Talk:Hurricane Idalia/Archive 1

Archive 1

WPC outlook

Drdpw, I wanted to ask why you removed the WPC outlook? In your reasoning, you said it will be outdated. So will the infobox information, images, and track map. So why do you not remove those for being outdated? If the map is updated, it just gets replaced on the commons. I encourage you to add it back. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Idalia now a Cat 3 or 4?

The article Hurricane Idalia says she is a Category 3 with 125 mph winds. However, according to 2023 Atlantic hurricane season, Idalia is a Category 4 with 150 mph. Which is more accurate in terms of identifying her category/wind speeds? LoveHop123 (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Category 3. Idalia weakened before making landfall. I've updated Idalia's section in the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season page, thanks for catching that. Tails Wx 12:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I did. LoveHop123 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Using the word “catastrophic” in lead

There is a dispute between editors on whether or not the term “catastrophic” should be used in the lead of the article.

• Include — According to the National Weather Service in this post/tweet, “Catastrophic impacts from storm surge inundation of 10 to 15 feet above ground level and destructive waves are expected…” In the removal of the word “catastrophic”, Drdpw remove it saying “scarecast”. That removal reason is opinionated, given the National Weather Service is a reliable source, who has used the word. The term was also used by the Wall Street Journal, Fox 8, The Weather Channel as well as others. A search on Google for “catastrophic” & “idalia” showed 5 pages of reliable secondary source news articles in just the last 24 hours using that term. Given the official forecast as well as so many reliable sources use the term, I support the inclusion of it and would request Drdpw to refrain from using opinions to drive edits and base it on policy. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You have placed the word “catastrophic” in an apropos sentence. Drdpw (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a WP:CRYSTAL violation. I suggest that it be removed. ChessEric 22:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@ChessEric: How would quoting the National Weather Service and/or media sources like the Wall Street Journal be a CRYSTAL violation? And before you say it wasn’t quoted, note that the reference was removed by Drdpw, which probably made it seem like a CRYSTAL violation. For example, WSJ said, “…which forecasters said is poised to see life-threatening winds and a catastrophic storm surge.” Quoting NWS and RS media outlets can’t be a CRYSTAL violation, right? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

"Poised to cause" doesn't mean "going to cause." Just because we expect the storm to have catastrophic impacts doesn't mean it will. Also, I saw the ref that was removed AND have seen every NHC advisory that has been issued, so I know what is being said. ChessEric 22:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Well thanks for your reply! I’ll keep in mind that “potentially” means “going to cause” (per your own winds), given you removed “potentially causing catastrophic damage as a CRYSTAL violation. Looks like the issue is solved. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's academic now - there has already been catastrophic damage; by tomorrow morning the vast devastation will be all over the news. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

When Idalia is no longer active (dissipated), words like "powerful", "deadly", "destructive", "devastating", and/or "catastrophic" might well be included in the article's first sentence, or used elsewhere in the lead section to describe the storm's impact. The practice, as I understand it, is that while a tropical cyclone is active, such words are used only when they can be used in the past tense, or in the context of something "now" in the past. Drdpw (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Did Idalia disipate?

Can someone please clarify this? According to 2023 Atlantic hurricane season, it says that Hurricane Idalia is officially gone. However, in Hurricane Idalia, it says that she is a post-tropical cyclone and it looks like she is reintensifying according to the map. LoveHop123 (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Both are true. The seasons article doesn’t care for post tropical cyclones. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. LoveHop123 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Goose Creek tornado

The source says "officials" called this a "brief, weak" tornado, but it does not say who the officials were, or what department they worked for. EF1 tornadoes can occasionally flip cars, and EF2 tornadoes can lift cars. I'm not suggesting we assign a value or any other OR, but I am questioning the validity of the source that says unnamed and unspecified "officials" describe it as weak. If we retain that quote, I want to know who those officials were. That news story was poorly sourced. Dcs002 (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The source now states that the officials worked for the National Weather Service in Charleston, South Carolina. Tails Wx 13:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The source cites the NWS for confirming it was a tornado and "Emergency Management officials" for reporting the car being flipped. The news video on the source page cites Berkley County Emergency Management officials, but nowhere does it specify which of these officials described the tornado as weak. That statement just says officials used a video from social media to confirm a "brief but weak" tornado.

I don't want to belabor this point too much, but maybe the article should say this:

A tornado described as "brief but weak" in one report occurred in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Video shows a car being flipped by the storm. The tornado was confirmed by the National Weather Service in Charleston.

I think that's more in alignment with the source. Without citing their source for that description, the news report leaves their news organization as our source, not the NWS. I just can't imagine the NWS describing a car-flipping tornado as weak. Small and brief, sure, but weak? Dcs002 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to the editor(s) who made this change and who added the additional content. Dcs002 (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)