been moved, but I agree that it should be combined with the other draft, I'm just unsure of which is the best place to host it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonTheWizard (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like MarioProtIV created a separate draft too. In my opinion, they should all be consolidated into Draft:Hurricane Maria (2017), the oldest and longest draft. Master of Time (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Now that there's several separate drafts, we definitely need to merge them and fast. We may want to ping other editors to see what they think about this. If you are confident that we can publish the draft without having to go through the AfC process then that's perfect. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

We may need to wait a little bit longer (probably under 24 hours) for mainspace publication, but I don't think we'll need to wait for an AfC reviewer to examine the page. Master of Time (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

That's good, once the article is published we can ping MarioProtIV and move any information+sources from our drafts into the mainspace article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Maria Article

Maria will most likely be upgraded to a Category 3 Hurricane within 30 minutes at the next advisory, and I think a article is appropriate at this time. EBGamingWiki (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

See the section above the one above this one. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs)

Hurricane Irma Damage Estimate

I am going to ask that nobody change the damage estimate on Irma until better information is available. Currently, the damage estimate is upwards of 120 billion. The Air worldwide estimate is not accurate for overall damages as it only includes insured loses. Uninsured losses and economical damages are not taken into consideration. Please do not change the estimate to any number that does not include total damages caused by Irma. --Figfires (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Your version risks overestimating the costs, potentially by a significant amount. What's the problem with using insured losses as a start? It would be much better to use a lower end estimate with a ">" symbol to ensure accuracy versus huge preliminary and potentially unreliable totals. Master of Time (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well... the insured losses are far below the actual damages considering how many island the storm completely wiped out and states that have been effected. Even the estimates lower than that one are still much higher than only 30 billion. --Figfires (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with not going as high as 100B+ yet now that they're varied, but I don't think going as low as only 30 billion is accurate either when every source I've seen (even some of the sources currently used to cite 30B) are much higher. (One of the sources used to cite 30B says that the range is from minimum 50B to maximum 200B+) The lowest I've been seeing is 49-50B, and most sources I've seen estimate damage greater than or equal to that of Harvey. Unfortunately we do not yet have any truly official numbers and all we can rely on are estimates, but downwards of 30B risks a potentially equal and/or opposite inaccuracy to upwards of 100B. While I do see the value in and the rationale behind starting at numbers low enough to say with confidence that it would cost at least that much, having a number that risks greatly understating it could also be misleading even with disclaimers when it's this much lower than the general consensus of current sources. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay... the estimates are changing. I am going to change Irma's estimated damages to the median of the estimates. --Figfires (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Either leave the damage field blank or give a range - with no mention of any records unless we have an explicit source. Doing the median is too speculative for my tastes. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Updating Images

Is this not a thing anymore to update images for VIS-IR and hurricane tracks via commons? Anyways just a friendly reminder to update the Geostationary VIS-IR and tracks via commons rather than constantly uploading new files and having to change them manualy constantly... Unless thats the consesus going forward? This has also been happening on Hurricane Jose, Hurricane Maria and 2017 Pacific hurricane season. Davidbuddy9Talk 05:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No, this policy hasn't changed to my knowledge. I think we might potentially want to put up a notice for new users editing the season articles about this though. — Iunetalk 15:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

How do I update VIS-IR via commons? Is there a button or something I'm missing? Jdcomix (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jdcomix: click on any image you wish to update. It will take you to its Wikifile page if it has one (most VIS-IRs do). Click the "View in Commons" button up top (beside History). Then scroll down midpage in Commons below the upload history, you should see "Upload a new version" there. Load as normal, it will update the Wikifile image and any pages using it. — Wyliepedia 04:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you also do this with the track images? Jdcomix (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the geostationary VIS-IR, the current NHC forecast track and the overall storm tracks are uploaded over a single image in each case. — Iunetalk 17:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Article for Hurricane Katia

I'm just wondering - will Katia get its own article? The rule is notable storms/storms with impact do get their own individual article, and Katia struck Mexico as a hurricane and had some impact on the nation. Is there not enough information available as of right now to make one, or are we waiting until the hurricane's Tropical Cyclone Report is released? I'm just wondering as there has been a pretty significant delay in the storm's article as usually all landfalling hurricanes do get an article of their own at some point. Vedanara2 (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If you can find enough info about impacts, yes. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Unofficial Records

I have noticed time and time again that unofficial records are being added to the infobox for this hurricane season. I would like to ask for consensus on this issue because I disagree with records being added at this point, especially unofficial ones. I feel that unofficial records are misleading and false, and that they should not be included in encyclopedic articles. The current damages for almost all the hurricanes/storms are estimates of damage costs, not actual tallies. Until the damages are actually verified, no record has been broken. I feel we should at least wait until the end of the season before adding any form of record to the infobox. --Figfires (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

What on earth is an "unofficial record"? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice how the infobox says "Unofficially costliest tropical cyclone season on record"? That is the unofficial record I am referring to. --Figfires (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly and that means nothing to the average reader. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like just a few people keep reverting to show the unofficial record.--Figfires (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Umm...There are 2 official records...Harvey and Irma(Harvey is wettest in Texas and Irma is strongest outside of Gulf and Caribbean)QuittyQuitQuit (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There've been plenty of other records set this year but he's just referring to this "unofficial" damage total record we've set - which people keep reverting yet not explaining why, and is part of a growing trend I've noticed with adding random records in the infobox. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok,Thanks!QuittyQuitQuit (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Why unofficialy second costliest season

Tell me the truth right now! I don't now the unofficially costliest season --FrancoLeymas (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're requesting, but this is now unofficially the costliest season. The rationale for referring to it as "unofficial" is that initial reports on damage assessment may not always be the final numbers, and the confirmed value of damage doesn't necessarily translate to the official costs spent to recover. Time will tell, though, so the label of unofficial is temporary. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, if you factor in inflation, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is still the costliest. I ran the damage totals through an inflation calculator, and the site indicated that the 2005 season costs about $200 billion in 2017 USD. While the 2017 season is the costliest based on official figures & estimates alone (and will probably become the single costliest season by the end of this year), the 2017 season is still superceded by the notorious 2005 season if you factor in inflation. Just something to keep in mind. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

How is Hurricane Maria the strongest storm of the season? And why don't you include storm size?

It is stated that the strongest storm of the season is Hurricane Maria with Maximum Winds 175 mph (280 km/h), when Hurricane Irma was stronger with maximum winds 185 mph (295 km/h). I might be wrong, but if not: Isn't this an error? And shouldn't this be fixed?

Also storm size measures such as diameter are important. For example I heard Hurricane Andrew was an intense storm but had a small size, when Hurricane Irma was a huge storm with the diameter greater than some countries. Along with wind speed and pressure I think storm size should be included and used to determine the strength and severity of a storm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.230.107.24 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Answer to the irst question, storms are typically ranked by pressure, and by that metric, Maria is stronger, not weaker than Irma. Red Jay (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Irma maybe more stronger than Maria based on wind speed, but in pressure terms Maria would considered to be the strongest storm of the season. Also, storm sizes don't always matter on wind speed. Take a look at Sandy in 2012. Sandy was only a Category 3 hurricane and never gained Category 5 strength, yet it's size was gigantic that could cover up the entire east coast of the United States. I hope this takes a turn for the better and makes things more understandable. Woody Floyd (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that storm size is ambiguous as well. From what I understand, Sandy had a larger cloud structure than Irma, but Irma had a larger wind field that Sandy, so each could be considered "larger" than the other in a certain respect. Which measure of storm size does Wikipedia typically use?2601:2C1:C001:1F20:3C58:C61:481B:CC80 (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

See the article: Tropical cyclone. Also, it seems to have Wind Field and Size as two somewhat different things, since they're in different sections.--Halls4521 (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Re IP comment: Actually, no. Hurricane Sandy had a much larger windfield than Hurricane Irma ever did, even before Sandy became extratropical and expanded even further. Just look at the sources cited on the Hurricane Sandy article. Sandy is still officially the largest hurricane ever recorded in the North Atlantic basin (by size). LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Re storm size: Agreed. The size of any wind storm has nothing to do with how strong it is, but more with the area(s) affected by the storm(s). There have some very powerful hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, etc. that small in size/area and yet packed a very deadly and devastating punch to everything in their paths. (i.e.: (in a hurricanes case) Andrew and Charley.)--Halls4521 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Lee Track Image

This shows only the first "incarnation" of Lee, up to 20 September when it initially dissipated, and is missing Lee's activity since it re-strengthened. 124.171.159.246 (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will get around to updating it in the near-future. You won't have to wait long. Master of Time (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That's if someone's working on the track. There are cases in which users forget and a storm's track really lags behind for a long time. Since Lee's track has been relatively updated in the seasonal summary map, I assume that they'll get to Lee's individual track soon. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I updated it a few hours ago.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop arguing

Stop arguing about the unofficial records and official records. Wait 'till the season ends. There are only 2 official records. The WMO hasn't retired any names either too, so stop arguaing about that,just make a guess, but don't argue. It's unnecesery that you argue about unofficial things. Let the NHC or WMO to make their estimates and final costs. You're filling up the talk page and making it that there's more time to scroll down and read sections and responses that you don't want to read. Besides, talk pages are discussing about how to improve the article, not to argue and discuss about other stuff. This isn't a forum, it's a encyclopedia. Thank You!QuittyQuitQuit (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Although I don't necessarily disagree with you, with all due respect I should mention that sections requesting that editors stop arguing are not very beneficial. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Article for Katia?

I think a article for Hurricane Katia is appropiate right now. There is most likely a lot of source out there. I'm not sure, but there should be a lot of source right now, so can anyone make one? QuittyQuitQuit (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There should be, but worth pointing out this was already discussed here, so avoid beating a dead horse please. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok! QuittyQuitQuit (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Nate Article

Nate is threatening a lot of land, The Yucatán, Central America, Cuba, The United States... I think a main article is needed. EBGamingWiki (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We are a volunteer community so nothing is "needed". Please expand the season section first and split it off if/when necessary, especially since I'm not sure how much info they'll be in Central America. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will start working on an article as it is needed. 22 people have died (up to date) so it should get an article. --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 20:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay... You can contribute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Tropical_Storm_Nate_(2017) --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 21:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Never mind... appears they just added an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figfires (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

New record for damage.

So, 2017 surpassed 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar Panda I (talk • contribs) 00:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Source? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The 2017 season has NOT surpassed 2005. As of now, all the damage costs are estimates (not actual damage costs). Do not add a record to the infobox when it is unverified. I would recommend waiting until the season is over to revisit adding any records to this page. --Figfires (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Even after adjusting for inflation, 2005 is still the costliest. Caesar Panda I (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the 2017 season has surpassed the 2005 season by raw damage costs, unless you factor in the inflation. However, given that the current 2017 damage figures are only low-end estimates, and the fact that this season isn't even over yet, the 2017 season will probably become the costliest by this winter. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope not, but another tropical cyclone might form in the few days. I think we can all agree on one thing (even trolls): We don't need another hurricane in America. Caesar Panda I (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

YUp, america has had enough damage, and I, myself got affected by Harvey. QuittyQuitQuit (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone spoke too soon. Look at who's heading to the Gulf Coast. Quite ironic. I personally believe that the season is far from over. There will probably be at least a couple more hurricanes, and maybe even another Major hurricane. As usual, we can't rule out further US landfalls. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think PTCs should be in the season timeline

Since they increase the number of the storms, for example after PTC 10 came storm 11. I was confused when there was TD 16, and there were only 14 storms in the timeline. It would help clear up some of the confusion. If not, there should be a sentence on why it went from 9 to 11 on any season where a PTC doesn't form.

Syryquil1 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I added a brief explanation in the article's lead, but I might consider incorporating PTC 10 a little bit more into the article. That being said, if it's done, PTC 10 won't be added into any official figures, and any new totals that come out would be labeled as "unofficial." It also depends a bit on how the other editors feel here. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we avoid using terms such as "unofficial storms" for the same reason I moaned about the "unofficial costliest season on record" - it adds unnecessary confusion, at least to a straight shooter like myself. We can mention the NHC still numbers PTC's (and it may not be a bad idea to do explain the E, C, and W designations for other basins in the TC glossroy page while I'm at it), but at the same time, we IMO need to keep it concise, given the length of the season page. We probably should move the PTC bit elsewhere to the body, and probably mention other stuff like the start of storm surge warnings and possible other changes listed in the annual NHC op plans in the same bit but that's a discussion we can have at the end of his historic and god-tier hurricane season. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Maria Damage

Im just asking.... Where did the 91 billion come from? Is there a source that says the damage is that high? --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 10:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes and the source says the governor believes that’s the damage toll. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't expect it to be THAT high. Wait, it was Irma, ok that makes sense now. QuittyQuitQuit (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The numbers are really variable; they range from $15.9 billion to $95 billion. We should not rely on just one source. The governor's number is no more reliable than the various groups like Moody's which do damage estimates for natural disasters. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Seasonal Damage

Right now the seasonal damage chart presents the minimum estimates for the various storms; given that most of these are only accurate to two sig figs, it would be inappropriate to present more than two sig figs down in the table.

However, more pertinent is the question of how we should be presenting this data. Is it best to present it in the present manner, where we have a "minimum" estimate (i.e. it has done at least $149 billion as of the time of writing) or would it be better to present the data as a range, as we are not likely to get accurate damage totals for months, if not longer? Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

We normally present the minimum estimates, when official estimates are not yet available. Concerning the "minimum" damage figures, we use low-end "total damage" (both insured + uninsured) figures of a reasonable amount (e.g. no outliers). LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

175>185?

In the info-box, it shows Maria has the strongest storm, even though Irma was 10 mph more. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Maria had lower pressure though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I think YE meant to say Maria (not Irma) had a lower pressure. (has been fixed) Unless the pressures are the same, storm intensity is measured based on minimum pressure. Master of Time (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Maria's pressure was lower, and the standard is to use pressure for intensity. That being said, to currently list Maria's winds as part of the strongest storm section when it's neither used to define the strongest storm nor currently held by Maria may not be beneficial, so I'll add a small footnote next to wind speeds to hopefully alleviate any possible ambiguity regarding the strongest storm. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Rant on* Why why why do people insist on using pressure? Does pressure directly affect the water rising in a storm surge? Get in a plane and see what such dangerous pressure does to you. Strength and power comes from the winds. Duh. I think weather know-it-alls continue using this ridiculous stat to convince others they are wiser. which is false.*Rant off* FSUrv95 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @FSUrv95: Because it is a better-defined quantity and unlike wind, is consistent worldwide. And yes, pressure can directly affect the water level in a storm surge by sheer suction - see also the notion of a meteotsunami. Also, pressure and wind are intimately related to each other. Basic vector calculus tells us that wind is correlated with the gradient of the pressure field.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jesper Deng: I understand the meteorological concepts you are discussing, but lets face it - in terms of scale there is no contest. The part of storm surge driven by pressure change is trivial compared to wind, and a 185 mph storm has about 12% more energy per unit than a 175 mph system. No I don't have the skills to prove this but I'm sure there are a lot of PhD's out there who can. If folks are going to insist on using pressure to rank storms, then change the caption to the more honest "most intense storm" instead of "strongest". I'm sure I'm not the only person irked by this.. FSUrv95 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      • @FSUrv95: This is not even wrong. A basic exercise of integral calculus and the definition of kinetic energy shows that all we can say is that the energy in the storm is given as $K={\frac {1}{2}}\iiint _{S}\rho |\mathbf {v} |^{2}\ dV$ where S denotes the region of space occupied by the storm, and that $K\leq {\frac {1}{2}}v_{max}^{2}\rho _{max}\cdot V$, where $\rho$ denotes air density. We can say nothing else without further information. In layman's terms, a bigger storm with lower winds could have a much higher amount of total instantaneous kinetic energy than a storm with higher winds but much smaller size. To get the water rise due to the vacuum effect alone, an application of Archimedes' principle to the water and air at rest is done: the weight of the extra volume of water has to exactly compensate for the reduced pressure. This total weight is given as $\iint _{A}(p_{a}-p)\ dA$ where A denotes the region on the surface occupied by the tropical cyclone's reduced pressure field (typically the region within the outermost closed isobar). Since this integral relation is valid for all subregions of the storm, we can conclude that (at equilibrium, neglecting changes in water density), the height of the column of water at a given point is directly proportional to the pressure drop at that location. So the center of Hurricane Patricia at peak intensity, with a 135 mb drop from the outermost closed isobar, could be expected to have 54-inch rise in water. Smaller than the effects of wind (Patricia was at one point projected to deliver an 18-foot storm surge), but nontrivial.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
        • @Jesper Deng: We seem to be arguing slightly different points here. I don't have the ability or even desire to disprove your math, and I am surprised that a 54 inch rise by pressure was even possible.. but as you yourself state, that does not surpass what wind can potentially do. My point is that wind, as the clearly bigger factor for both water and land damage, should be cited when determining the "strength" of a storm. If the consensus of the meteorological community is to rank by pressure due to consistency or other factors, then label it what it is: the most "intense" storm of the season.FSUrv95 (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
          • @FSUrv95: There's more than winds and pressure at play when it comes to storm surge, anyways. And you clearly glossed over the point where I said that kinetic energy is not determined by the maximum wind speed. Patricia's 18-foot predicted storm surge would still be easily dwarfed by Katrina's 28-foot storm surge, even though its sustained winds were far stronger than Katrina's. So no, the maximum sustained winds do not constitute a better measurement of "strength" than central pressure. By the way, I am not named "Jesper Deng". There is an a in my first name.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ophelia advisory thumbnail

Just FYI, but the Ophelia advisory graphic's thumbnail won't display for some reason. The first time I uploaded the file, I noticed part of the bottom was chopped off (and was just white), so I re-downloaded and re-uploaded a version for which that is not the case. That didn't fix the problem of the thumbnail just failing to load for some reason, so I don't know what the issue is. Master of Time (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be loading correctly now, for me at least. It's also loading correctly over at 2017–18 UK and Ireland windstorm season#Ex-Hurricane Ophelia. Buttons0603 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometime after I made the upload, the problem did fix itself. Before that, in place of the image, it just displayed the text "File:17L 2017 5day.png" as a blue link (I'm not sure if the text "File:" was displayed there or not, but that's unimportant). Master of Time (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ophelia Article

I know Ophelia just formed, but don't ridicule the possiblility of Ophelia needing an article. I will start a draft, but not publish it until Ophelia reaches minimal hurricane status. Ophelia will become our 10th Hurricane of the season and could possibly affect the Canary Islands. Ophelia could need an article. Ophelia formed in an unusal area, so it and Arlene could need an article. Thank you. Resolutionisim (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Resolutionisim Resolutionisim (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I would say not yet. Too weak, and not threatening land... yet. EBGamingWiki (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If we're gonna give an article for every odd forming system, that defeats the point of season articles. Everything about Ophelia can go in the season section. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It does not need an article. Not even worth making a draft. Master of Time (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I still think Ophelia becoming a Hurricane at this latitude would be rare, and be worth an article. Just look at Hurricane Vince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolutionisim (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

We can include all of its information in the season section then. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Vince's article was created in the earlier days of the project when every system was given an article. The only reason it hasn't been merged since then is because it's a featured article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, if Ophelia does something remarkable or causes any significant damage (such as breaking some records or making landfall in Europe as a tropical cyclone), then I would strongly suggest starting an article. But as of now, wait and see, and just expand the storm's section as needed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The latitude isn't what makes Vince unique. Vince actually made landfall in Europe, so even now, there would definitely be an argument for having an article. That seems a lot different from what is being suggested above. Master of Time (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ophelia is expected to become a Cat 1 hurricane tommarow and if it reaches Cat 2 it needs an article. Resolutionisim (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Strength doesn’t matter in this case, even if it was a freaking C5 that didn’t affect land, it still wouldn’t have an article. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Off course it would as every cat 5 hurricane has an article, cf. List of Atlantic category 5 hurricanes. However models indicate that Ophelia has a chance to come very near to Southwest England and Britanny and/or make landfall in Northern Portugal or Galicia. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That's somewhat of a coincidence; not every Category 5 worldwide has an article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It would likely be the first Hurricane to ever hit Portugal if it does. I think that would be noteworthy enough to warrant an article. Caesar Panda I (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily, if everything can fit in the season section easily. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Hurricane Vince made landfall in Portugal as a tropical cyclone (though not a hurricane). I'm pretty sure that other storms have made landfall on Portugal as a hurricane in the past, but regardless, if Ophelia makes landfall on Portugal at hurricane strength, I'm going to start an article, because the impacts that would follow would be more than notable enough to warrant an article. If Ophelia makes landfall as an actual hurricane (fully tropical), that would truly be notable and possibly even record-setting/breaking. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with your sentiments, although models are showing it move towards Ireland and the UK, rather than Portugal, some models are also showing a distinct eye persisting until landfall - so even by the time it reaches Ireland it may still be tropical, or at least subtropical. Buttons0603 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Considering Ophelia is on the verge of tying a record of consecutive hurricanes + its future effects as an ET in Europe (which judging by the lifeless may be quite severe), an article might be needed in the next week or so. That is, until its season page summary begins to overflow with impacts (which it probably will), no article for now. I will however start a draft that will be slowly worked on with impacts in Europe once we get the damages in. Plus, Azores May feel this too so that’s another future reason. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ophelia looks like it is going to have some pretty insane effects in western Europe. Some models showing it may even still have an eye as it makes landfall in Ireland which would suggest perhaps it won't have even completed extratropical transition by then. Obviously forecasts can change so far out but getting closer to the time it may be appropriate to create an article for such an unusual hurricane. I would suggest we start working on a draft now, unless somebody has already! Buttons0603 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that Ophelia is up to Category 2, and impacts on the UK & Ireland are looking more and more likely, I've gone ahead and started the draft: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones/Hurricane Ophelia (2017). Buttons0603 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I’d prefer if future draft edits are made here to reduce the amount of subpages/drafts created for this. We had this issue with Maria IIRC, and let’s not try to do it again. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"Hurricane Ophelia (2017)" link suggested

Hurricane Ophelia (2017) may not yet have an article, but currently just redirects within this article. Seems like at a minimum no harm is done, and it is helpful to the reader, plus if/when created, it is already in place. X1\ (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

We are not allowed to link back to this article from the article via redirects as it goes against the MOS. If and when Ophelia needs an article links will be introuduced.Jason Rees (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It needs an article. No hurricane has been this far northeast and become a major hurricane before. I think that fact alone makes it articleworthy. Vince had an article, and it just floated going no stronger than low end Category 1, and it barely did any damage where it went. Seriously, this hurricane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Vince has an article, but Ophelia which formed about the same time, lasted longer, and was far stronger and about the same area is without an article. Caesar Panda I (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Working on getting my draft for Ophelia moved into mainspace. Shouldn’t be too long. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I am under the belief that such a hurricane should not exist, but here it is. Rapidly intensifying, and according to the Dvorak scale featured on this website: http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/adt/odt17L.html it is almost a Cat 4(!) already. Caesar Panda I (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I fully support the need for the Draft:Hurricane Ophelia (2017) to be made into a full article as this hurricane is breaking unusual records and it should be also be noted it’s near resemblance to Hurricane Debbie when it passed close to the Western Coast of Ireland. Also the new article ought to be tied into the 2017-18 UK and Ireland windstorm season.(2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:309D:560A:81D:90B3 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC))

Nothing is ever needed, but we're almost to the point where this is article worthy. Whether Vince has an article or not is totally irrevalent to whether Ophelia gets one, however. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh Hurricane Ophelia is noteworthy of its own article now, we just need get the article up and live. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:309D:560A:81D:90B3 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC))

Hurricane string record tie

"... tied with 1878, 1886, and 1893 for having the greatest number of consecutive hurricanes." I'm not sure how I feel about comparing this to those 3 seasons from the pre-satellite era, since weaker systems tended to go unnoticed in those times. The 10 consecutive canes record from 2017 occurred in an era where systems do not go unnoticed and should be viewed in light of other post-satellite seasons. Auree ^★★ 11:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe add a note 1876, 1886, and 1893 come from the pre-recon era? (Which is generally when reliable records in the Atlantic begins IIRC). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I already added the record in the Hurricane Ophelia section of the main Hurricane Season page and added the facts about those seasons being in the pre-satellite era. Pebblestar (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This is trivia, and not a particularly important or interesting record. Having multiple hurricanes in a row is really meaningless; if a tropical storm forms between, but there's just as many hurricanes, it will "break the string" but it won't mean that the season was any less intense. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to have a civilized discussion about these things instead of expressing ourselves with the undo button.

Closing per WP:NOTAVOTE. This is not how you get consensus; if you really want consensus on any of these things, please do so correctly. SkyWarrior 02:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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'll try to sound neutral. Please vote by adding your signature (~~~~) to the appropriate section in the vote table. If you decide to vote for or against for a reason not already covered in the list of arguments, just add your reason to the list of arguments and only type your actual vote in the voting area. Also, when you vote, please update the tallies accordingly.

Should Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten have its own sub-sub-sub-section within the sub-sub-section titled Other Systems?

Obviously, sub-sub-sub-sections will have to be created no matter what if there's another potential tropical cyclone that doesn't become a tropical cyclone this season, so the question is just whether or not to created sub-sub=sub-sections proactively.

Arguments for:

• There might be another potential tropical cyclone that doesn't become a tropical cyclone later in the season, and adding subsections now will reduce the overhaul required later.
  • This is especially true of links in this article and other articles that would need to be changed from Other Systems to Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten, and if Other Systems is divided into sub-sub-sub-sections now, less links will have to be found and changed than if it's divided into sub-sub-sub-sections in the future.
• Adding Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten as a sub-sub-sub-section allows readers in a hurry to view everything that happened in the season just by looking at the Table of Contents at the top of the page instead of having to go all the way down to the Other Systems sub-sub-section.
• Giving Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten its own sub-sub-sub-section would give us more freedom to discuss effects of the system, like flooding in parts of Florida, as the system doesn't have its own article.

Arguments against:

• Doing so is not necessary for navigation purposes, as there are no other systems discussed in Other Systems.

Votes:

Should we make Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten a sub-sub-sub-section of Other Systems?	Votes For	Header text
Votes	2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:45FD:11D8:88D7:CE3B (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Totals	1	0

Should records be mentioned?

This actually concerns several edits, like this one and these two. There are actually three options for this vote, interspersing records throughout the article, putting records in their own section, or not having records at all.

Arguments for interspersing records:

• Records are about the storms that break them.
• Records often tie in to storm information, which would be in the storm's section.

Arguments for giving records their own section:

• Splicing several sentences about records into a paragraph about storm history or something makes the writing seem choppy and like it's going off on a tangent, but records are still significant enough to be included in the article.
• Some people might visit the page just to see the records that the season or its storms broke and would want to find the records easily.

Arguments for not including records:

• Records don't belong here.

Votes:

What should we do about records?	Votes for interspersing records	Votes for giving records their own section	Votes for not including records
Votes		2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:45FD:11D8:88D7:CE3B (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Totals	0	1	0

Should links to other parts of the same page be allowed?

Arguments for:

• They help with navigation
  • It's obviously supposed to be done, or else there would be a Table of Contents.
    • However, the Table of Contents only appears at the top of the article, so links to other parts of the same page would greatly ease navigation from the middle and bottom of the page.
  • If the page is as long as this page, forcing the reader to scroll all that distance would be impractical.

Arguments against:

• The reader is already on the page that the link would take him/her to.

Votes:

Should links to different parts of the same page be allowed?	Votes for	Votes against
Votes	2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:45FD:11D8:88D7:CE3B (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Totals	1	0

Comments

WP:WPTC decided prior to the start of the season that information on Potential Tropical Cyclones would be very limited as they are not tropical cyclones. Without the advisories from the NHC, this discussion would not be happening. Yes a post-storm report will be produced for verification purposes, but it will not be counted toward season statistics as it was simply a non-tropical low. This article is meant to cover subtropical and tropical cyclones, not systems that did not develop into such. We only include PoTC to avoid edit warring from people wanting to include them since the NHC provided advisories. If you notice, there are no stats kept on them in the tables or infoboxes. These systems are not uniformly warned upon in the Atlantic and including them to a greater degree opens up the door to including every disturbance in a season. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

What about the other two issues?98.198.130.52 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to say that so far, this is the only system in entire North Atlantic basin this year that came so close to becoming a tropical cyclone, yet still fall short of it, so despite PTCs not being uniformly warned on, this would be the only such system right now. Speaking of which, I would like to mention that in the past few years, the NHC has dug up some extra tropical storms that they failed to notice during the course of the hurricane season (such as the 2011 and the 2013 seasons), so if they decide in the Post-seasonal analysis that Potential Tropical Cyclone 10 was actually a tropical storm, we'll have to adjust this article accordingly to fully incorporate this storm. That being said, if it does happen, this storm would already be notable by itself. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have an article on this storm in my userspace, but I will not move it to Wikipedia mainspace (let alone link it to this article) unless some user shows me that the article is more than capable of surviving on its own. The storm did produce tropical storm-force winds and heavy flooding in both the Carolinas and Florida (which probably added to the misery of those in Florida before Irma even go there), so I think that the storm is notable enough to have an article of its own; the only question would be whether or not my sandboxed article has adequately covered the storm's impacts. (If the article can be moved into mainspace, I can find some other way to circumvent the current problems with the hurricane infobox.) On the issue of this storm's inclusion, I think that it could potentially be included in a tally for "Potential Tropical Cyclones", though any such tally would be completely unofficial, with regards to the actual tropical systems. In any case, this storm would not be included as a tropical system, nor would it be treated as such in any of the seasonal infoboxes. As for the issue regarding another subheading for this storm under the Other systems section, I'm personally fine with it either way, but I believe that the subheadings were removed for some other reason (which I can't find at the moment). LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this is not how Wikipedia works. Consensus is the way we make decisions and it is emphatically not the same as voting, so I will not be filling in my name up there. With that said:
  • When the PTC is the only system that merits coverage in the "Other system(s)" section, there is no ambiguity and a subheader is unneeded.
  • Records that don't pertain to an individual storm belong in the seasonal summary section. Records that are indeed individual to that storm just need a brief mention in the storm's section, not their own subsection, which would be excessive given that the purpose of the storm sections is to give a brief and concise overview of the storm.
  • While not forbidden, WP:SELFREDIRECT states that links to subsections should be done directly rather than using redirects.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm abstaining from this for part of the reason JD mentioned. Wikipedia is not a voting booth. I oppose a level 4 header for PTC largely because it defeats the purposes of an other systems section. We treat PTC's similarly to how we handle JMA TD's and SHEM zone of disturbed weather/tropical lows/tropical disturbances and include them (with a few exceptions) in an other systems section. For 1970s and 1980s, most TD's in both the ATL and EPAC don't have full blown sections, and I don't see any argument for a level 4 header for PTC's that wouldn't apply to past basins and seasons. In regards to this argument that "There might be another potential tropical cyclone that doesn't become a tropical cyclone later in the season, and adding subsections now will reduce the overhaul required later. " I think we actually have the opposite problem in regards to season articles; we have too many sub-headers in season articles for what's mostly 1-2 paragraphs of information. The next arguments of "This is especially true of links in this article and other articles that would need to be changed from Other Systems to Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten, and if Other Systems is divided into sub-sub-sub-sections now, less links will have to be found and changed than if it's divided into sub-sub-sub-sections in the future. Adding Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten as a sub-sub-sub-section allows readers in a hurry to view everything that happened in the season just by looking at the Table of Contents at the top of the page instead of having to go all the way down to the Other Systems sub-sub-section." to me defeats the entire purpose of the other systems section; it's primarily reserved for in addition to PTC's, TD's that don't for some reason have sufficient information available for more than a few lines of information, and giving it a full blown section would likely lead to excess whitespace. PTC's fit in there because in addition to them not being tropical cyclones, are not likely to have much information either. Furthermore, this argument makes no sense whatsoever "Giving Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten its own sub-sub-sub-section would give us more freedom to discuss effects of the system, like flooding in parts of Florida, as the system doesn't have its own article." given how short the section is. The most interesting of the three issues the OP brought up is probably the records one. I'd prefer the 2nd route of the 3 options, having a record section, for seasonal records. For storm records, they should obviously be interspersed in individual sections. I'd also note that I totally agree with this argument: "Splicing several sentences about records into a paragraph about storm history or something makes the writing seem choppy and like it's going off on a tangent, but records are still significant enough to be included in the article." I do not think a separate level 3 yet alone a level 2 header for records is necessary at this time, but I could be convinced, largely because this truly ridiculous hurricane seasons has set so many records plus thanks to Twitter, record sourcing went from one of WPTC's biggest nightmares to something you can find through the tips of your fingers. Per the MOS, in general, we shold avoid linking to the same section of the same article, especially in the lead since the TOC is directly above it. I don't have a problem with linking sections from other articles and as a matter of fact, I do it all the time when writing articles. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I just want to throw in that these discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. This being said the layout above is a bit confusing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay; I'll just delete everything here.

---

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.

There is no Third Man

I think it is insulting to state (under Ophelia) that 'a third man died' when one of the other two victims was a woman. The correct word is 'person', this is the 21st century when I last checked... Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Katia Article

Since Katia is threatening Mexico, I think an article is needed. EBGamingWiki (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Strongly against an article for now, given it basically just formed. When it gets much closer to landfall (it'll stall over the BOC for a while), sure. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We'll create an article when it becomes sufficiently notable. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should not make articles about things that might be significant before they do. That being said, you may want to start working on drafting up an article for it, so if it should become necessary, we can implement it quickly; that was what was done with Harvey and Irma. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with creating a sandbox article, though. If it becomes notable enough (i.e. the Katia section begins to overwhelm the season article) it can be published to the main article space. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Titoxd and Titanium Dragon. It shouldn't be an article right now, but as with the other hurricanes of this season, I support sandboxing as it is good to be most prepared in situations where it's difficult to predict whether or not we'll need the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree there should be an article once sufficient information is found, but not until then. We're also so occupied with Irma. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I partially withdraw my previous comment and now support a Katia article, though I still think we should organize any research we can find so we can say with confidence that there's enough information out there to produce a standalone article. The storm killed at least two people. In part due to recovery efforts from the recent earthquake, Katia's impact was much greater than what a non-major hurricane would typically produce, since the amount of rain it brought shortly after the earthquake seems to have triggered mudslides and flooding. If anyone wants to start Draft:Hurricane Katia (2017) I'll add anything I can find, here's an article that I just got information on Katia's impact from. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the storm reformed on the Pacific Ocean as Hurricane Otis. Not that Otis itself is notable (although the unexpected rapid intensification, and remarkable deintensification within 12 hours was interesting), It most certainly would be an interesting addition to the Katia article, especially the timeline. Not exactly a Pacific crossover, but pretty close to it. Davidbuddy9Talk 05:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I say be bold and do it. If no one starts the article, it'll never come into existence. Also, the noticed impacts (post-earthquake landfall) and the relation to Hurricane Otis should be enough to warrant/start an article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I started it on my userspace at User:BrendonTheWizard/Hurricane Katia (2017) (currently mostly a fork) since Draft:Hurricane Katia (2017) currently exists, but it appears to have been started though unfinished by a user. I could take the structure of mine and add it to their draft for them to submit if possible, but in the recent past the AFC process has been detrimental for starting articles on subjects already redirected into this page. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding on to my previous comment: I decided to simply make Draft:Hurricane Katia, add a note requesting that it be accepted as "Hurricane Katia (2017)" with the year included, and submitted it for publication. Based on how the Jose article took us much longer to get approved than we hoped, it's fair to not expect publication soon, but now all we can do is wait. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The draft was approved very quickly. It's now published at Hurricane Katia (2017) BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ophelia’s path

Ophelia dissipated over Russia. Are we going to include that part of its path in the 2017 Atlantic page despite the fact that goes far beyond what is technically part of the Atlantic? Bjones1123 (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If data is available for Ophelia's coordinates during its time in Russia, then yes, that part of its track should be officially incorporated into Ophelia's track map. As the the 2017 season map, Ophelia's track may be cut off at a certain point over Europe (or Russia), to avoid too much expansion. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The path is perfectly fine as is because after the last point on the map Ophelia’s remnants opened up into a trough before reorganising over Russia, and at that point you are just guessing rather then taking from ATCF/BT. @Cyclonebiskit: made a graphic of Ophelia’s track that shows this and I think he’d be better at explaining this. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The track ends at the edge of the OPC's area of responsibility. The system broke into a trough at the same time as it moved over Scandinavia so there are no additional best track points after that position. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The FU Berlin maps indicate that Ophelia's low survived at least until October 21 or 22 before opening up into a trough. If Ophelia's low collapsed earlier, do you have a source for that? LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Harvey damage estimates

Someone, at some reason, decided to remove the range and just replace it with a single very, very high end estimate, much higher than the rest of them, despite it coming from the same time (early September) as the others. We should not be giving preference to high or low-end estimates. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I do agree that this is just an estimate. ChowKam2002 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I see the issue now. I will remove Harvey as the costliest hurricane and adjust all the wiki pages. --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

We use NOAA for the final damages people, not extremely high estimates. Don't jump the gun. --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 02:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The $198 billion figure was presented at the annual National Weather Association meeting and approved by NOAA. There's still time for it to change as assessments on exact cost continue (they will for several years), but it appears to be the most substantive estimate so far. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we please have sources that state NOAA's approval of this estimate? It shows here that the damages are still being assessed (no estimate). --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 02:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The 198.6 billion figure should not be included in this article or any subsequent pages until it is properly sourced with proof that NOAA approved it. The estimate by itself has no backing otherwise and is on the extreme end of the scale. --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: was the one who made the tweet regarding it and it was shown that NOAA approved it. End of story. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Then include the source that shows NOAA approved it. All I have seen thus far has been the damage estimate by itself which isn't enough for it be accepted. No other sources were mentioned in other articles. --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Figfires here's the slide from the conference. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That's what I needed to see. ChowKam2002 (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Can someone update the map for the entire season?

Seems like Philippe's track is missing. 172.58.11.106 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Should i put the estimate of the damage in the total in the Season Effects Infobox?

Should I? I'm Not sure because where they put the total, 2 are the estimate, and 1 is the "official?". |QuittyQuitQuit| 17:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuitenBases (talk • contribs)

I removed what appeared to be a "junk" estimate, with no sources I might add. The current total we are are using is preliminary, but there's strong enough evidence for Harvey's damage to be up at least $198.63 billion, which makes the season total currently over $316 billion. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Rina/ Cyclone Numa

As for the map and description of what Tropical Storm Rina history was, should Numa be included. I personally think so because they belong to the same system. However, what are everyone else's opinions? TyEvSkyo (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m not even convinced it should be in this article since it wasn’t really in the Atlantic Ocean per day. I am also not happy about us relying on weather maps from FU Berlin that do not really back up what we are alleging happened.Jason Rees (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yea, any mention of Numa should be removed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Numa should be mentioned, due to the storm's relation to Rina (already done in the Rina section). Personally, I'm fine with either removing Numa from the Other systems section or keeping it there. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that Numa should not be part of the hurricane season. Rina was long gone when Numa formed.INeedSupport (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Numa originated from Rina's extratropical remnant. Rina split into 2 systems, the latter of which was Numa, which went on to absorb Rina about a day later. But technically speaking, Numa was a separate system. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you got a source for that assertion, that isnt satellite imagery or the weather maps from FU Berlin.Jason Rees (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Numa should be removed from the Other Systems as the Mediterranean is not included in the Atlantic Ocean. It is typically seen as a separate body of water. Numa had significance there, not in the Atlantic. --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 04:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed Numa from the other systems as it has no significance in the Atlantic Ocean. Numa had no tropical characteristics until it was in the mediterranean. Numa only had very disorganized thunderstorms at best when it was in the Atlantic. --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 04:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Numa was extratropical while it was in the Atlantic, by the way. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead (Changing Season Summary to Past Tense)

I changed the lead to the past tense since there is literally nothing on the TWO and the models have shown nothing, and yet I was reverted. I get it’s not 11/30 yet but why not do it before if there’s no sign of another storm or AOI from the NHC? Seems logical to do so since we are only 3 days away from the end. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted because you seem to be editwarring. The general consensus from what I can tell is to leave it as active until November 30, because the season technically is active whether there is an active system or not. I don't know why it matters so much to you, just slow down. United States Man (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know last year it was made to past tense shortly after Otto exited out and it wasn’t changed. To be fair I don’t see the point in keeping it the way it is now at this point. The first sentence should describe how bad the season was. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Describe how bad it was in the first sentence, but there's no reason for it to be past tense until 12/1. Whether you think we will or will not see another storm before then is not relevant because the season technically is still active. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand why some people may believe that the season may already be over (the models/forecasts certainly look that way right now), but the standard practice here is to actually wait for the end to come before saying it is over. Jumping the gun would constitute WP:CRYSTALBALL or possibly even original research otherwise, no matter how accurate the prediction may be. Just wait several more days. As much as I want to close out these articles, the hurricane seasons are not officially over yet. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If the parser functions are used, I guess that the article would be at least somewhat closed out in the way that the article won't have to be updated when the season actually ends. What do you think?98.197.198.46 (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As I've stated before (on your talk page), I don't think that the template is necessary. It will probably end up getting removed in December once the season is over (assuming that someone else doesn't revert it). Also, if a new storm forms in the meantime (though that is unlikely), you would have another issue. Personally, I believe that the template you're using is better suited for articles where frequent updating of dates is needed, such as current conflicts articles (like those with battle maps). Editing hurricane season article dates aren't all that complicated, so I don't see the need for a template here. That being said, a template shouldn't have to be used to (try to) stop an edit war, because these conflicts need to be resolved through dispute resolution, not continued warring or unilateral changes. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I inserted the parser functions with the full intention from them to get removed once obsolete. Also, if another storm forms before the season ends, you, I, MarioProtIV, or anyone else who knows about the parser functions can remove them, and even someone who doesn't previously know should at least be able to figure out what parts of the source code to change in order to restore present tense fairly easily.98.197.198.46 (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, it might be worth noting that a parser function is used to set the year number for the active season link at the top of the Atlantic hurricane season page.98.197.198.46 (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The use there is slightly different, but I can see what you're saying. The template there appears to be for the long-term, though. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That's the only example that I could find of parser functions being used on a hurricane page, and I could find no evidence to suggest that that had been thought of before, so I guess that this is our only precedent.98.197.198.46 (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Maria Damage

Where did the Hurricane Maria damage estimate come from, it seems really high, if someone could show me where it came form then that'd be great BananaIAm (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

See the Hurricane Maria article. The source should be listed in one of the first paragraphs (the first source at the end of the sentence on damages), and in the storm damage infobox, next to Puerto Rico's slot. It was there at both locations the last time I checked. It was basically an updated damage estimate incorporating a much higher estimated damage total for Puerto Rico. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That source says that the damage from Harvey is only 90 billion, we should use the number the NHC has released for it in my opinion BananaIAm (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2017

I'd also like to request another footnote to be re-added to the infobox in order to avoid confusion.

Would

| Fatalities=> 441<!--Do NOT give a range of fatalities, simply state >441 since we do not know the total.-->

please be replaced with

| Fatalities=≥441{{#tag:ref|While Maria's ''official'' death toll is currently 58, [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/29/16623926/puerto-rico-death-toll-hurricane-maria-count Vox reported] that some estimates placed ''Maria's'' death toll closer to 1,085. If this is accurate, it would mean that the ''season's'' death toll would be 1,468.<ref name="U.S. News">{{cite web|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-11-29/hurricane-maria-deaths-in-puerto-rico-could-surpass-1-000|title=Hurricane Maria Deaths in Puerto Rico Could Surpass 1,000|publisher=U.S. News|date=November 29, 2017|accessdate=November 29, 2017</ref>|group="nb"}}

? Since the season death toll could be off by a factor of over 300%, I think that this should show on the actual article.98.197.198.46 (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad idea in theory but I'd incorporate the note in the body somewhere and say something like "441 confirmed" in the infobox. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Notes about the under-reporting of deaths already exist in two places, both the "Maria" section and the "Season effects" table so adding a third under-reporting note to the infobox is redundant. Since a note was added to the parameter value for strongest storm in response to the above edit request, most readers will probably see the near-adjacent notes about the under-reporting issues. ">441 total" clearly indicates that the upper end of the number of deaths is currently unknown, which "441 confirmed" does not further clarify. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

No one would look through each section for the one about the under-reporting footnote in Maria's subsection, and looking in the footnotes section might not occur to many who are new to Wikipedia. Also, just inserting the > sign gives no detail about how off the official estimate could be off by. Most people, upon seeing >441 and not having previously seen any of the news articles about Maria's potential death toll, would assume, given that the season is already over and that there weren't any casualties after mid-October, would assume that there might be 10-30 more dead than have been confirmed dead, but never over 1,000.2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:21AE:4B:90B6:934B (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, we also don't know how off the figure is. We can't include details we don't have and there's no more detail in "441 confirmed" than there is in ">441". We have to follow the sources and the sources at this point can only tell us that 441 is the minimum figure. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017

Requested edit: Change the note about how storm strength is measured in the strongest storm name parameter in the infobox from a comment to a footnote. Specifically, change

| Strongest storm name=[[Hurricane Maria|Maria]]<!--This is in terms of pressure, not wind speed. Most meteorological organizations determine what the strongest storm was using minimum barometric pressure, lower being stronger. The strongest ''winds'' were from [[Hurricane Irma|Irma]] at 185 mph or 295 km/h.-->

to

| Strongest storm name=[[Hurricane Maria|Maria]]{{#tag:ref|This is in terms of pressure, not wind speed. Most meteorological organizations determine what the strongest storm was using minimum barometric pressure, lower being stronger. The strongest ''winds'' were from [[Hurricane Irma|Irma]] at 185 mph or 295 km/h.|group="nb"}} Actually, Yellow Evan came up with what, slightly modified I feel is a better version. It's | Strongest storm name=[[Hurricane Maria|Maria]]<!--This is in terms of pressure, not wind speed. Most meteorological organizations determine what the strongest storm was using minimum barometric pressure, lower being stronger. The strongest ''winds'' were from [[Hurricane Irma|Irma]] at 185 mph or 295 km/h.-->

to

| Strongest storm name=[[Hurricane Maria|Maria]]{{#tag:ref|Most meteorological organizations determine the strongest storm by the lowest minimum barometric pressure. Had they determined it by maximum wind speed, Irma would be considered the strongest.|group="nb"}}

.

Reason: I think that it is necessary for this footnote to exist because otherwise, many readers who don't know that minimum pressure is typically used to measure tropical cyclone intensity could get confused, and some could try to edit it, based on this fact that this has happened in the past to this article at least four times since Maria. Here are the links:

• [[1]]
• [[2]]
• [[3]]
• [[4]] 98.197.198.46 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

...And when they edit it, they see the note. Regardless, we don't need more clutter to the infobox; we are suppose to provide key facts in the infobox, not explain jargon. In theory, a wikilink of some sort could suit but that'd require a separate discussion. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually on a second thought, maybe add the note to the lead somewhere? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea; I can see how it is pretty confusing to some people. United States Man (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Lowkey I think it's less confusing to the layman and more confusing to the average Storm2k poster, the latter of which will likely be the average WPTC reader in a few years. Still, I think the text in the note could be simplified to {{#tag:ref|Most meteorological organizations determine the strongest storm by the lowest minimum barometric pressure.|group="nb"}} YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that Irma's having the strongest wind speeds should be mentioned in the note, but besides that, I think that that version of the note is better than the original. I'll mention that above.

I feel that the storm infobox would be a better place to put it because the lead does not say what the season's strongest storm was, so there is no need to put the note there, the note would seem out of place if the fact that Maria was the strongest storm isn't also added, and not putting the note in the infobox would confuse those who look at the infobox without or before looking at the lead.

Well, I think the fact that Maria was the strongest storm should be mentioned. I'd be inclined to think the average reader is more likely to look at the lead than the infobox but I don't have any evidence to back that up. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, that the infobox doesn't accept "notes" in the parameters for wind speed (nor lowest pressure for that matter). Unless someone with experience with the coding changes the settings for the Hurricane season infobox, I doubt that this note can actually be added. I've already tried before (via the Show Preview function), but I haven't been able to get it to work. The Hurricane season infobox needs to be adjusted before any such notes can be added. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 DoneThe infobox may not accept notes for the parameters but it does accept them for the parameter values. I've added a version of the requested note re-worded for additional clarity and to distinguish between strength and intensity to the parameter value for "Maria". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with adding the note in there, it should stay as a comment. We don’t need additional stuff cluttering up the infobox and I would just add something in the lede instead. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious: How does a grand total of six superscripted characters clutter up an infobox that badly? Is it really that interfering with your ability to read the infobox? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Because we rarely put such stuff in the infobox and I honestly don’t see why it can’t just be a comment like it was before. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Because there is a consensus reached above to include it as a note. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: Think of our readers. Not all of them are going to have the boldness to click "edit (source)" - HTML comments are intended as in-line edit notices (emphasis on "edit"). A footnote is much more intuitive and accessible to them. I would strongly advise you to leave the note as-is.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Track map

Philippe is still missing on the track map. Bjones1123 (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No it's not, look againBananaIAm (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)