Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Matthew/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move 28 September 2016

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: Moved 2016 Hurricane Matthew to Hurricane Matthew (2016) per WP:IAR and long-established naming conventions for articles over tropical systems. Whether or not the hurricane is notable is a subject for another discussion entirely. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Tropical Storm Matthew (2016) → Tropical Storm Matthew (2016) – Includes the precursor stages of Matthew. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Would appreciate a move soon imo. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Just reaching tropical storm status does not inherently make the subject article-worthy. It'd still be best to hold off on moving this page. Dustin (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
That's not to say it's altogether non-notable; that's not the case at all. I'd just hold off for sometime; I think a certain amount of impacts of varying levels of significance are effectively guaranteed, but it would be speculation to guess at how likely it is for this event to become large and significant enough to necessitate an article. Dustin (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Its already impacting the Windward Islands and there has been reports of 10k+ power outages, so I think it is warrant enough to have an article. Per WikiProject on the subject: Articles can be created on any storm, provided they are reasonably well-written, comprehensive, and generally have more than two paragraphs of information on it in the body of the article. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
WikiProjects do not contravene Wikipedia notability rules. And 10k power outages isn't that significant compared to some storms either. Give its current track I could see this storm needing an article in the very near future but just give it a day or two to see. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I think I might aim for Friday afternoon when Matthew becomes a Category 1 hurricane and as it approaches that northern turn, at the very earliest tomorrow night if it tends to strengthen a bit more rapidly then what expected (it's already up to 65 mph but the pressure is a bit too high) --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:51, 29 September 2016 (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.

Requested move 29 September 2016

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: page moved. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

More precise, as this is the first time the name Matthew was given to a tropical cyclone which developed into a hurricane. Same thing went for Hurricane Hermine earlier this month. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't want this to come off as an oppose, but where do we draw the line here? We generally don't employ this practice with older storms, not to mention the terms hurricane, tropical storm, typhoon are sometimes confused. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Generally, the year is excluded if there has been only one type of that named system, for example, a hurricane. Hermine was used several times yet it was used only in a hurricane name just this year. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Support moving to Hurricane Matthew and renaming of the Tropical Storm Matthew page to Tropical Storm Matthew (disambiguation). Jdcomix (talk)
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.

Category 5

Hurricane Matthew was a category 5 for a a little while on Friday

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/hurricane-matthew-strengthens-powerful-category-5-storm-n657701 http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/01/americas/hurricane-matthew/

BreoncoUSA1 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@BreoncoUSA1: That's covered in the article. The template you've been changing is the current storm infobox, which should reflect the information as of the latest advisory, not the peak. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, while it is true that it was briefly a Category 5, it is currently a Category 4 and has been for some time. This is why is is displayed as being a Category 4 currently. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

PC protected

I have applied pending changes to the article due to the sock puppetry from UnderArmourKid and the fact that this is (or will be) a highly visible article as the hurricane threatens the United States. I know that this article gets many decent contributions from IPs and new users, so hopefully pending changes will not be too much of a burden; if it turns out to be too much, any admin can feel free to overturn my protection. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Newest Advisory

here's a link to the latest advisory from the Hurricane Center, the next interim advisory will be issued at 2 AM Eastern time and a FULL advisory will be issued at 5 AM: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT4+shtml/050248.shtml? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.30.175 (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 Already done I believe all the information has already been updated using that advisory. Also, as a reminder, type ~~~~ to generate your signature. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

See also section

I am a bit worried about this section becoming too large, I was able to source how Hurricane Cleo is relevant, how about the others? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Gilbert honestly isn't that closely related to Matthew to merit mention in the see also section, but Cleo and Flora were the only other category 4 hurricanes to make landfall in Haiti so they're definitely relevant. Sandy and/or Ike might also merit mentioning since they were the last category 3 and 4 landfalls in Cuba, respectively. We might have to cite a few other hurricanes according to Matthew's effects in Florida down the road, but for now at least those storms should be mentioned. Rye998 (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Unclear Sentence

"If it makes landfall, which it is expected to come very close to, it will be the first major hurricane to strike both Florida and the United States since Hurricane Wilma in 2005." The logic of this sentence is unclear. Every major hurricane that strikes Florida also strikes the United States by definition. Or does the sentence mean Hurricane Matthew is the first major hurricane to strike Florida, as well as the first major hurricane to strike the United States (since 2005)? If this is the case, why then mention Florida? It's confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:803:A00:DD7:9A83:AE1F:4334 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2016


Can someone please update the TRW section of the hurricane warnings table in the "Watches and warnings" section of this article? The portions of coast tropical storm warnings are distinct. This is reflected already in 2016 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Matthew. Thanks so much. 

| TRW =
* '''[[United States]]'''
** '''[[Florida]]'''
*** [[Chokoloskee]] to [[Golden Beach, Florida|Golden Beach]]
*** [[Florida Keys]] from [[Seven Mile Bridge]] eastward to south of [[Golden Beach, Florida|Golden Beach]]
*** [[Florida Bay]]
*** [[Anclote River]] to [[Suwannee River]]
** '''[[South Carolina]]–[[North Carolina]]'''
*** North of [[Santee River|South Santee River]] to [[Surf City, North Carolina|Surf City]]

Something is not right (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Titoxd(?!?) 21:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hype of 140- They are giving winds aloft

Been following this all the way from Haiti on the NOAA bouy system. Max surface winds Continuous Winds 68 Max gusts 77 Hit Station SPGF1 - Settlement Point, GBI, Bahamas dead on.... Continuous Winds 7:00 pm NE ( 55 deg ) 68 kts 6:50 pm NE ( 50 deg ) 68 kts 6:40 pm NE ( 47 deg ) 68 kts 6:30 pm NE ( 43 deg ) 68 kts 6:20 pm NE ( 40 deg ) 67 kts 6:10 pm NE ( 42 deg ) 69 kts 

   http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=spgf1 …  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.202.75 (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Title

There have already been two move discussions, but to clarify, the article should stay at "Hurricane Matthew". Neither the 2004 storm nor the 2010 storm were hurricanes, so this is the only hurricane named Matthew. Therefore, there is no need for 2016 to be in the title. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the same rule should be applied to Hurricane Arthur (2014), as it has been the only "Arthur" to reach hurricane strength, yet the year (2014) was not removed from the articles title. CycloneYoris (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, given the impact level, Matthew will almost certainly be retired. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2016

NHC made updates to the watches and warnings for the advisory at 0300 UTC. Watches and warnings section: 

{{HurricaneWarningsTable
| HUW =
* '''[[The Bahamas]]'''
** Northwestern Bahamas, including [[Abaco Islands|Abacos]], [[Andros, Bahamas|Andros Island]], [[Berry Islands]], [[Bimini]], [[Eleuthera]], [[Grand Bahama|Grand Bahama Island]], and [[New Providence]]
* '''[[United States]]'''
** '''[[Florida]]–[[South Carolina]]'''
*** North of [[Golden Beach, Florida|Golden Beach]] to [[Santee River|South Santee River]]
*** [[Lake Okeechobee]]
| TRW =
* '''[[United States]]'''
** '''[[Florida]]'''
*** Ocean Reef to south of [[Boca Raton, Florida|Boca Raton]]
*** [[Anclote River]] to [[Suwannee River]]
** '''[[South Carolina]]–[[North Carolina]]'''
*** North of [[Santee River|South Santee River]] to [[Surf City, North Carolina|Surf City]]
| TRA =
* '''[[United States]]'''
** '''[[Florida]]'''
*** [[Englewood, Florida|Englewood]] to [[Anclote River]]
| source= [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT4+shtml/ National Hurricane Center's latest Public Advisory]}}
{{clear}}

Something is not right (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Gestrid (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't know if this is relevant but...

It appears the NHC website is down from this storm, as confirmed by several tweets from news sources on Twitter...

Source 1: https://twitter.com/B911Weather/status/784230642506723329

--69.223.178.15 (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Also confirmed by https://twitter.com/NOAA/status/784235757774917633 , but it remains to be seen if this is directly related to the hurricane. It could've just been a glitch. Remember, everything has to be verifiable. — Gestrid (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
It's probably not. The problem is a DNS failure, and the authoritative DNS server for NOAA geolocates to New York. Besides, the NOAA is the kind of organization that would multihome for redundancy. The actual NHC site is up for those whose local caching DNS server still has those domain names.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
We'd need to wait until the issue is reported by secondary sources before updating this article, assuming it was a major outage. The http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ site appears fine for me (I'm in California). There's no mention of the outage on their Facebook feed while their Twitter feed has a comment "For those having trouble accessing the NHC website, here's the 5-day cone graphic for Hurricane ..."[1]
For www.nhc.noaa.gov DNS shows that they are using returns ten web servers:
  • 140.172.17.11 and 140.172.17.21 Servers are in Boulder, CO at NOAA-Boulder
  • 216.38.80.71 and 216.38.80.81 Servers are in Dallas Fort Worth, TX at National Weather Service Southern Region.
  • 129.15.96.11 and 129.15.96.21 Server are in Tulsa, OK at the University of Oklahoma.
  • 140.90.33.11 and 140.90.33.21 Servers are in an NOAA data center - location unknown.
  • 140.90.200.11 and 140.90.200.21 Servers are in an NOAA data center - location unknown.
As reverse DNS results were not available I could not determine the locations of the latter four servers. It appears they have a well distributed set of machines. The three 140.90.0.0/16 and 140.172.0.0/16 blocks are both direct assignment blocks. The NOAA is most likely using BGP meaning they can steer those blocks to any operational data center with the changes happening almost immediately. I doubt that hurricane Matthew was a direct cause for the outage. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Marc Kupper: I'd even say they'd use anycast routing since this is one of those services that absolutely shouldn't go down, but I'm too lazy to try to find out if that's indeed the case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Good point Jasper Deng. I checked one of my edge routers and see no evidence of anycast. At present the router has 565,974 network entries and 1,581,595 path entries which is a decent chunk of the Internet. 140.172.0.0/16 and 140.90.0.0/16 both have one routing entry though the latter is subnetted a little. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Using Geotool, the NHC website (IP: 129.15.96.21) is hosted in Norman, Oklahoma and the ISP is the University of Oklahoma. Of course, this may not be the usual host (ie. it could just be a temporary host due to the earlier outage). That said, earlier the NHC website itself had a banner message at the top mentioning problems with accessing the website and saying that updates are being posted on their Twitter account. I think that was about 1 a.m. EDT, when I first visited the website tonight. It's gone now (5:38 EDT). AHeneen (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Cape Verde / Cabo Verde

The article should use the same name as the article, for this country, namely Cape Verde, not Cabo Verde. This was confirmed in a recent RM discussion at Talk:Cape Verde#Requested move 31 August 2016, and is important for recognizability. I wasn't even sure when I read that in the article whether it was even referring to the same place, as I only know the English name for the place, not the new official name. Hence I've restored "Cape Verde" as the spelling in this article. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources cited in text.

I am not seeing the two deaths in the US cited in text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.175.32 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done I've added a [citation needed] tag to the number until someone can find a source and cite it. I'm having trouble finding one myself, but all the news sources right now are either focused on Florida or what remains of the Caribbean. — Gestrid (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
One of the deaths was mentioned in a Twitter post by a news reporter (if I recall correctly). I don't know about the other one, though. Dustin (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done I've just sourced it now. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

gif

Awesome gif here of the wind speed probabilities if anyone feels like migrating: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/214535.shtml?hwindloop?#wcontents Victor Grigas (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure Wikipedia supports gifs in motion like that. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
it does :) Victor Grigas (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

useful information

No information of reasonable quality has been reported during the storm for people to use to estimate how long it will continue in any given location. This information could be put together and provided on wikipedia. This would consist of a series of hourly radar images showing the geographical of the hurricane for a given hour and a labeling of the wind speed at a number of radial positions extending outward from the center of the storm in that image. A list of links representing hourly images at the bottom, clicking of which updates the map with specified hourly image. This allows viewer to predict based on available information the immediate future path and predict the change in wind speed based on that path. Nowhere is this information to be found on the internet right now. Rtdrury (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. — Gestrid (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Rtdrury: Although I get where you're coming from, Wikipedia is not a news source. It's not our place to provide people with extensive forecast information that changes by the minute. That's the job of NOAA and local meteorologists. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The job of a "good" encyclopedia is to properly and thoughtfully document subjects after the event - WP:NOTTHENEWS.104.169.37.15 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Mathew and haiti

I am wondering with such a huge death toll if a separate article on the effects on Haiti should not be created?--98.167.194.3 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
sorry I see it now Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti--98.167.194.3 (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Current meteorological status

I have removed the "current status" section. The appropriate sites (the NHC's latest public advisory on Hurricane Matthew and the NHC's latest forecast advisory on Hurricane Matthew) have the most up-to-date information. Wikipedia's information on this topic, on the other hand, will become outdated in a matter of hours. So as to avoid a very quick outdated situation, I have removed it. epicgenius (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Current storm information has been included on Wikipedia for current storms for several years now. I strongly suggest you bring this up with WikiProject Tropical cyclones if you are going to challenge the longstanding practice. Dustin (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dustin V. S.: It appears I am mistaken about this. I apologize, and I'll revert my previous edit. epicgenius (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I understand your point about articles sometimes becoming outdated; I have on a few occasions brought up the idea of having such information automatically updated so as to avoid edit conflicts and outdated information, but I typically don't act on it and forget about it. The last time I brought up this idea was in January as part of a larger discussion. Dustin (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dustin V. S.: There could probably be a larger discussion in regards to whether this current storm information should be allowed by policy, or if it should not be allowed because of the dynamic nature of the information. I think the bot idea is a good idea, but it may need some level of artificial intelligence. Readers might want current information about the storm, just not outdated information. However, such a discussion should be held elsewhere, like in Tropical Cyclones' WikiProject discussion page. epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing an 'and' from the opening sentence

I propose changing the article's first sentence

"Hurricane Matthew is currently a strong tropical cyclone that impacted Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, and The Bahamas, and the United States."

to the sentence (with one less 'and' and no other changes)

"Hurricane Matthew is currently a strong tropical cyclone that impacted Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, The Bahamas, and the United States."

HVanIderstine (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Made the proposed change. Apologies for the unnecessary talk section---I didn't have the ability to edit semi-protected nor did I know to submit an edit request. HVanIderstine (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

@MarioProtIV: I noticed you undid the edits made by TheAustinMan. I think the lead section in its current state is inadequate, and I preferred his version because it contained better summaries of some of the following sections. Perhaps the additions could have been cut down a bit, but the lead in its current state is too short, in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"Florida and the United States"

"it will be the first major hurricane to strike both Florida and the United States" - isn't Florida part of the United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.128.65.129 (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(Of course, the original author meant, "Not only the United States, but also its state of Florida." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerhaven1 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Death count

Can we have some more sourcing on this so it does not amount to WP:SYNTH? Death is a serious thing, so we should be accurate when it comes to this info . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This source says that ten have died in Florida. Florida deaths
This source says three have died in Georgia and North Carolina each. Georgia and North Carolina deaths
This gives us only 16 confirmed deaths, so we need to find the sources for the remaining deaths. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Aside from that the Daily Mail is all but a reliable source, WP:CALC applies. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a consensus here. Okay here is the issue: Lets say source A says 4 people died, while another source (source B) says 6 people died. How do you know the deaths from Source A aren't included in Source B's death count? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, in this case, the numbers are from different states so there can't be an overlap. But the problem is that a majority of sources are offering different numbers in terms of death, especially in Florida. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I added a source for a total death count, I feel that if this info is incorrect then it falls on the source and not us. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
ABC News has just reported a fourteenth death here, which I sourced after someone added it and removed the old source. ~ KN2731 {talk} 08:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox picture

As Matthew reached peak intensity at night (locally) and never had a stable eye, it is a bit difficult to determine which picture is better to present the hurricane.

  • 18:00 UTC, October 1
    18:00 UTC, October 1
  • 15:45 UTC, October 2
    15:45 UTC, October 2
  • 15:35 UTC, October 4
    15:35 UTC, October 4

They are all at 125 knots according to the operational post-analysis. I would prefer the one on October 2 as it presents a clearer eye and a generally orderly shape. -- Meow 08:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The selected image should have its timestamp included in its caption. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The filename has the timestamp. -- Meow 10:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest an image stitching together the MODIS-Terra infrared data from this graunle and this granule from October 1. (Paging User:Supportstorm or User:Meow). At the time Matthew had just been upgraded to a Category 5 hurricane, and the data coverage seems pretty good to me. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually there has been already an image at the same time in Wikimedia Commons. To me, however, the result is not as good as what I expected. I also have tried to extract from EOSDIS Worldview, yet it doesn't look better than the one on October 2. The resolution of infrared MODIS images is 1km. Therefore, I think it is not that necessary to build the complete IR image. -- Meow 17:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I could create a colored IR image like I did with Hurricane Sandy and Typhoon Haiyan. Supportstorm (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The eye of Matthew is still cloud-filled on the infrared MODIS image. That is why I said it may not be necessary to build. -- Meow 17:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Well it was like that throughout Matthew existence. At least the MODIS IR image would show Matthew when it was at category five strength. Though if I had to chose a image from the above section it would be the image from the 4th. Supportstorm (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
It is free to build an infrared one but I don’t think it should be used in Matthew’s infobox. The cut is much closer to the eye comparing to Haiyan’s, no matter how you rotate that image. I forgot that the article of Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti has already used the picture on October 4. -- Meow 18:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Peak intensity, 02:25Z
    Peak intensity, 02:25Z

I made something preliminary using the MODIS infrared image... though perhaps someone with higher computing power could make a higher quality image. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts but I still don’t think this should be used, no matter who builds it... -- Meow 18:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, why should Matthew be excluded from using that kind of image? Haiyan peaked at night-time, like Matthew did, and its MODIS image has been up there since late 2013 if I had to guess. Plus, the infobox picture is most frequently used to display the storm at its peak intensity, although for example if it happened at night-time we can only use files that are the closest to peak intensity while still be visible in daylight. With the above image being created I actually support using it once the storm dissipates, which IMO should be by Wednesday if not sooner. Plus, the structure of Matthew is better defined in that image then in all the others, including the tremendous outflow which is clearly visible. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that an image at peak intensity should be used, however, would it be possible to create a storm-centered image instead? ~ KN2731 {talk} 04:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
That is the main reason why it should not be used—impossible to make it centered unless we crop the image again... You guys should think more. -- Meow 06:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Of note is that the "blob" on the right was a noted feature of Matthew. The caption could simply note the unusual blob in addition to the storm itself. @Meow: "You guys should think more" - you know you could've been more polite...--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
So is that really necessary to use the picture because of that blob? Why should we use a much more unimpressive picture (not due to the maker) only because of peak intensity? It does not mean we can do the same thing to Matthew as we did to Haiyan. -- Meow 06:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
More like, having the blob is not a reason to not use this image. "Impressiveness", on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder, and is of lesser priority than peak intensity. --Jasper Deng (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If you ask me, the peak intensity picture is the most impressive though. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath in Haiti and in the French-speaking Caribbean

Following a prejudicial tradition of denying the power of action to people in the Caribbean, this section presents Haitians, and other Caribbean people, as the recipient of both harm and altruism. They have no agency over their lives. This is particularly obvious in the longer report on Haiti. I do appreciate the information presented here, however, to make it fair and balance, this section should also have information about what Haitians are doing for their own. Concerned reader r166.143.113.207 (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Shepard Smith quote

Is the Shepard Smith quote really necessary? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dissipation of Matthew

It would appear that the OPC, the agency that had official dictation over Matthew when the NHC stopped tracking, has ceased calling the extra-tropical remnants Matthew in the high seas advisories. Usually the OPC will continue to call the extra-tropical remains of a tropical cyclone by the name it was given when it was tropical. Since this happened there is no means of verification, even though the original low can still be traced in the weather maps. So unless the OPC reinstates Matthew in the next advisory the dissipation date has to be on October 10 at 12Z. This might be changed whenever the TCR is released early next year. Supportstorm (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

My request, is to amend "Obama" in the last section, to be more respectful and say "President Obama". Summerhaven1 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done I have followed through with your request. However, I have not done so out of respect (not that I disrespect him by any means) but rather because "President" is part of the title of his office. Dustin (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!! Wikipedia articles are great, but should be accurate — including in respect in manners.  :-) That leads to its articles being respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerhaven1 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Retirement

I am proposing the addition of the following new sub-section under the "Aftermath" section:

Retirement

See also: List of retired Atlantic hurricane names

Within the North Atlantic ocean, the name of any significant tropical cyclone can be retired from the tropical cyclone naming lists by the World Meteorological Organization's Hurricane Committee, if it is felt that a storm is so deadly or damaging that the future use of its name would be inappropriate. Because of the large death toll and destruction of property, the name Matthew is expected to be retired.[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ATPhil (talk • contribs)

We've stopped having a section for retirement since it's always just one or two sentences in the end, but as of now there's no reason to include it. The mention of retirement on the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season page is sufficient until the formal announcement of retired named in Spring 2017. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Deadly Hurricane Matthew breaks several Atlantic Basin records". WBRZ. October 10, 2016. Retrieved October 11, 2016.

Semi-protected edit request: lead paragraph

The lead paragraph as currently worded muddles confirmed and estimated deaths: "At least 518 to over 1,045 confirmed deaths". Please fix. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done That seem perfectly fine to me, but if someone else came along and saw that problem, they'll probably fix it.— JJBers (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Notes on impact

I can't edit as an IP because the page is semi-protected. Please update:

  • The third image from the Carolina's should be in the past tense. The flood was expected to peak on October 12.
  • Include the Bahamas in the impact table. Also, it may be noteworthy to mention an indirect death from Andros, if it is determined by reliable sources that it was linked to the hurricane.

207.107.159.62 (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done I've changed the image caption mentioned in your first point to past tense where it was applicable, and updated it with the current forecast of a 25 ft crest. Regarding the second point the Bahamas are covered in the impact table under the Lucayan Archipelago; also I haven't been able to find a source (yet) explicitly connecting the death you mentioned to the hurricane. ~ KN2731 {talk} 13:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Damage estimate

Read one that contains a $10 billion damage estimate in the States. Also contains the $4 to $6 billion estimate already included. Which should we use? http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/hurricane-matthew-damage-in-u-s-likely-to-cost-10b-1.3111444?autoPlay=true --Kuzwa (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference dispute????

I've noticed some references getting replaced or removed in the article in the past few days. It seems to me there seems to be a disagreement over which references should be considered legit, and even if one is more legit than another (even if both are considered an reliable news source). I realize some sources may have slightly different info, but does that automatically disqualify them as a useful reference despite being from a reputable source?--Halls4521 (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Matt Drudge

The section on Matt Drudge is flawed. While a conspiracy to promote global warming is valid, the sources linked say nothing to corroborate "were rooted in the belief that climate change was a hoax perpetuated by the Government of the United States.[91] " and this sentence has bad grammar as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.3.155 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Confirmed but  Not done for now: I've gone ahead and added {{Failed verification}} to the sentence so others can look into. I don't have the time to do so now. I suggest, IP user, that you find a reliable source and submit an edit request so we can correctly source that statement. — Gestrid (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the correct course of action is to edit the statement, instead of trying to find a source to verify a falsity. Even people who believe climate change is a hoax generally don't think it comes from the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.3.155 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I really don't have anything to add to this discussion, but I think it is worth at least notifying Cyclonebiskit considering he it the editor who added the section. Dustin (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
This may be a thankless job, but I tried to do the edits to make everyone happy and impove the accuracy of what is being reported. These are largely opinionated rants we are quoting, which is essentially what Twitter was designed for. I like to saw logs! (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Could we just dump ALL references to global warming/climate change in hurricane articles (particularly those coming from ambulance-chasing commentators and politicians)? They really do pollute just about every weather-related article these days like the measles. (Despite the claim once being bandied that GW would lead to more numerous and more intense tropical activity, the world is in fact in a global "ACE" (accumulated cyclone energy) drought, with the Atlantic at a particularly low ebb).--Froglich (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Trimming the lede

Does anyone have an objection to removing all the paragraphs in the (currently bloated) lede aside from the first? All pertinent info appears to already be in the History and Impact sections.--Froglich (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

New infobox image

I propose that we change the infobox image to the following:

I had tried doing this the other day, but @Jasper Deng: was somewhat against it.

The reason for the change is because it looks more realistic (shadows on the surface from t'storms, etc.) Also, this image is quite close to Matthew's peak intensity, as it peaked around 0130–0230Z, which is about three to four hours after this (keep in mind its the last visible satellite image taken by GOES before the sun went down, after that it is IR). This is usually qualified to allow the caption to read "Hurricane Matthew near peak intensity to the north of Colombia late on September 30". Thoughts? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: did you read the previous conversation?--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Death toll for Haiti

In the article, it said that tallies from government officials are at 1600, but there are no citations to support it. I wonder where the person who edited that part got the info from? I feel that any large death toll should be followed by source citations. Also, is there any update from Haiti's CWB? The section says October 14 but it is already October 28.Damien4794 (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The references for the 1600 + count are in the section/subsection: Impact - Haiti--Halls4521 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2016

Florida and Georgia As Matthew tracked parallel to the Florida coast, ... Hurricane Matthew trasistioned from a major category 4 hurricane to a category 2 very rapidly off the coast of Jacksonville. The roof of Operations Support Building II... 

SPELLCHECK..Please change "trasistioned" to "transitioned"

65.75.94.226 (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC) EDIT Request by reader MR. C. W. CURTIS Nassau, Bahamas (242)465-7850[1] 65.75.94.226 (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Trimming the article.

This article is getting far too long, and I think some browsers won't be able to handle it soon. I propose splitting the article into a few different articles, definitely Meteorological history of Hurricane Matthew, Effects of Hurricane Matthew in North Carolina, and Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Florida. Maybe we could also do Effects of Hurricane Matthew in the Lesser Antilles and South America, Effects of Hurricane Matthew in the Dominican Republic, Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Cuba, and Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Georgia and South Carolina. Jdcomix (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is only a bit over 100 kb. I doubt that most browsers couldn't handle it. Dustin (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose such a big split. A meteorological history article is probably feasible but should only be done when the NHC completes post-analysis (as we did with Hurricane Patricia), but there is too little content for splitting up the impacts at this time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jdcomix, Dustin V. S., and Jasper Deng: A massive split like this doesn't appear necessary at the moment. Rule of thumb for splitting based on article size is prose-only, not the entire page size. At present, the article has about 37 kB-worth of prose which means there's plenty of room for expansion. Most of the sections are woefully inadequate as-is and need plenty of help. I'm already working on a Meteorological history article already, however, as that section does need to be trimmed so more focus and be given to the hurricane's impacts. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I actually have the prose-checking tool, but I didn't consider using it here. There definitely isn't potential for seven articles to be split off as Jdcomix has suggested. That's not to say I wouldn't be down with a couple of new articles based around Hurricane Matthew (such as a Meteorological history article as Cyclonebiskit mentioned), but the article is not all-too-large prose-wise as is. The Hurricane Katrina article, for comparison, has 64 kb of prose. Dustin (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I personally support a separate Meteorological History article, and came here with the intention of recommending one as such, but no need for anything else, though, besides the Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti, which already exists. KirkCliff2 (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Cyclonebiskit has a sandbox for the Met. history that is very thorough up until the Caribbean Sea (before Haitian landfall). Aside from that, we could use a sub-article for North Carolina, and maybe for Florida. I wouldn't split too much though, for that would reduce this article's usefulness. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer to split the met history after the Tropical Cyclone Report is published so it's easier to summarise the portion that's staying here. I won't mind an article for the Carolinas as it could elaborate more on the record-breaking floods that Matthew caused. ~ KN2731 {talk} 10:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed section split- Meterological history of Hurricane Matthew

The section is getting kind of too long to not have a separate article dedicated to it. What does everyone here think? Jdcomix (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

See User_talk:Cyclonebiskit#Matthew_meteorological_history, as we are waiting for the TCR basically. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so we'll probably see an article by the end of this month. Thanks for letting me know :) Jdcomix (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember How Matthew Was Supposed To Do A Loopty Loop But Never Did?

How come that isn't discussed at all? It went straight up the coast surprising eastern North Carolina and Southeastern VA. The NWS only follows the forecast models yet that kind of forecast track was highly unlikely to occur given the history of hurricanes along the east coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.98.73 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@100.4.98.73: AFAIK, it is mentioned in the currently-WIP meteorological history of Matthew that @Cyclonebiskit: is making. We are just waiting for its TCR to be out (which should be another week or so considering its March now and the WMO meets in 3 weeks to discuss retirements and all the TCRs are done by then) to expand it more, then it should be good to go. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2017

Add the following citation from NOAA to the retirement section stating why the name was retired. For your convenience, there is no ref tag for the following template:

Feltgen, Dennis (27 March 2017). "World Meteorological Organization retires storm names Matthew and Otto". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 27 March 2017.

Once you add this citation template to the retirement section, surround it with ref tags. 24.105.170.133 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done – already did on my own that but minus a few parameters. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox picture edit war

@MarioProtIV, Undescribed, 219.78.190.133, Supportstorm, and 121.202.139.198: Can the edit warring over the infobox picture please stop? I'm starting this discussion in order to get agreement on it. WP:WPTC#Images might be useful.--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The only revision that I have undone was that of 219.78.190.133, because it does not show Matthew anywhere near peak intensity. Any of the other images that show Matthew at or near Category 5 strength seem appropriate. --Undescribed (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 0215Z
    0215Z
  • 0225Z
    0225Z

both at peak intensity. --219.78.190.133 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Either of those images are fine with me, but preferably the one on the right due to the better resolution. This is the only image that I don't think is appropriate:
  • 1800Z
    1800Z

--Undescribed (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The one at 2015Z is more realistic, and while 0215–0225Z are shortly after peak intensity, the 0225Z IMO should be used on the meteorological history page. Plus we generally use good quality image, and the TCR has Matthew at 120 kt / 140 mph at 18z, so I'd assume it was 150 or 155 mph by 20–21z (given that it was 165 at 00z and had probably reached 160 around 22z).
  • 2015Z
    2015Z
  • 2115Z
    2115Z

Also on a similar note, the same thing was done for Nicole as it reached peak late at night and was RI around the time the image was taken. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: The intermediate value theorem only guarantees that it was 130 or 135 knots sometime between 18 and 00z, and says nothing about elsewhere. In fact, it is a stretch to put 130 or 135 knots for 21z; reconnaissance data would only support about 125 knots maximum at that time in my opinion. Note that this would typically be considered WP:SYNTH but we are only using it for our own image decision, and not adding it to the article.
Technically, the 215/225z ones are closer to peak intensity (2015z to 0z is 3 hours and 45 minutes, versus 2 hours and 15 or 25 minutes), and given the above I personally think they are more representative of peak intensity. However, I do agree with you that we should use the visual 2015z image, and use the other images later on (as with Hurricane Celia (2010) or Hurricane Rita, which both peaked at night).--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@219.76.15.7: You have added another image (2115z) to the mix. Do you wish to add your thoughts?--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Strange wording

At Hurricane Matthew#United States 3, highlighted by a citation needed template, there is an odd sentence saying "However, a number of people in Tybee decided not to leave, so emergency teams were sent out to look for them until it was safe to do so." It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would direct emergency teams to look while it was unsafe to look but then stop as soon as it became safe to look. Did this sentence get mangled somewhere along the way, or am I misreading it? —Salton Finneger (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2017

Add {{pp-30-500}} on the top. 219.78.190.203 (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Matthew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Matthew death toll

The weather channel, cbc and nbc said that 1,000+ people died in haiti. https://weather.com/news/news/hurricane-matthew-haiti-latest-news-0

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hurricane-matthew/hurricane-matthew-death-toll-rises-difficult-days-ahead-n-c-n666891

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/haiti-hurricane-cholera-destruction-matthew-1.3798697 PoisonCarnival8 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This is unlike Maria where the respective gov is hiding the true total. The TCR explicitly states a total of 603 people died in the hurricane, of which 546 were in Haiti. The 1,000+ was an overestimate, and is not the official total, so please do not add it back again. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wikipedia
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Matthew/Archive_1&oldid=1159668712"