Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Florence/Archives/2018/September

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


Requested move 9 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator FigfiresSend me a message! 21:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


Hurricane Florence → Hurricane Florence (2018) – Quite premature to give this storm the main name on the anticipation it will do extreme damage. Given the fact that there are still 4 days until impact, this should be moved to Hurricane Florence (2018) as a lot could happen in that time period. Until the extent of the impact is clear, this storm should not have the main name. We waited 2 days after Harvey made its impact to move it. FigfiresSend me a message! 20:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes, the forecast is awful, but we are still 3-4 days away. For now, I would move it back, but note that it will be temporary most likely. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Since this is already a high-visibility page, and will very likely become one of the most widely viewed articles on the English Wikipedia in the coming days, I've WP:BOLDly delisted this as an official RM to stop the associated notice cluttering up the article. Discussion can of course continue unimpeded as a conventional thread. I hope this is satisfactory to all involved. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. People searching for "Hurricane Florence"—and there will be many—are only looking for one thing. Wait a few months. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment To be fair, nothing makes this storm more notable than any other Hurricane Florence right now. With that logic, every storm would get the main name even if it is a tropical storm with 40 mph winds that made landfall. FigfiresSend me a message! 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Pageview analysis of this article, the "Hurricane Florence (2018)" variant, and the other two notable uses of "Hurricane Florence" indicate the one at present has vastly more interest to readers, with more than 2,000 views yesterday and 500 more than the (2018) title. Given extensive media coverage and the threat of major impact, this will undoubtedly rise dramatically. It clearly satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at present and can always be revisited down the road. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


NWS Sunday 9th

“This is looking more and more like a life threatening situation,” National Weather Service warning coordination meteorologist Nick Petro said in a briefing on Florence Sunday. “Folks, this is it, big time. Big time storm. Be ready for potentially worse-case scenarios here.” To make matters worse, this summer is going into the record books as one of the wettest yet for parts of the East Coast, according to the August 2018 climate report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article218093025.html prokaryotes (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Stalling

Shouldn't we mention that the forecast includes the potential for stalling, several days, potentially sub-sequentially causing rains, thus dubbed Harvey of the East Coast? https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hurricane-Florence-Rapidly-Intensifying-Likely-Hit-North-or-South-Carolina-Thursday prokaryotes (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: If that gains enough traction in the media we can add it, but for now it doesn't appear widespread enough to warrant mention. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Just wait till it actually happens. We won't have to wait long. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

infobox Update to 13 Sep 2018 11pm EDT Discussion needed

Category 1, 80kt winds. INIT 14/0300Z 34.0N 76.8W 80 KT 90 MPH[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1003 (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC) The ABC News'report titled Major river flooding new threat posed by Florence as heavy rain moves inland is up-to-date to September 16, and can be usefully integrated in the WP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.235.202 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Article updates

There's only one line in the article right now about the tornadoes that touched down in the Richmond area on Monday (the 17th). Here is a news source stating there were 7 possible tornadoes in the area: https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/vdem-tracking-at-least-7-possible-tornadoes-in-richmond-area/1454815135 ; the NWS has made a detailed storm report for one EF-0 tornado (can be found here https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&product=PNS&issuedby=AKQ although it may no longer be the first text product) ; here is an article with photos and videos of at least one tornado in the richmond area: http://www.fox5dc.com/weather/tornado-warning-issued-in-city-of-fredericksburg-stafford-and-spotsylvania-counties (Note that the damage is consistent with EF-2 strength or greater, as roofs were torn from well-constructed buildings) ; here is a tweet from ABC news stating that multiple tornadoes were reported in the area: https://twitter.com/ABC13News/status/1041791340428832768

More information will likely become available today regarding the number and intensity of tornadoes.

At least 7 river gauges in North Carolina reached record levels as of Tuesday, the 18th: Black River near Tomahawk (28.7', previous 27.9' from Matthew in 2016), Trent River at Trenton (29.25', previous 28.42' in 1999), Northeast Cape Fear River near Burgaw (24.98', previous 22.48' in 1999), Little River at Manchester (35.95', previous 32.21 from Matthew in 2016), Flat Creek near Iverness (9.36', previous 8.63' from Matthew in 2016; note that this gauge is newer), Lumber River at Lumberton (22.21', previous 21.8' in ?), and Cape Fear River at Wilmington (8.27', previous 8.2' from Matthew in 2016). The caveat for all these is that they are preliminary values and may possibly be revised. The source for all of these came from the USGS gauges mapped here: https://www.weather.gov/serfc/# (This page and those for all the gauges are constantly updating, so will need to find an archived version as a source), except for the Cape Fear River at Wilmington, which was also tweeted here: https://twitter.com/NWSWilmingtonNC/status/1040687763782291456 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fintuition (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

35.93 inches in Elizabethtown, North Carolina. Here is one source. I was sent there from here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned over 30" of rain fell in Swansboro, North Carolina in a 24-hour period? This is the new North Carolina state record in all-day rainfall. Hurricane Florence affected both the Carolinas and ironically, the city of Florence, South Carolina shares the namesake of this storm. Adinneli (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Has that record been verified? Last I had heard, it was still undergoing verification/validation. Titoxd(?!?) 06:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Increased rainfall / damage and/or unusual trajectory due to Climate change

Moved from discussion in the above section: Actually, that's a point I'd been wondering about myself - pointing it out on every Tropical Cyclone article seems like overkill, pointing it out never seems like an omission: At least in my view, it is relevant to the fact of eg the damage of a particular storm being greater than say the average of "equivalent storms" 30 years ago, or that (as I was wonding about in my first statement) for this particular one, it came in on a unusual approach / unusual location. Relevant context that is. Like I said, not something to paste onto every storm article necessarily. Sean Heron (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the trajectory, what I'm referring to is this statement in the article (which I've not looked into yet): "This trajectory proved climatologically unusual, with United States hurricane impacts primarily originating farther south and west of Florence's position on that day".
And increased rainfall is referenced in the article user KN2731 pointed out (which I've also not looked into yet... sorry! ). Sean Heron (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

High water vehicles from Fort Bragg

WNAM has a newscast which I have heard on several stations. I can't identify it so I can't really use it as a source. But twice they have said high water vehicles have accessed Wilmington with four days' worth of supplies. Maybe someone else can find a source that describes this.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So far I've only found the announcement that the vehicles are coming. Nothing about them arriving.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
If anyone wants to add this information listen here in about twenty minutes. Or maybe someone can find a source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, Kaley Hartung or whatever her name is didn't mention it. "I'm Mike Moss."— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is one source. But it doesn't have everything.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It's Kaylee Hartung.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Nothing on the Townhall web site that matches what I heard on WAVO. I added part of the information anyway.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Emphasis on meteorological description ? Very long lead section ? (no inline refs there either...)

Hi, I've come to this article out of a different interest (see sections above I opened), but just looking at the article more generally, I was a bit surprised that it seems to give a lot of weight to the meteorological description of the Storm, rather than to the effect it had at landfall (which are described, obviously, but eg in the lede they're a bit buried). Oh yeah, and the lead section is rather long, I think.. ? I was thinking of changing / shifting things around a bit, but I wanted to a) ask here first, and b) - there are little to no in line references in the lead section (ok, guess this isn't a problem for shifting it, but does make it tricky to edit...).
Ok, a little much to discuss in one place, sorry... :/ . Feel free to break this up into different parts or such! Sean Heron (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Was just breezing around, and something like this would be more like I would have expected: Typhoon_Mangkhut. Regards! Sean Heron (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sean Heron: This should be addressed in the coming days. With high-impact hurricanes we usually split the meteorological history off to its own article (e.g. Meteorological history of Hurricane Maria) so that greater emphasis can be placed on the impacts. Once that article is published, the meteo section will be trimmed substantially. Regarding the lede, feel free to condense info and restructure it. Send me a message anytime if you want someone to check things over ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the feedback and info :) ! I'm not going to get round to anything just today, but I'll see if I give it a whack tomorrow :) ! Sean Heron (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Article structure

I'm going to ask about this before possibly making this change. I think the Impact section is rather oddly structured with the pre-landfall and landfall subsections. I don't recall if we've ever done anything like that for any other TC article, especially not in the Atlantic basin. The issue with that is that the landfall subsection will obviously become much larger (and it's probably going to be huge) than the pre-landfall. So why not just do it how it's normally done and separate by states? Obviously some states might not have enough to justify having their own section, but you could still make North Carolina and South Carolina subsections. I am fine with having that separate section for fatalities though--12george1 (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@12george1: We did something somewhat like this with Harvey, separating the landfall area from the overwhelming flood event. But this is definitely a first regarding pre- and post-landfall. It'll become impossible to tell what coastal damage occurred when eventually so it's probably best to combine them. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I would say the best option is the split the impact by state. North and South Carolina each get their subsections... Other states could possibly get them as well (I am thinking about Virginia). Finally, we could have a subsection for every other place that had minor impacts. Could talk about the rip currents killing people off the coast of Florida, rainfall in other states, etc.. FigfiresSend me a message! 15:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Yea, I'm not a fan of the sub-sections. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I think they suit the current text just fine. It's an intuitive layout that avoids the inherent repetition and monotony of by-state subheaders. I agree that it's probably not a permanent solution, but worrying about TOC structure while the content is still fairly rudimentary seems like putting the cart before the horse. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I think sub-sections would work best, at least one for North and South Carolina, as Figfires said above. North Carolina bore the brunt of the damage, got the most rainfall, and is having the most effects. I'd say we should be getting a Effects of Hurricane Florence in North Carolina, considering all of the media attention. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2018

The first sentence of the articles states that Florence is "the ninth-wettest tropical cyclone to affect the contiguous United States", but following the link to List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States#Overall wettest in the contiguous United States shows it to be the eighth-wettest. Please change "ninth-wettest" to "eighth-wettest". 167.131.0.195 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've just removed that part of the sentence entirely. The content doesn't seem to have a citation at List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States#Overall wettest in the contiguous United States, and it's not verified anywhere in this article's body. Mz7 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Messy

Hi:

The article seems to me quite messy. I know it is early in the composition process but:

  • the introduction is much to long and redundant with the Meteorological History.
  • the list of death should either cite all the death or the total, not the description of some deaths but not others.

Pierre cb (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Pierre - I raised ~ the same issue two sections above ("emphasis on meteorological development ..."). I got a response that improvements of that are welcome. So I'd say give a shot at improving it, if you're quicker than me :P (or maybe we can do some tag team work :D). Sean Heron (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: this is Cyclonebiskit from my phone, don’t want to log in on an unsecure network. I’ve been trying to make sure all deaths are covered in prose and to my knowledge less than 5 are missing in text. I’ve been doing this to cross check fatality reports since they get jumbled up by media a lot. As mentioned above, meteo stuff should be remedied in time. :) 2600:1012:B042:F25C:BCBE:E744:577E:4D7 (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • A lot of this is part of the messy process of collaboratively writing an article. From my experience, it's best to treat this like a scuplture: Let's get the WHOLE block of marble together first, then lets take away what we don't need. All of the information is going to keep being added piecemeal by a lot of people over a long period of time in a haphazard fashion. This is a feature and not a bug. After it has settled down, then we can go over it, organize it, pare back the excesses etc. The narrative is a mess because the story is still happening. Once new events aren't happening anymore, we can take some time to organize it better. --Jayron32 18:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Increased likelyhood due to climate change ?

I'd think thats relevant information (didn't see it anywhere in the article). Are there any numbers or estimates available? Seems a pretty good article otherwise / overall! Thanks :). Sean Heron (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I did see this in the article, and wondered if there may be some link ? "This trajectory proved climatologically unusual, with United States hurricane impacts primarily originating farther south and west of Florence's position on that day"

Climate change has nothing to do with Florence. It was not an extremely strong or unusual storm given this is the peak for activity in the Atlantic Ocean. Saying Florence was caused by climate change would be original research which would not be allowed. FigfiresSend me a message! 15:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not actually possible at this stage to determine what impact, if any, climate change had on Florence. Not all storms follow the climatological track; Florence may simply be one of the anomalies. Climate is determined by long-term trends, so one instance outside of a climatological norm is unrepresentative of a trend away from that norm. There might be a trend for all we know, but we can't conclude that from one anomalous data point. As usual there are a few news articles already claiming the possibility of Florence being affected by climate change but to quote one of the articles themselves (this one) it "hasn't been definitively linked". ~ KN2731 {t · c} 15:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Um, Figfires, I was talking about an increased likelyhood. I think there's pretty good data that the number of Atlantic Hurricanes (and there severity) is significantly rising. I wasn't talking about saying "was caused by climate change", as that would obviously be false.

KN2731 : I think you are quite mistaken. I've yet to hear or read any statements argueing "It's not actually possible at this stage to determine what impact, if any, climate change had on Florence" quite the contrary, actually. It'd be great if could point me towards research (best of all reviews), or even reliable newspaper reports that support that statement. By the way, the title of the article you linked is "Hurricane Florence likely worsened by effects of climate change" ... (P.S. Not sure what you're trying to point out with "As usual there are a few news articles already claiming the possibility of Florence being affected by climate change" - are you trying to doubt this is the case ? )

Thanks both of you, and kind regards, Sean Heron (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that climate change, in general, has been linked to increased number and severity of storms. The problem is that it is redundant (and thus generally bad writing) to write that on every single storm article, because climate change effects all storms it isn't the sort of thing we should have to explain in every single storm article, instead, it should be discussed in other articles. It is true, but it isn't necessarily unique to this storm. It's part of every storm that happens since climate change has become a thing. --Jayron32 18:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Late, but seconded. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 07:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Contribution moved below

P.S. Jayron, Just looking over this again, your right that with regard to the section title I chose, without further specific arguments, pointing out the increased likelihood is not necessarily warranted. I hope I've pointed out above in the next section under which circumstances I think it is warranted (and why this may be the case for this storm). Sean Heron (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Grammatical corrections

As this article is semi-protected, I cannot correct the grammar errors as I normally would. If someone who has access could please fix them, that would be great, thank you. The following things need to be corrected (everything in the square brackets has been corrected): "...Progressing along a steady west-northwest trajectory, the system acquired tropical storm strength on September [1st] and fluctuated.." "...and Lumber River all [spilt] over their banks." "At least 45 deaths were attributed to the storm[,] and damage is currently estimated at more than $38 billion (2018 USD)." "Toward the end of August 31, [the] convective organization became sufficient for the NHC to..." "Florence's small size enabled it [to] take advantage of this localized area." "File:[ Time-lapse]" "File:[ Hurricane] Florence From Space on September 13.webm Hurricane Florence on September 13, [2018,] as seen from the International Space Station." "conducive to [the reorganization] on..." "File:[ President] Trump..." "File: [ Red] Cross Shelter..." "...to protect the ships and the [coastline.]" "Hurricane Florence brought [record-breaking] rainfall..." "The city of Wilmington (pop: 120,000) became entirely isolated, as all roads to the city flooded and [they were] deemed impassable,..." "...issued a statement advising all [travellers] to avoid the Wilmington area." "[5-day] map accumulation..." "5 million gallons of partially treated wastewater [spilt] into the Cape Fear River..." "...discovered some animals in flooding cages, some attempting to seek shelter, and some [had] become stranded on porches." "Zoo animals such as those from the Virginia [Zoo] were sheltered within indoor and sheltered portions of their enclosures. Other zoos such as the North Carolina Zoo were lightly impacted [by] the storm and opened on September 18..." "One child drowned in Green Swamp near Sumter, [South Carolina] after..." "Rescuers saved the [mother,] but her..." "Another fatal accident occurred near [Columbia] when a woman..." "the two women in [the back] were shackled,..." "President Donald Trump visited North and South Carolina on September [19th] and spoke to emergency workers in an [aeroplane] hangar at the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point." "The deaths of two women who [were being] transported to a mental health facility led to an opening of an investigation, which is being..." That's all the obvious ones. Thank you, bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bee Miston (talk • contribs) 14:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done. Note this article uses American English and associated conventions since Florence primarily affected the US. I've fixed the errors except for those noted below:
  • Date formats are the US version i.e. MDY, so they're okay here.
  • "spilled" is preferred American English.
  • I'm more comfortable putting "[the system's] convective organization", since convective organization is a characteristic of the disturbance.
  • Can't change "File:xxx", that's wiki syntax indicating file namespace.
  • "all roads to the city flooded and were deemed impassable" makes sense to me. I suppose it depends on how you read the sentence.
  • "airplane" is preferred American English.
Thanks for pointing them out though. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 15:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Moving Meteorological section to its own subpage

Hey, as was pointed out to me above, the meteorological section merits its own (sub)article - and since I was looking at condensing the lead paragraphs, but parts of those lend themselves very well for just such an article, I was thinking I'd get that shuffling about started.
What I'd be doing is to use part of the main articles lead for the meteorological (met.) articles lead, the met. section from here as the met. articles body, (and replace the section here with parts of the current lead), and then add categories, links and so forth (I'd have a look at other hurricanes articles (and sub-articles) to make sure I get most of that right.
Am I missing something important, or should I be good to go ahead like that ? Thanks! Sean Heron (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Cyclonebiskit has a sandbox for a met article located here: User:Cyclonebiskit/Florence Meteo. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this chart unnecessary?

Maximum sustained wind speed and minimum pressure of Hurricane Florence

I added this chart but an editor removed it saying "unnecessary". I created the chart trying to show a whole picture of the hurricane.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... basically no articles have a chart of that nature. Also, Km/h is meaningless for a US storm. Literally, nobody uses it or understands it.FigfiresSend me a message! 04:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Except, of course, all school children over the age of 12, scientists, engineers ... "literally" - good grief, choose your words with care.50.111.55.224 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The primary subject matter of the article is the US, so imperial units make the most sense. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a global encyclopaedia. 95% of the world's population uses Km/h. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: Yes, but the SSHWS uses mph as the primary. If anything, that should have been the one used with km/h in parentheses if desired. TBH this image would be meaningless if the TCR were to have revisions made to the winds and pressure in it.FigfiresSend me a message! 05:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Should have both mph and km/h regardless of primary usage and values rounded to the nearest 5 per how the NHC handles winds. Just because other articles don't have this kind of graph doesn't mean we can't use it. Always room for new additions, I appreciate the work Phoenix7777. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
It is a very nice chart. I have seen the similar one on Jebi's article and it is very clear and useful to present the power of winds to ordinary readers. The reason why older articles do not include is simple: Nobody drew.-- 🐱💬 02:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Please note that my position on whether or not this should be in articles is neutral. Really depends on what other media is in/needs added to the article. FigfiresSend me a message! 03:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be no one objecting the inclusion of the chart. As for the unit of wind speed, it is technically difficult to include both units to the chart due to the limitation of Excel functionality. So I decided to use "mph" for hurricane articles and "km/h" for typhoon articles. Thanks to all of you for providing useful comments.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - chart literally has no purpose whatsoever other then intensity and the NHC provides one in the TCR for storms anyway. Just clutters the page more with unnecessary images. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I like the chart - and I would Support it's inclusion, but I also realise that for probably many readers, it is going to be hard to interpret (as would be the case for any chart). Other points: I don't understand what this means "and the NHC provides one in the TCR for storms anyway" (is it along the lines of - this info is available elsewhere anyhow? That doesn't make that much sense to me..). Also, I had a look at the version with the chart, and it doesn't seem more cluttered or difficult to look at / read than the version without for me. Finally, the things I like about it are that it presents a considerable amount of the information that take a lot of words in the meteorology section to say, and also since that section is (in my view) difficult to understand / only really interesting for people with some understanding of the field, then a chart that might not be widely understood does little harm there :P. Sean Heron (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I'll hold of on re-adding till there's been a chance for further debate here.
P.P.S. If the question is of whether this should be a "default" addition to the meteorology sections of tropical cyclones, then there might be a better place to discuss this - eg Portal:Hurricanes or Portal:Weather or such ?? Sean Heron (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The most recent TCR is for Hurricane Beryl. It contains only three charts, one is a tacking map, the others are wind speed/pressure charts which are equivalent to this combination chart. This proves that this chart is important enough to describe the hurricane. If this chart is unnecessary because a similar chart is in the TCR, why isn't the tracking chart unnecessary? The TCR was published two months after the dissipation of the hurricane. A TCR for Hurricane Harvey took almost five months. So people should wait for months to see this chart in the TCR.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need the chart, but it's not the worst thing in the world. It adds another layer of depth that is used by the meteorological community, sure, but how useful is it to the public? Is it a net gain, or is it a distraction? The important things in the article to the public are the deaths/damage/location/dates. The chart's main selling points are that it shows when the storm intensified and weakened, which is already done in the meteorological history by prose, and shown visually in the track map, which has been the standard for tropical cyclone articles since 2005. These maps indicate the intensity and where the storm was, a convenient image for readers, just as convenient as the Infobox (which shows peak intensity/deaths/damage), and the two are usually opposite each other. The pressure/wind map seems like an unnecessary addition, just my opinion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, this chart is a standard chart of Tropical Cyclone Report published by National Hurricane Center along with a tracking map. All Tropical Cyclone Reports list a wind speed and a pressure chart equivalent to this combination chart. Most of minor cyclones list only this chart and a tracking map. See the following lists.

Why is the tracking map a default addition and this standard chart unnecessary?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Maps do a better job telling the history of a tropical cyclone than the chart does. I’m not saying it isn’t useful to the scientific community, but for our purposes of describing tropical cyclones, the chart just adds another image, causes the text to squeeze, and is redundant to the map and the description in the meteorological history. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing the pressure/winds chart in meteorological history sub articles. Titoxd(?!?) 22:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Too many extra hurricane links!

At the bottom, there seems to be a ton of links to other hurricanes that are only loosely related to Florence. To try to reduce comparisons at this point, can we trim them down slightly? Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 17:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've just removed the lot. It's just an invitation to add random hurricanes for no good reason. --Jayron32 17:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Instead of removing every analog storm, you should have taken the time to start a discussion about which ones should stay. Removing every single hurricane from that section was the wrong thing to do. It is common practice for several hurricanes to be added to the see also section. FigfiresSend me a message! 22:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
If there is a clear category of analog storms, then they should probably be compiled in a list, and that list should be linked to. GMGtalk 22:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that could be done. However, the most important storms that were similar should stay in the section with a link to other storms that were of lesser importance. Having specific storms in the see also section is what gets people to read other articles. FigfiresSend me a message! 22:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand how "similar" here is measured. If there are this many "similar" storms by some objective measure, then they should be a list. GMGtalk 22:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Similar means it was either similar in strength, had a similar track, or had either a similar style impact/impacted the same area. It is quite common for five similar storms to be listed on mid importance storms. With an article of this importance, look at Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Maria, and Hurricane Irma. They have well over 10 storms listed. What was removed was simply standard procedure for a storm of this importance. FigfiresSend me a message! 22:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Harvey should be in the list, since it appears to be the closest analog in terms for projected rainfall amounts (according to expert opinions). prokaryotes (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Traditionally, we include similar tropical cyclones to the system in question in the article. To just remove all of them is not very wise, but I agree that the section was getting somewhat bloated. I am just going to add a few good analogs for Florence. Cooper 23:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The thing is, the only defense for keeping the list is that someone found similar lists in other articles. "I found another article doing the wrong thing, so this article is forced to do the wrong thing too" is hardly a strong reason to keep the bloated, random list of a other hurricanes whose reason for being so listed is neither clear nor consistent to the reader. If there needs to be a List of Hurricanes in North Carolina or "List of Hurricanes that meet criteria X" or some such, create that list and then link it once. Littering every hurricane article with a random list of other hurricanes that one writer happened to think kinda-sorta might be similar enough based on their own criteria is simply not good enough. And again, if your only defense for keeping a shitty list of hurricanes is "other articles have shitty, ill-defined lists of hurricanes too!" then that's hardly a ringing endorsement. --Jayron32 01:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
You have that entirely wrong. The defense was that this is the consensus on how to handle this. What you are asking would require a broad consensus to change thousands of articles. FigfiresSend me a message! 10:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Nope. What I am asking for is for us to discuss this article. Other articles exist, but are not this article. If we need to discuss general article format, we can do that at other places, such as the appropriate WikiProject. If, as you say "this is the consensus on how to handle this", that means you have evidence we have that consensus. Which means you have the consensus-approved policy, procedure, or at least general discussion where the format was established and where any person could find out about. Since you have claimed that policy, procedure, or guideline exists, could you share it? If you just posted it here to this discussion, it would go a long way towards establishing you are correct. --Jayron32 23:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I looked for it in the archives. What I saw is not really a consensus, but rather a brief discussion on the matter. What I was told was incorrect. I wouldnt even consider that a consensus anyways considering it was 12 years ago. Basically every hurricane see also section has been based on that. Lists of storms get added and notable storms that either followed a similar path or had a similar impact were added. Please note for the record that I oppose removing all/most individual hurricanes from the see also section of this (and ALL) hurricane article. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a strong oppose from me. Removing individual systems from the See Also sections of every single tropical cyclone would be not only a waste, but a very long and strenuous process. Cooper 01:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The hurricanes currently linked in the See also section are either systems with similar west-northwest track leading to landfall in the Carolinas and similar intensity near/at landfall, or systems that caused similar flood damage in the Carolinas (Floyd and Joaquin). I feel like removing Harvey because besides the stalling and causing severe floods bit the two were quite dissimilar, but comparisons between the two in the media might mean people coming to this article may want to look for Harvey as well. On the broader scale, I propose that for systems notable primarily for land impact, we only include systems with similar trajectory and intensity around landfall or land impact, as well as systems that cause similar effects and damage in the same area. (We might want to move this bit to WT:WPTC though since it affects every tropical cyclone article.) ~ KN2731 {t · c} 16:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
To respond to an earlier point about linking only to lists: there are indeed lists at Template:United States hurricanes, but not every single storm in those lists are completely similar to the system in question (in this case Florence). For example, List of North Carolina hurricanes (2000–present) includes not only Florence but systems that bring only minor effects to NC, like Jose 2017 and Fabian 2003 which passed well offshore and only brought rough surf and rip currents. Those two are much less relevant to Florence. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 16:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Like Cooper, I do agree that the section was getting bloated, but removing all of the storms was a wrong choice. In my opinion, I think maybe 5-6 analogs is a good amount for a storm such as Florence with a large impact, 7 is possible but at that point bloating becomes a possibility. A trim seems like a good idea. The list of Category 4 hurricanes and storms in [area] seem good as well, to me. --Oof-off (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you indicate what criteria we use to pick the seven storms? Do we just pick 7 names out of a hat of all storms that meet some arbitrary criteria, and then delete the rest? Can you point us to a discussion where objective criteria to prevent list bloat are established so we can tell editors, who add 30 more storms to the list in good faith, that their additions are do not qualify for the list but the 7 on the list do? --Jayron32 02:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding reference to Leslie and/or 98L

Should we add a reference to Leslie or 98L (not by name) and how they spawned from the extra-tropical remnant system and cold front? I think we should because Florence had a role in the formation of each of them. INFOWeather1 (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. The storm that formed both of them absorbed Florence, thus Florence was long gone at that time when Leslie and 98L developed. INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 15:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Wait for the TCR to confirm the link. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Florence/Archives/2018/September&oldid=982768110"