Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Records

When should we add the Records tab, after the season is over or after the year is over? Bjones1123 (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Which records do you think are worhty of a seperate section? Jason Rees (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This may be just me but I have been seeing so many of these "records" being inserted that it is at the point of borderline WP:NOTSTATS. If records are added please have them be notable and not just some trivial mention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Just leave all seasonal records in the seasonal summary. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that the records should have their own section, possibly being a subsection under Season effects. I also made a draft of the section below:98.197.198.46 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

===Draft of Hypothetical Records Section===

The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season tied or broke many Atlantic tropical cyclone records, including being the costliest Atlantic hurricane season and featuring the highest open Atlantic wind speeds. Bold Red indicates a tie. Blue italics, when present, indicate that since 2017, the storm was moved down in the rankings, and shows its current ranking. (Non-italic shows the storm's original ranking.) The records are in this table below:

	Storm	Record	Value for Record	Position on Atlantic scoreboard	Position on world tropical cyclone scoreboard
9	Hurricane Harvey	Most rain dropped in one place by a tropical cyclone	64.58 inches	1	26
9	Hurricane Harvey	Costliest tropical cyclone	$198,630,000,000	1	1
9	Hurricane Harvey	Costliest natural disaster	$198,630,000,000	1	2
11	Hurricane Irma	Highest Atlantic winds	185 mph	2	3
11	Hurricane Irma	Highest Atlantic winds outside of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea	185 mph	1	N/A
11	Hurricane Irma	Longest consecutive 185 mph winds	37 hours	1	1
11	Hurricane Irma	Longest status as Category 5	75 hours	2
11	Hurricane Irma	Highest individual ACE	66.6	2
11	Hurricane Irma	Farthest east Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic	57.7°W	3	N/A
12	Hurricane Jose	Longest duration	21 days	6
16	Hurricane Nate	Fasted moving tropical cyclone in the Gulf of Mexico	28 mph	1	N/A
17	Hurricane Ophelia	Farthest east major hurricane in the Atlantic	east of 20°W	1	N/A
38	Hurricanes Irma, Jose, and Maria	Most hurricanes with ACE≥40 in the same season	3 hurricanes	1
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Costliest tropical cyclone season	≥$368,860,000,000	1	1
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Highest ACE	223.12	7
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Most tropical storms	17	9
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Most hurricanes	10	8
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Most major hurricanes	6	2
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Most consecutive hurricanes	10	1

It's a decent idea in theory, but the biggest problem is sourcing. Also, no red per WP:ACCESS; if a record is tied, just say "T-X" instead of "X". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I also made ties bold, so I assume that I'm complying with WP:ACCESS. As for sourcing, I got all of the information on the table from other Wikipedia pages, like the list of Atlantic hurricane records.98.197.198.46 (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I do like the idea of having a convenient table to quickly visualize some of the most noteworthy records of the season. Once each record mentioned has a reliable source cited and WP:ACCESS is clearly complied with, I am supportive of this addition and would like to see it added. Other notable records may include how Maria's intensification from a named storm to a category 5 was one of the quickest and most explosive in history (though not #1), or how this season included among the most consecutively active hurricanes (3 - Irma, Jose, Katia - not seen since 2010). This was also the only season known to have multiple active storms of at least 150 mph, though that may be too specific to be featured as a record.BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with just including them in the season summary? These records need some explaining (like defining ACE) and per WP:PROSE we therefore should use prose.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Having a specific section for records will make them more easily findable for readers who are specifically looking for one particular record or for records in general. I also think that this is more aesthetically pleasing and easier to navigate and follow than a chunk of text like:

Harvey dropped 64.58 inches of rain in Nederland, Texas. This is the most rain ever dropped by one system anywhere in the U.S. and the 26^th-most in the world. A bunch of random sentences could be in here and go unnoticed. Harvey inflicted 198,630,000,000 US dollars and damages, mainly upon Texas and Louisiana. This makes it the costliest natural disaster in the United States, the costliest tropical cyclone in the world, and the second costliest natural disaster in the world, after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Few people would actually read all of this, anyway. Most would just skim it. The 2017 also broke multiple northern Atlantic records for farthest east tropical cyclones of at least a certain strength. Irma was the farthest east Category Five hurricane, and Ophelia was the farthest east major (category three or higher) hurricane. More specifically, Irma strengthened to Category Five status early while heading west, and Ophelia retained its Category Three status while heading east (actually northeast). Irma also broke records not only with its wind strength, but the amount of time that this strength was sustained for. More specifically, its 185-mph winds were tied for the second-highest throughout the entire Atlantic basin and are the only known instance of such high Atlantic winds outside of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Mexico is a country. It has mountains. Also, the amount of time that Irma was at Category Five strength for 75 total hours, second only to the 1932 Cuba hurricane among northern Atlantic tropical cyclones. Jose also had a duration record, this time for total duration, 21 days, placing it on the top eight in this category for nroth Atlantic tropical cyclones. Irma, Jose, and Katia, and later Jose, Lee, and Maria, represent two rare cases of three simultaneous Atlantic tropical cyclones. However, this is not record-breaking, as in the 1893 Atlantic hurricane season, August 19 and August 22 each saw a record-holding four active hurricanes. Nate was the fastest-moving tropical cyclone in the Gulf of Mexico, by wasn't even half as fast as the fastest-moving tropical cyclone in the entire Atlantic basin.

This is why we try to split up paragraphs that get too long. It's not a reason to not use prose. Also, the proposed text above has numerous grammar and factual issues. We say "Category 5", not "Category Five", and also the last sentence is incomplete. Officially, the 1932 Cuba hurricane has the longest Category 5 tenure at 78 hours, slightly longer than Irma, and also, Irma was not the farthest-east Category 5 hurricane. Hurricane Hugo was further east. Irma only holds the record when restricted to storms with winds of at least 175 mph. Readers looking for a specific record can find it at List of Atlantic hurricanes or List of tropical cyclone records.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I finished the blockquote, but you should have been able to get an idea the first time. About Irma's Category Five duration, there's a column for the actual value, and for the row corresponding to Category Five duration, there's a 2 in that column. However, thanks for catching the farthest east Category Five error. Also, tables have the additional advantage of being able to be sorted by multiple categories, not only by storm, but also by Atlantic rank, world rank, or anything else, while prose can only be sorted by one factor.98.197.198.46 (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your blockquote still says Irma was the longest-lived Category 5 hurricane. I still feel that anyone needing a structured table of records should go to List of Atlantic hurricanes or List of tropical cyclone records. I would also argue that WP:NOTTRIVIA applies here, since most of the records need explaining for the casual user.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I fixed that. Also, having the reader look somewhere like List of tropical cyclone records would make it difficult for the reader to find which ones are held by members of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, and only first-place holders are shown there, where as some second-place records, like Irma's Category Five duration, are also significant, as it is the longest Category Five duration in the northern Atlantic since reliable methods began.2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:1D26:AF3C:B29D:3C4A (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, inaccuracies are no reason to reject the whole idea of a table, as they can be corrected. We should discuss whether or not to use a table, not this particular one, and then make sure it's right. Saying that the table shouldn't be used because one row is incorrect is like saying that we shouldn't use prose to write records because part of one sentence out of two or three paragraphs happens to be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:1D26:AF3C:B29D:3C4A (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

How about List of Atlantic hurricane records? I'm absolutely not convinced that we need a whole table for the records when we already have them in a centralized location.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not all of the 2017 records are there.2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:6997:4F9A:4484:60CB (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

So add them - and only if they can be reliably sourced. And technically, anything other than first place in a given metric is not a record.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I got everything from other Wikipedia articles, so I don't need to include references. I'll add it.2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:3160:1A51:7F1D:81E (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

There has not been a consensus formed here yet and I am personally against adding in such a table, as I feel most of the records included are trivial. I would personally prefer the records that arent trivial to be mentioned in the seasonal summuary and or the sections on each system. It would also need to be cited back to external sources, since we do not cite Wikipedia what at all.Jason Rees (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

When I said "add them", I meant to add missing records to the List of Atlantic hurricane records article. Also, you can't cite Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and it runs afoul of WP:NOR to infer information not published in reliable secondary sources. And I also strongly disagree with labeling anything other than first-place statistics as "records".--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought that you meant adding them to this article. Anyway, how about this:

The records are also listed in the following table. In the table, Bold Red indicates a tie. Blue italics, when present, indicate that since 2017, the storm was moved down in the rankings, and shows its current ranking. (Non-italic shows the storm's original ranking.)

	Storm	Record	Value for Record	Position on north Atlantic scoreboard	Position on world tropical cyclone scoreboard
9	Hurricane Harvey	Most rain dropped in one place by a tropical cyclone	64.58 inches	1	26
9	Hurricane Harvey	Costliest tropical cyclone	$198,630,000,000	1	1
9	Hurricane Harvey	Costliest natural disaster	$198,630,000,000	1	2
11	Hurricane Irma	Highest winds	185 mph	2	2
11	Hurricane Irma	Lowest barometric pressure	914 hPa (26.99 inHg)	6
11	Hurricane Irma	Lowest barometric pressure at landfall	914 hPa (26.99 inHg)	13
11	Hurricane Irma	Highest Atlantic winds outside of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea	185 mph	1	N/A
11	Hurricane Irma	Longest consecutive 185 mph winds	37 hours	1	1
11	Hurricane Irma	Longest status as Category 5	75 hours	2
11	Hurricane Irma	Highest individual ACE	66.6	2
11	Hurricane Irma	Farthest east Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic	57.7°W	3	N/A
12	Hurricane Jose	Longest duration	21 days	6
15	Hurricane Maria	Lowest barometric pressure	908 hPa (26.81 inHg)	10
15	Hurricane Maria	Lowest barometric pressure at landfall	917 hPa (27.08 inHg)	8
16	Hurricane Nate	Fasted moving tropical cyclone in the Gulf of Mexico	28 mph	1	N/A
17	Hurricane Ophelia	Farthest east major hurricane in the Atlantic	east of 20°W	1	N/A
38	Hurricanes Irma, Jose, and Maria	Most hurricanes with ACE≥40 in the same season	3 hurricanes	1
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Costliest tropical cyclone season	≥$368,860,000,000	1	1
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Highest ACE	223.12	7
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Most tropical storms	17	9
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Most hurricanes	10	8
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Most major hurricanes	6	2
171	2017 Atlantic hurricane season	Most consecutive hurricanes	10	1

I added a bunch of references that were used in other Wikipedia articles, like Irma's article.2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:E4EE:C9EF:34BF:8EBC (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you need a table. Just put in stuff that is actually a record into the article in a paragraph. 7th place in ACE total or 9th place for most tropical storms isn't a record, so cut out unnecessary stuff. Only include things that are number 1 (or maybe 2nd place in a few categories). United States Man (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And to this point, all the records are already listed on the page, so this table is unnecessary. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 04:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

So that settles that. United States Man (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

2018 Atlantic Season

Is it maybe time to start thinking about creating the 2018 Atlantic Hurricane Season Page, or is it more standard to wait until The first storm/June 1? BananaIAm (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The page tends to be created a bit in advance, but it is definitely too early right now in my opinion. Master of Time (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that a good rule of thumb is to wait until at least two or three agencies have released predictions before creating an article. Obviously, if a system, even a PTC, forms before then, the article should be created right away.98.197.198.46 (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The article needs to be created before New Year's Eve on December 31, because around that time, the article links at Portal:Tropical cyclones will automatically switch from 2017 to 2018. We don't want our readers to be directed to a red link when that happens. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently there is a redirect so the links aren't red. Still, wait till 1/1 unless there's any other predictions released before then, in that case it could be created ASAP. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That could be soon. Looking at past hurricane seasons, TSR typically releases its first prediction around December 10^th.

I stand by my earlier opinion that it is too early to already have an article for the Atlantic hurricane season. If we're too impatient to wait until the season is even close to starting, we can at least wait until the end of 2017 is a bit closer. Master of Time (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Gert

Wold somebody like to explain what's going on with Gert? I see a lot of back-and-forth and possibly dubious sourcing and am wondering if ECP is needed here. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There’s a YouTuber named Force Thirteen that claims that claims that Gert is a cat 3. Because of his popularity, many people think that the claim is official. In fact, one of the reason for one of the revision was FORCED THIRTEEN!!! (Please don’t give Force Thirteen any hate) INeedSupport (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected to cut down on the IP traffic. There appeared to be some PC accepts that shouldn't have been. If the problem persists from autoconfirmed accounts the next step would be ECP. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Irma - NOAA

NOAA already has an estimate of $100 billion for Hurricane Irma? Forgive me if I’m missing something, but why haven’t we been mentioning this estimate? Also, should we start using this estimate, or just wait until they release their full season outlook? Bjones1123 (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Updated to reflect that... We need to go with what NOAA is saying. --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, we did the same thing with Harvey’s total, and officially that makes Irma the third costliest on record (Most likely fourth pending Maria’s finalization in TCR). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not so fast. The NOAA site references the $100 billion because they're citing AccuWeather for some reason. AccuWeather's estimate for Irma is far and away the highest, especially since damage in mainland Florida was less than anticipated. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 04:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like the most formal of government pages. At what point is something considered "official?" Does any mention on a .gov website at all immediately make something official? We should hold off on this a bit. I'll feel more comfortable once there is a mention on the NCEI page here. Master of Time (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The TCR's should settle it "officially".--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

NOAA added that estimate to their site so they must agree with it. It doesn't matter if it is accuweather or not as long as NOAA is going along with it. If a tweet is acceptable for Harvey's damages, this is definitely acceptable. Harvey isn't listed on that site you linked either. --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 11:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Meteorological history + Effects articles

@Yellow Evan, 12george1, Supportstorm, Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, and Typhoon2013: (and rest of WPTC team basically but I don’t feel like pinging too much): Seeing as we are nearing the end of the year and we have still haven’t began to split off the MHs for the top 3 storms this year, I think it would be of best interest to start the process of splitting them now, as if we wait too long until the TCRs, it will just be a big mess. I’d prefer we start in draftspace first, which I will list below and get the framework finished in the meantime:

• Harvey
• Irma
• Maria

I should also mention the impacts articles are necessary to be added as well and there is A LOT to cover on this one. As of right now, only two are in the process making right now, and that is Irma in Florida (worked on by 12george1 (talk · contribs)), and Maria in Puerto Rico (worked on by Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs)). That said we are severely lacking behind as there were other hard hit areas by the top three storms this year. I will list those below to get a better scope on what we need to make:

• Harvey (Texas and Louisiana)
• Irma (Leeward Islands, Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, Bahamas, Cuba)
• Maria (Leeward Islands, Puerto Rico and Hispaniola)

It gives a scope on how much will have to be worked on since most of the above areas sustained the brunt of this years horrific hurricane season. This may be the greatest WPTC contribution effort since 2004/2005 (Idek if WPTC existed back then but you get the point as we had a lot of devastating storms back then). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: Due to the fact that all of these three storms had an extremely huge impact and effects causing billions of damages, then yea we can separate the MH and Effects. Just confirm it with other users. Also having the 2017 season article become something like the 2004/05 articles would be great as for sure this season is a notable one. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• @MarioProtIV: Slow. Down. We can write "effects" articles, sure, but meteorological histories should still wait for TCR's. There's no rush, and anything we write now will need tons of revision; it shouldn't be that much work because these TCR's will almost surely be staggered in release time. On top of the following likely changes, we will at the least have to convert our references to advisory time ($3\mod 6$ UTC) to synoptic times ($0\mod 6$ UTC):
  • All three: changes in all landfall intensities
  • Harvey: Peak 120 kt
  • Irma: Peak 160-165 kt, reduced intensities after peak intensity. In particular, Irma is unlikely to retain its record for longest-160-knot duration.
  • Maria: Peak 150-155 kt
  • Jose: Peak 140-150 kt

--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If there is more (better) information in the sandbox than what exists in mainspace, it should be published immediately, everywhere in the project (especially including recent seasons). Have a mass stub drive. At least then there will be a more accurate assessment for what information is missing, not merely what information is lacking. There is a notable difference in terms of encyclopedia'ing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: As of the time of this writing, the three linked drafts have nothing other than the infobox and headers. So currently there's no benefit in publishing those drafts.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Make them when they're actually reasonable completly. Until then, there's really no need for discussion here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: For them to be "reasonable complete" (sic), one must first make them, which would be a contradiction of what you just said. So I'm not sure what you meant.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok in direct response to the OP's question. Go for starting the MH, but please write well Mario. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record I've been working on Harvey's MH here in my spare time. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 07:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Well that takes care of that. If you’re okay with it may I help too? Also I think you should merge the page history of yours to the draftspace I made so that we don’t have two versions sitting around. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate the help. Could an admin or page mover make the move? ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: - it doesn’t matter if they’re complete. I’ll say again, if the info in sandboxes isn’t better than the main space, it should be published. See WP:eventualism. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I do seriously wonder if we really do need MH articles for every significant system - especially when outside the Atlantic we generally get away with only two or three paragraphs on signifcant systems.Jason Rees (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink mobile and Hurricanehink: Chances are something that is not "reasonably complete" isn't better than what's in the storm MH section though. You know this as well as anyone in the project that there is no reason to have a sub-article (whether it's a sub-article of a storm or a season, it really doesn't matter) if the parent article can easily have the same info. Especially with regards to Irma and Maria (Harvey is more ify), I think that's probable to be the case that a sub-article is needed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they should have to be reasonably complete before they are published. That's why some stubs exist. Granted, where it's inappropriate/unnecessary to have an article, then you merge the info, as always, but there's no harm in having more effects articles if it is clear there is enough information out there to support an article (even if it might not be the case at the moment(. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Deadly

Who has decided that a season 700 deaths is described as deadly? Red Jay (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Deadly be definition means there was at least one death, so yes this season obviously qualifies. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That was why I deleted 'deadly' a few days ago, as since the first official hurricane season there has always been deaths, but 700 seems to be the qualifying limit for deadly? Red Jay (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning the use of Hillary along with Don

I don't think that it's justified to mention both names in the same article because they were in different basins. We can mention Don here, and we can mention Hilary here, but we shouldn't mention a name in a basin that it wasn't used in. Do you agree? The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 19:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Totally agreed on substance. Please see WP:SIGLEN, as your sig is 4.5 lines on my laptop, so it might be a wise idea to shorten it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan:Do you mean in the source editor or the visual editor? It shows up as a fraction of a line in the visual editor. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 04:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Source editor. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right: It is rather large. I don't understand why, as I set it up to be a template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: I think that I understand: Whenever I put a template into anything, as soon as I submit my changes, the template maarkup (for my signature, {{SUBST:User:The Nth User/Signature}}) is replaced with the coding on the template page. I wonder why that is and how I can prevent it. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that I might have figured it out: Maybe it's because of the SUBST: part at the beginning! I'll try it now: The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No; it doesn't seem to work now. Maybe it takes awhile to register a signature change. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that each time I save my signature as a template after removing the SUBST: string, the string is always reinserted. I'll try using two templates and see if that works. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I did that. Let's see if it works now. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 04:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan:It works! I comply with WP:SIGLEN now!

A geographical (by location) organization of the storms

The islands of the Caribbean Sea were hit the hardest by the 2017 season. Irma and Maria, as Category Five hurricanes, devastated the northern islands, while Jose, a Category Four hurricane, hit Antigua and Barbuda. Earlier in the season, the Caribbean's southeastern islands had to deal with Tropical Storms Bret, Don, and Harvey (before it weakened then regenerated in the Gulf of Mexico) in the earlier part of the season.

The Gulf Coast also took a beating from Tropical Storms Cindy, Emily, and Philippe, as well as Hurricanes Franklin, Harvey, Irma, Katia, and Nate. Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula, which helps to separate the Gulf of Mexico from the Caribbean Sea, was crossed by Hurricanes Franklin and Harvey, as well as taking a glancing blow from Hurricane Nate.

There was also activity in the open Atlantic Ocean, with Tropical Storm Arlene, Tropical Depression Four, Hurricane Gert, Hurricane Lee, and Tropical Storm Rina not affecting any land. In addition, Hurricane Ophelia, which formed in the northeastern Atlantic Ocean and became a major hurricane, tracked northeast and impacted the British Isles as a powerful windstorm.

What do you think? Should it be in the lead as an alternative to the chronologically-ordered Seasonal summary and Storm names sections, or in the seasonal summary as an alternative to the chronologically-ordered lead and Storm names section? I vote for putting it in the Seasonal summary section. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 01:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment "fish-storms" is not an official term. It's used only in forums like storm2k and the hurricanes wikia. Also I fixed your blockquote. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 04:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Nth User: Before you start making more suggestions, I suggest you start looking at other leads and seasonal summary sections for hurricane/typhoon seasons that have actually made it to GA and FA. I have suggestions regarding to the prose itself that I'll comment on later, but I will say there are far more important things in to discuss in the lead. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Modify being fish-storms to did not affect any land. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, the part explaining how Jose is not a fish-storm even though its eye didn't make landfall is unnecessary. Do you have any more suggestions? The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 22:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ground rules on "potential tropical cyclones"

Since this year will likely include advisories on disturbances, some ground rules on how we'll treat them in the article need to be put forth. Senior members of the project have already agreed that when active, we will treat "potential tropical cyclones" like a normal system. Active TC templates will be used and there will be a section for them under the "Storms" header. If the system ultimately fails to become a tropical cyclone and advisories are discontinued, it will be placed under the "Other storms" sub-section and given less detail. If the system has significant impact, we'll have to discuss what to do then. No statistics will be kept for these systems in the infobox or season effects table. This is because the NHC would only be providing advisories on land-threats rather than all disturbances, so it's not a comprehensive category like with depressions. In essence, they will be treated like unofficial storms after the fact. If you have any questions/input, feel free to comment below. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur with all of that, having echoed similar sentiments a few months back (higher up on the talk page). Let's be organized so we have a plan going into the season. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Would their be some cases where if the PTC is expected to strengthen to a C2/3 for example and is expected to hit, say, Florida, an article could be created with the title "Potential Tropical Cyclone [Number] (2017)"? Also would "Other systems" be a main section header rather then the subsection it is now? Other then that I agree with all of your points. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A case like that would be very unlikely. If it did happen, however, that would essentially mean the system was a non-event and whatever preparations for the system did take place can be briefly covered in the main season article. If you're talking about creating an article while the system is still active, that would probably be unnecessary and we can simply wait until it receives a name. Wikipedia isn't a news agency so we don't have to have everything immediately. The "Other systems/storms" section could be a main header given that it has a specific set of storms that would be covered. We'll start it off as a sub-header and if there's enough content we can move it to a main header. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've flipped flopped offsite on this in the past, but in the end, I think I'm ok with this. Honestly if the PTC is not a TC but is article worthy, make a flood article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

2016 Louisiana floods is a decent example of a PTC that didn't make the cut but was high-impact. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I know I have not edited on here for a while, but I like the idea of doing this. But rather than putting them under the name "Potential Tropical Cyclone (Number)", I would rather have it under its invest designation. So if we were to put Invest 90L (March) on here, its section header would also be Invest 90L (March). HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 11:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If we did that, the entire section would be cluttered mainly because of failed invests. I think having just "Potential Tropical Cyclone [Number]" is fine. Plus 90L failed so there is no reason to add it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The advisory header will presumably say Potential Tropical Cyclone X though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yea, avoid the invest number. They repeat, anyway. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The NHC stated that they will number potential tropical cyclones the same as depressions, and one sequence will be used per season. Depressions will retain their PTC number. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit, Yeah, I get it now. I was confused for a second. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 11:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we include PTC's on timeline graphs? I'd say no since they are not TC's. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the timeline is only for TCs IMO, and I don't think it should be cluttered with PTCs that fail to develop. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A similar situation exists with the SW Indian Ocean where you get Zones of Disturbed Weather and Tropical Disturbances, which eventually end up in the statistical record. For now, I would include them as systems, but after the season, they may end up as "other systems" or "other storms". If they develop though then that is a moot point. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The way ZODW and TDI are recorded in the SWIO are different from the Atlantic I think, so I think they should only be in the "Other systems" section. Plus Cyclone said this in April regarding this: "No statistics will be kept for these systems in the infobox or season effects table. This is because the NHC would only be providing advisories on land-threats rather than all disturbances, so it's not a comprehensive category like with depressions." --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

They should be added to the timeline and the table at the end, but not given individual sections unless they become actual TC's, just like we list disturbances in the southern hemisphere and "minor" TD's in the western Pacific. Let us please be consistent across different basins.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The basic rule in other basins is too include all systems that have been numbered including tropical disturbances and zone of disturbed weathers in all main sections (Infobox, Systems, Season Effects Charts, Timelines, button bars etc). As a result, I do not see any reason to exclude PTC's that are numbered and am concerned at @MarioProtIV:'s comment about dropping systems just because they failed to develop.Jason Rees (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jason Rees. I think, like in other basins, potential tropical cyclones should be included in the timeline, season effects table, main article infobox, buttons, and so on. The NHC would not have bothered issuing a proper advisory with an actual designation such as Potential Tropical Cyclone Two if the system was not of note - it is more than just a low pressure area. Consequently, I think it would be improper for us to banish PTCs to the other systems section rather than include them in the main area of the article purely based on our own assessment of the systems being 'not strong enough'... because they clearly are strong enough according to the NHC. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna revive this for a short while to ask about POTC 10 and the season effects table. @Cyclonebiskit: you already brought this up in April regarding they wouldn't be added, but since POTC 10 affected the Carolinas (and me indirectly as it becomes extratropical) should it be in "Season effects" or are we just leaving it out all together? I would want to know this so in the future when we get systems/POTCs like this year's 10L, we know what to do with it. Of course, I am going to add the "Other systems" section for it once the last advisory is issued (presumably at 5 IMO) --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It only gets a mention in "Other storms", not the table. This is because they're not uniformly warned upon across the basin. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

In case any of you are interested, I've started a sandbox article for PTC Ten in my own userspace, here. I'm going to be keeping it there for the time being, but if any of you decide that there's enough weight to move the article into Wikipedia mainspace, please let me know. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I was just looking at the page and realized that PTC 10 does not have a table, so I decided to make one if y'all think it would be a good idea to include it, however a track has yet to be made: TyEvSkyo (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Category 1 hurricane (SSHWS)
Duration	August 3 – October 16 (Extratropical after August 29)
Peak intensity	80 mph (130 km/h) (1-min); 971 mbar (hPa)

The point of an other systems section is that no infobox is necessary. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Does WP:SYNTH apply?

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season&diff=817894253&oldid=817817129

I think that it doesn't apply because the data in question is quantitative, not qualitative, so the conclusion isn't exactly implied but rather pieced together, like the leap from a=b and b<c to a<c in mathematics. @Jasper Deng: thinks that WP:SYNTH does apply and is encouraged to state any justification for why it applies here. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 06:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

That the storm was north of 30 degrees north is fine. The rest is completely unsupported, not even by what you linked. In fact, the section you linked says "Observations indicate that size is only weakly correlated to variables such as storm intensity (i.e. maximum wind speed), radius of maximum wind, latitude, and maximum potential intensity."--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I only looked at the actual table. I looked at the paragraphs this time, and you're right. The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 17:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

And you misinterpreted the table anyways. The latitude parameter in the table is referring to diameter not location.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I now realize that I misinterpreted it. Thanks for explaining that. I changed the table, so it won't confuse readers in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Windstorm Perryman

I do understand that some meteorologists name extratropical storms. However, I'm not sure if it's necessary to use it as information for this article. I do not know who named Windstorm Perryman nor if it did threaten land or not. Should Windstorm Perryman be removed from the "Other systems" section or it should be kept? INeedSupport (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The system was named by the Free University of Berlin; generally speaking, these names are used for extratropical cyclones that affect Europe (see European windstorm). However, I'd prefer an actual text source that says that Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten was indeed the same system as Perryman. — Iunetalk 23:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say that the system became Windstorm Perryman? I thought that it just said that the system was absorbed by Windstorm Perryman. Also, whichever one it is, we should keep the information because the corresponding information is present in all of the other individual system sections. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 00:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Given it's only mentioned in passing, I don't see how it's problematic. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Total Death Toll

People are using the CNN number for Puerto Rican dead in some places, but the official death toll in Puerto Rico is only 64. We should not be saying "at least" using CNN's estimates, as there are official estimates which are much lower. Different groups have given *wildly* different numbers which vary over an order of magnitude. Comparing total death numbers in September and October 2017 to 2016 yields only +200 deaths (and it went up by +100 deaths from 2015 to 2016, and 2017 saw a higher death toll even before Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico), the official number is +64, CNN claims 499, US News claims over 1,000... the numbers vary a great deal. I don't see why we're attaching a particular significance to CNN's claims. We generally use official numbers for stuff like this, and I don't see any particular reason to privilege any of the other estimates as a "minimum". The controversy over the death toll is probably notable, but giving a minimum number which isn't based on the actual minimum official number seems dubious. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Maria's numbers of deaths

The Hurricane Maria arrives to 1,100 or higher. Please talk me, is an important for this --SusaneMakiGem (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no online source that mentions that Maria caused at least 1,100 casualties. Current estimates has the casualties to 547. INeedSupport (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@INeedSupport: Actually, there are at least two. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-11-29/hurricane-maria-deaths-in-puerto-rico-could-surpass-1-000 and https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/29/16623926/puerto-rico-death-toll-hurricane-maria-count. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: What's wrong with using footnotes. We are supposed to use the official numbers, and in terms of percentage of a line taken up when reading the page, ranges are longer than footnotes (not including the space taken up in the footnote section). Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 23:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Gert is Category 3 major hurricane, yes or not?

Tell me more please, thanks! --FrancoLeymas (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Gert is not a C3, per the NHC pending the TCR (and probably will not be a C3 at all). F13 is not a reliable source and they have their own ways of assessing intensity, but they are all unofficial. Since the NHC is the RSMC of the Atlantic basin, we go by their intensity estimate (105 mph). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that we should at least put in a note about this and several other things, as until reanalysis is complete, we shouldn't be giving definitive facts on some things that we actually don't know for sure. There's a good chance that Harvey and/or Lee will be determined to have been two storms after reanalysis, or that Potential Tropical Cyclone Ten will be declared a tropical storm. If any of those three happen, the ten-consecutive-hurricanes-streak would be broken, and the tropical storm counts would be altered, so I think that those should have a note, and well as notes saying that Gert may have been major and that Jose may have been category five. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 00:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Nth User: all of that qualifies as original research and cannot be included in the article. We go by what the NHC says in their advisories until the TCR is out. Fwiw, the TCRs for Harvey and PoTC Ten are out. Eric Blake also confirmed Lee will remain one system in a discussion I had with him on Twitter (TCR should be out within two weeks). Speculation of changes also violates WP:CRYSTAL. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Would speculation of lack of change violate WP:CRYSTAL since the notes will only say that there's a possibility that the statistics could change? Considering that if the streak isn't broken during reanalysis, the 2017 would have the longest hurricane streak in over a century, so we really shouldn't risk sounding this confident and then being wrong. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

We go by what is official at the current moment, which is the NHC advisories/released TCRs. There's no need to worry about putting a note – if the data changes, then we can simply change the article content then. — Iunetalk 01:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The_Nth_User It's not our place to determine that. As Iune stated, we go by what is official at the moment per statements from the NHC. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Can you provide a link for your Twitter discussion? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 04:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Nth User: Before you registered, I also undid (presumably what was) your edit that included similar reasoning and put a note on the IP talk page. My reasoning there, adding to what @Cyclonebiskit: has said here (by the way, I am also sure he talked to Berg about Jose's TCR and its Cat 5 upgrade possibility), still holds.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: That was me; I just sent you a partial reply, but I understand your point now: I thought that not mentioning the possibility of it changing when it could change violated WP:CRYSTAL because you seemed to be saying that it was a record that was already set in stone. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 04:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixing Seasonal Summary

Could you please fix all info on Harvey? Why, because Harvey is NOT tied with Katrina in 2005. An article said that Katrina's cost is $160 billion. So, could you please all info on Harvey? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D47:EC19:2846:2C21:2FC8:A39A (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That’s the inflation-adjusted total, we don’t usually add that in the summary. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair NHC said that Harvey and Katrina were not tied in the press release and kind of burried it on page 9 of the TCR. As a result, I do wonder if we really should be saying that they are tied for costliest hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I can just add a note to the Harvey mentions of being the costliest saying when adjusted for inflation Katrina tops it. Other then that we should keep it as being tied since we go by the (year) USD damage and not for inflation. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Listen, Harvey and Katrina are not tied. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D47:EC19:509:7D43:14BE:8F9E (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Read what Mario and I have said above and look at the sources. You will find that they are tied on damages. Jason Rees (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Irma's Wind Speed

Since the Post-analysis, I noticed that Irma's wind speed has been changed to 180 MPH. I may be the only one who thinks this, but I feel that Irma was stronger than 185 possibly, but feel free to correct me as you like. HurricaneCalebN (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We go by what is official, which in this case would be the National Hurricane Center's Tropical Cyclone Report. — Iunetalk 19:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Capitals of the Hurricanes names

The NHC uses caps on the names like this Hurricane IRMA, not like Hurricane Irma. Maybe you should put caps on the Hurricanes names. Random user —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Generally NHC uses mixed caps and I would personally prefer to keep it to mixed capitals.Jason Rees (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Fully capitalized names are only used in advisories and their respective advisory archives as well as the link to their respective tropical cyclone reports. Otherwise, they use mixed capitals. It would not be sensible to change them to full capitals. Cooper 15:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Math

A certain user on here is disputing simple math. Four hurricanes caused almost all of the damage; yes Nate was slightly less than one billion but the percentage of .279 is quite a bit. Bleucheeses (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter when Harvey Irma and Maria each did over $50 billion in damage which dwarfs in comparison with Nate. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You are being difficult as you have been before. Bleucheeses (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NOAA recognizes one billion in damages as severe. Bleucheeses (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with including Nate along with Harvey, Irma and Maria. The big three might have done much more damage than Nate, but the storm did cause just about a billion in damage. — Iunetalk 16:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment Though I'm not completely certain what is being proposed, if it is a request for Nate to be included alongside Harvey, Irma, and Maria, I actually agree because Nate was retired. I still understand rationale for excluding Nate because Harvey, Irma, and Maria were all significantly stonge and more devastating, but all four were retired. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are the points I was making. Bleucheeses (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bleucheeses: You clearly don't know the meaning of "almost all" in the mathematical sense. If you read that article you will see that we cannot use it in the true mathematical sense here, so please do not call this "simple math". So what should we use? I think Nate should be kept out because the other three's damages each exceeded Nate by well over an order of magnitude.

In addition, please see WP:BRD: you know the content is disputed now, so please do not attempt to re-insert it unless and until a consensus is reached to do so, which has not been done here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It's already solved, back to normal programming or a movie. KN has and hit upon a solution. Too much discussion on the site about the importance or lack thereof of tropical storms. Get a new hobby? Topic is over. Bleucheeses (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bleucheeses: Oh? Then I will assume you're fine with my removal of the mention of Nate you re-inserted earlier today.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No, get a new hobby. Let KN put it in. Mathematics is a favorite field of mine; I understand it very well. Bleucheeses (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bleucheeses: Mathematics is also a favorite field of mine. A mathematician like you should know not to misuse phrases like "almost all" so don't call it "simple math". I oppose the inclusion because we need to be succinct in the introduction. If you think "almost all" is itself misused as-is in the article, then we can use a weaker phrase like "much of" – but we should avoid overtly intricate sentences in the lead. A billion dollars is no small deal and would often be the story of the season, but as you know, this season was catastrophic and less than a billion pales in comparison to Harvey's $125 billion alone.

Simple math for me consists of problems like $\int _{0}^{\infty }{\frac {dx}{1+x^{4}}}$, certainly not what we mean here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Calculating calculus, do you see my perspective. Entirely too much thinking on your part and a few others - mind you, not many more... that try to evaluate things. Realize the name for the hurricane was retired. A billion in damages is a benchmark figure also in looking at disasters. KN has the right idea. Bleucheeses (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not about absolute damage numbers. It is a true statement that the majority of the damage was due to 3 hurricanes alone, and that each of those hurricanes caused at the least almost two orders of magnitude greater damage than Nate.

By this argument, we should list every single Pacific typhoon that caused a billion dollars in damage every single season, when that can be many storms a season. Also, consider WP:DUE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You may lack debate skills at times, regardless... talk about KN's edit. You know already that typhoons are sometimes much less known than hurricanes in many places or overall. KN's post would solve this discussion and somehow I think our paths will cross again. Jasper, you seem to do this sort of thing quite a bit but maybe only about certain things. I say let KN's edit stand, otherwise I guess we're off to polling and you'll probably not succeed. Bleucheeses (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Another argument probably even you can figure out. Kilauea's volcano eruption lately in Hawaii has destroyed more than 80 homes. Are you saying that scale is all-important? Of course not. The mud slides in Santa Barbara or anywhere in the world... the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean WHICH has no name. See? You have faulty reasoning. You can't use the criteria you do; it's erroneous. Bleucheeses (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record I am fine with excluding Nate from the first paragraph to leave the most significant and well-known bits (i.e. Harvey, Irma, and Maria) up front. However, the fact that Nate was the costliest natural disaster in Costa Rican history should at least be mentioned somewhere in the next paragraph, as that is almost certainly more notable than being the fastest tropical cyclone in the Gulf of Mexico which is currently mentioned. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 06:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

KN, you had a solution though. The phrase you posted works for pretty much any situation. We already have a few users agreeing with me. No consensus appears ahead. One of the points I am emphasizing is the debates of this nature are odd; why weather, natural disasters brings this out in people I don't know. Bleucheeses (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

NOAA and other agencies deal with this sort of thing daily and they know how to express facts. Wikipedia IS not the place for actions that are happening on here. Bleucheeses (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Good article

Should the article be nominated for GA status? Grammarguruguy (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A lot of the article was written while the season was active, meaning the bigger storms could use a better summary (damage totals, better description of damage by each area). It's not in bad shape, but it could probably use a good once-over before it's nominated for GA. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 06:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Not close to being ready yet.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "due to their high damage costs and loss of life", "asymmetrical structure", "Having already acquired a well-defined circulation, the development of a persistent mass of deep convection around 03:00 UTC the following day prompted the NHC to upgrade the wave to Tropical Depression Four" (wrong sentence subject), and various other grammar/usage and diction problems with the prose. Lead section is way too long for an article of this length. Much of it belongs in the season summary section or in individual storm articles.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Reference section has bare references. "these forecasts were proven to be over-amplified as a result of a phenomenon known as the spring predictability barrier" – no, by this argument, every forecast made during the spring predictability barrier would be wrong. "Hundreds, if not over a thousand deaths" – not appropriate before Maria's death toll is confirmed to be sufficient for that. References to advisories generally need to be replaced by references to TCR's for storm intensity information.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Season summary is lacking and some hurricanes' sections, particularly Irma's, give insufficient weight to the impacts of the storm in those sections. The season forecasts could be elaborated on with more specific rationales cited by each agency.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Per previous point, WP:DUE weight is likely not achieved by the current state of the article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article has long history of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There are many opportunities to add images in addition to the storm pictures, particularly in the season forecast and summary sections, where (respectively) graphs or damage pictures could be displayed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Needs substantial work.