Talk:Hurricane Beryl/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title

Should this soon-to-be article's title be changed to simply Hurricane Beryl, without the year (i.e., Draft:Hurricane Beryl)? I think this year's iteration of Beryl will meet the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria once it gets moved to the main space, given the anticipation of its impacts in the Lesser Antilles and the rest of the Caribbean. Vida0007 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that this storm will clearly meet primary topic criteria, the title should become Hurricane Beryl when this draft is moved to main space. Drdpw (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW, the title 'Hurricane Beryl' exists as a redirect to List of storms named Beryl. Drdpw (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I published the article as "Hurricane Beryl (2024)", since there was another hurricane named Beryl. The discussion is only a tad bit premature. I can hope all I want, but what I say isn't going to affect the storm. If the storm becomes significantly more notable than the 2018 Hurricane Beryl, then at that time it will get the main article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for publishing the article! Regarding the matter of naming, I had anticipated that the page would linger in draft space longer, until the storm had interacted with land and people. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Beryl has struck Carriacou with 150 mph winds and is already confirmed to have caused significant damage to the island and other islands in the Grenadines, based on various livestreams. This clearly sticks out from the 2018 Beryl and will probably be retired next spring, so it shouldn't have the year anymore. Rye998 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Furthest east hurricane in the tropical atlantic.

The current record states that Beryl was the "easternmost Atlantic hurricane to form in June". However, this is wrong as Chris 2012 became a hurricane further east at 43.2W. Therefore, to fix this, the record should state that Beryl was the furthest east in the TROPICAL Atlantic. Tryhard Angels (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. Please, feel free to make constructive edits anytime. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I would but dont yet meet the criteria to edit semi-protected articles. Tryhard Angels (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Satellite loop

Passing off that satellite loop as "current" satellite imagery is disingenuous with it going out of date minutes after it gets uploaded. Providing it is contrary to WP:NOTNEWS because it aims to provide the user with the absolute "latest" look of the storm, and is contrary to project infobox image guidelines dictating peak intensity representative imagery. @MarioProtIV: Your attempt to discredit this rationale as "SYNTH" is ridiculous. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Barbados death

The source cited for the death in Barbados does not say that there has been a death in Barbados. The video attached says, "Off the coasts of Saint Vincent, rough seas sunk one boat slammed another into a rocky shore. The country's prime minister says at least one person has been killed." This clearly says that the prime minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves (who also appears on screen), confirms one death in the Saint Vincent, not Barbados. The only place that indicates a Barbados death is in the title, and the video does not support the claim. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the Barbadian death as your evidence checks out and I could not find another source to back up the claim. ✶Quxyz✶ 01:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane record

Can this be included as a record? OhHaiMark (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That's moreso a record for the drone manufacturer. Recon planes regularly find stronger winds in this thing multiple times daily. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

No record involved here. I do not see any mention of the earlier first-ever encounter with Hurricane Sam in that article either. That encounter is mentioned at Unmanned surface vehicle#Saildrone. Perhaps something could be added there about the Beryl-saildrone encounter. Drdpw (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. OhHaiMark (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding Grenada to Areas Affected

Hurricane Beryl made direct landfall on Grenada, so its should be included in the areas affected. The hurricane also caused some significant damage too. Maybe the hurricane's effects on Grenada should be discussed more in this article too. I would also include how the hurricane also had effects on other areas in the Caribbean, although the hurricane may not have made direct landfall on them, like the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao). CavDan24 (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If you provide sources, we can add some of the suggestions for you. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

They won't because it didn't. Caracou is an island about 50miles north of Grenada (in the Grenadines), where it made landfall (although the term "landfall" is dubious when the storm is much larger than the island. 82.69.48.215 (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Caracou was in the direct path of Hurricane Beryl and got hit. That island is part of Grenada, so therefore, it impacted Grenada.. CavDan24 (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that the Windward Islands is included in the areas affected, and those group of islands include Caracou. CavDan24 (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is sorta moot as Grenada is a member of the Windward islands, which is already listed in the infobox. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:SNOW and reasonable arguments why speedy closure is warranted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Beryl (2024) → Hurricane Beryl – This hurricane is clearly more notable than Hurricane Beryl (2018) and is only going to be increasing in notability as time goes on. ✶Quxyz✶ 16:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Support – virtually unprecedented storm and has attracted much media attention moreso then 2018. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong support - I agree with everything MarioProtIV said. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support It's unlikely to be retired, but regardless is clearly more notable than the 2018 storm, both for impacts and records (not to say that the 2018 storm wasn't also somewhat exceptional). Somewhat relatedly, a good system for determining the primary topic when it comes to duplicate-named storms should definitely be worked on. AveryTheComrade (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait Plenty of media attention, but let's wait until it's impacts are fully known or its name is formally retired. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait - Needs more media attention and better coverage of the impacts. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait I'll almost certainly change this to Support once it's all said and done. However, its first landfall was just ~3 hrs ago, and it has at least a week to continue its impacts across the Caribbean and potentially the Gulf. We should wait until its impacts are more thoroughly known and covered by media. Strong support seeing as Beryl is now officially the earliest category 5 on record for the basin. Furthermore, early news reports of damage throughout the Windwards are already harrowing and extensive. Further impacts are expected for Jamaica and Yucatan, so I only see notability increasing further hence. ArkHyena (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait In all likelihood, this change will happen eventually. However, to make that determination just hours after its first landfall is premature. ChessEric 18:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Support — Beryl made landfall on Carriacou with 150 mph winds, and this storm I heard has already had significant impacts and lots of media attention. I think this article title would be better off as Hurricane Beryl without the year. This storm has also broken records for its strength this early in the season as well. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait, but very likely support in the not-too-distant future. Currently affecting populated areas at 150 mph, broke several records already, and more landfalls are on the way unless forecasts change significantly. As we learn more about the damage it's already caused (and is continuing to cause), there's a good chance a move will be justified soon. And if this initial landfall doesn't justify dropping the (2024), it's still forecast to affect more islands and eventually make landfall in Mexico. We have reason to believe this probably will be the most notable Hurricane Beryl article. Give it some time and we'll know for sure.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Changing !vote from Wait to Support Over $1b in damages now, intensified further to 165 mph, hurricane warning issued in Jamaica, still on course to then strike the Yucatán Peninsula at hurricane strength after that. I think we can be sufficiently confident that this is the most notable Beryl now.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support - This is a Category 4 hurricane heading straight for Jamaica. Even if we change it back to "Hurricane Beryl (2024)" later, it should definitely be "Hurricane Beryl" right now, as that is the storm readers (especially in the Caribbean) are looking for (both Jamaica and Belize are English-speaking countries in the projected path of this hurricane). Nosferattus (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Support I believe this hurricane, meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Drdpw (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait per others --_ZZ^Z'S 21:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Leaning towards Support because of its damage. If the fatalities also increase dramatically, I'll gladly change my vote. Also, it's intensity has nothing to do with this. _ZZ^Z'S 06:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong support 100% more notable than the other Beryls by a large margin. _ZZ^Z'S 17:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait until the name is retired. Benpiano800 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't require that storm names are retired to drop the year, and waiting for retirement would also require waiting until the WMO meets a year later. And in response to Trooncel above, we also usually drop the year while the storm is still active; we rarely retroactively remove it. We only need to know that this is the most notable Hurricane Beryl that has a Wikipedia article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the correction. Still in favor of waiting until it's over though. Benpiano800 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with waiting but non retired hurricane names can still be the primary topic, such is the case with Hurricane Gordon Trooncel (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Idalia last year did not need 2023 in the article name because it was notable enough to not have 2023 in the article name ,and Idalia was never retired 2601:8C:8200:1700:D97B:956A:8167:E612 (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Im sure even if Hurricane Idalia hadnt impacted land the way it did, it still wouldnt have its year in the title bc its the only Idalia, lol. 🍙🌀CycloneIns✉ 14:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay it's category 5 now, I've changed by stance to Support Benpiano800 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait per ChessEric. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 21:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait until the end of the season, unless it becomes a Category 5 in which case it's guaranteed to be retired. --Zerbey (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not how retirement works. Hurricane Lee (2023) was a category 5 and wasn't retired and was not declared to be the primary topic after an RM. Meanwhile, Tropical Storm Allison is the primary topic despite being a tropical storm because of the flooding it caused in Texas and Louisiana. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Becoming a Category 5 would not guarantee its retirement, nor does it need to be retired to drop the year. That's also only a few MPH away from where it is now, so crossing the threshold from 4 to 5 would not meaningfully change anything. Waiting until the end of the season also seems very arbitrary - why wait until the last storm dissipates to assess this one? Maybe I'm just out of the loop because I haven't been active in WP:TC in a while, but I'm very surprised by how many !votes are not at all in line with how we usually do things. The only requirement is that it is the most notable Hurricane Beryl. Retirement is irrelevant.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The two that requested waiting until retirement might just be passersby. One issue that came up during Lee's was that, iirc, while it certainly might be the most notable Lee, it was not standout enough to earn to lose the disambiguation. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Lee 23's year remaining. It is without a doubt the strongest Lee, but strongest doesn't always equal most notable. 2011's Lee was deadlier and caused far more damage, so I think it's fair to say neither are indisputably the most notable Hurricane Lee.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

You could make a case that, since Beryl did $100 million in damages, this one did not do enough damage. Personally, I disagree with that especially since we have enough clairvoyance that it will at least hit the Yucatan Peninsula and probably graze Jamaica. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this article upped it to a billion last I checked. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zerbey, there have been category 5 hurricanes that haven’t been retired; such as Lee (2023) or Lorenzo (2019). West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Saying that it will be retired, no matter how impactful it is, is only speculating. Just saying. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if I rubbed that in. I posted that comment before I read the entire thread, and erroneously thought that no one had already commented on that matter. I guess I need to learn to read all of the replies before replying (which is something I didn’t do.) West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I concede the point, and now Beryl is a Cat5 I still think we should wait until we know how it will impact Jamaica. --Zerbey (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak support/wait Yes it's a big storm but we should wait to see what the damage is. One source I saw said it's going to die before it makes landfall in a major area. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@LuxembourgLover: What source is that? The NOAA currently predicts that it will likely hit Jamaica as a hurricane or possibly major hurricane. There are almost 3 million people in Jamaica. Nosferattus (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Right now the island is only on a hurricane watch, if it reaches a hurricane warning then that may change. I still think we should wait, it may miss Jamacia and die over the Yucatán Peninsula. source LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call striking the Yucatán Peninsula at hurricane strength and then weakening into a tropical storm as it crosses into the Gulf of Mexico "dying", but I'll grant you that this is still just a forecast.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@LuxembourgLover: Beryl is now a Category 5 barreling straight towards Jamaica. It is expected to hit Jamaica tomorrow as a major hurricane and then hit the Yucatan Peninsula as a regular hurricane on Friday. It has been extensively covered in the media and will be causing a lot more destruction this week. Nosferattus (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support: As stated before I think we should wait. Now that we waited I think we could change it. LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, by this point, Beryl has mostly pulled out of the Lesser Antilles so we should be getting some preliminary tallies within the next day. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Support: I think if it is necessary МОДОКАУ 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait - It may be WP:TOOSOON to make such a big decision. We should wait for more reports about the damage and death toll. Poxy4 (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Retracting my earlier statement to say Support due to it's estimated 1 billion in damages. Considering this number is likely to get bigger and this is very unlikely to be it's only landfall, it's probably the primary topic. --zoey (trooncel) 00:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support: Beryl has broken countless records. Having become the strongest June hurricane on record, the easternmost June hurricane on record, the first major hurricane in June outside of the Gulf of Mexico, the strongest landfall on record for this early in the season, and now the potential of it going Category 5? This has eclipsed Beryl 2018 by an immense margin of memorability and then-some. Regardless of retirement, I see absolutely no reason why this Beryl wouldn't become a primary topic. I think sure we can wait a little longer, but this Beryl is already immensely historical. VantaWiki (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support: Adding onto my initial support, Beryl is now officially a Category 5 hurricane...the earliest on record. VantaWiki (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support: Now that it is the earliest Category 5 storm on record (in the Atlantic at least (CNN), I do support the move pre-empting further impacts, as it will certainly be the most notable Atlantic hurricane named Beryl for the next seven years, if not longer. SpacePod9 (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support: per others Nicky571 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per others. Procyon117 (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait as per other writers. Once the impacts are clear, then I may be inclined to change my vote. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: while somewhat unrelated, I think this storm should be nominated for ITN. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Still think we should wait a day or two on moving. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It already has. The current consensus is moving towards Wait. _ZZ^Z'S 07:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent replies that I have seen is a growing support. I still think we need to hold off on moving the article at least until the storm hits Jamaica (at a bare minimum, I wouldn’t be opposed to waiting until Baryl has completely dissipated, but that’s just me.) West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to the ITN candidate _ZZ^Z'S 07:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If someone can put a link to the ITN nomination on my talk page (or here if you want to), that would be great. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

One is posted at the top of this talk page. Drdpw (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Good. Just took a look at (and put my two cents into) that nomination. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Changing vote to weak support given forecasts of a basically direct hit on Jamaica as a cat 3 (even if the eye stays a few miles offshore.), while I still have some reservations about moving the article this early, I think the likelihood of the name being retired (based on the presumed impacts in Grenada and Saint Vincent.) are extremely high. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the storm is now the earliest category 5 on record is also a factor in my decision. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Changing further to strong support, now that we’ve waited. It is becoming increasingly clear that this year’s Beryl is the one you’re gonna think of when you think of Beryl as a tropical cyclone name. It is expected to be a direct hit or a nearly direct hit on Jamaica as a strong category 3 hurricane; and a category 1 hurricane in the Yucatán Peninsula. Now that we’ve waited, this storm has broke multiple records, shattered records even. There is as other editors have pointed out, widespread media attention on this. Multiple deaths. Millions if not billions of dollars in damage. This is definitely WP:LASTING right there; and definitely notable enough to strongly consider this move. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not that WP:LASTING is necessarily a criteria for moving. I just thought I’d throw that in there in case someone who didn’t know any better tried to AfD it. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Just figured out the actual relevant policy. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

And the death toll as of the article’s writing is up to seven and counting. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong support This storm has gotten heavy media attention, and has broken multiple records while doing devastating damage to the Windward Islands. The chance for extra devastation is very likely, as it will pass by Jamaica and then landfall in Yucatan. Furthermore, it is far more notable than the 2018 system. 🍙🌀CycloneIns✉ 05:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support as this is currently now a catastrophic category 5 Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 07:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support It's an historic hurricane that overshadows other storms with the same name. Killuminator (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Berly broke many records, and it will pass WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. HurricaneEdgar 10:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s Beryl. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per Drdpw Shmego (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support Even if Beryl blipped out of existence, it's already caused three deaths, became the earliest Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic basin, and has caused at least $1 billion in damage. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support - Hurricane has widespread media attention, has broken many records for how early it has arrived and it's strength, and already decimated multiple islands. It is clearly the first Hurricane that comes to mind when someone says Beyl now. Beast01998 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. At the time of writing, this incarnation of Beryl has outstripped all others in terms of death toll, damage totals, and meteorological significance. I think it's safe to say that this satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC even accounting for recency bias. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support - Hurricane Beryl is an extremely notable Atlantic Hurricane compared to other storms of the same name. Quake1234 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Now that it seems a consensus has been reached, that being support for the move, is this ready to be pursued? Nicky571 (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ready - Looks like just about everyone is on the same page, we've got a large wall of supports and many wait !votes have struck and switched to support.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support – This storm has broken several records already (strongest June/July hurricane by wind speed, earliest C4/C5 beating 2005s records, farthest east major hurricane and hurricane in tropical Atlantic, etc.), has caused major impacts in Grenada and the Windward Islands already, and is being forecast to likely cause more in Jamaica and Mexico. I definitely believe this is the primary topic for these reasons and that the page should be moved to the title without the year. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging those who said to wait. @GeorgeMemulous, Hansen Sebastian, ChessEric, Benpiano800, HikingHurricane, Zerbey, and Poxy4: Now that Beryl is a Category 5 and about to hit Jamaica, do you still favor waiting? Nosferattus (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I Support now. This is probably enough to warrant being THE "Hurricane Beryl" article. Benpiano800 (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

A TC's strength has little to do with its notability, it's all about impacts, but I do think Beryl has received enough media coverage for it to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Changing my decision to support. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In agreeance with with the other commenters here. Beryl is definitely notable to be PT now. Poxy4 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support This storm is definitely the main one out of all the storms named Beryl and will more than likely be retired. I've slashed my previous "wait" answer; I support this now.

Note: Be careful about pinging people like this because its considered canvassing. ChessEric 21:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I know I wasn’t the one who pinged everyone but you just taught me something. I wouldn’t have known the policy on canvassing. Or what constitutes canvassing. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In defense of the user who pinged the remaining wait !voters, I don't think this constitutes canvassing as all of the users who were pinged had already !voted in this discussion & the notification sent was just asking to check in with them and to see if they still favor waiting. Seems like an appropriate notification.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 09:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say wait until after we know what the impacts on Jamaica are, but I suspect at this point it's inevitable it will be retired. Zerbey (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You typically aren’t supposed to post a vote multiple times on a talk page unless you are changing your vote. And even then, you should cross out the original vote. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria and a highly notable record-breaker. not to mention that this year's iteration of Beryl is obviously the most notorious Hurricane Beryl to have ever existed. Vida0007 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. This year's Beryl has beaten several records and has already caused tons of damage in the Lower Antilles and will only cause more in Jamaica. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here. Realsaltyguy (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait. Likely, this iteration of Beryl will be retired, given its strength and impact in the Carribean. But that is not up to us to decide. Best to wait if/when that happens. Otherwise, for now, it is the latest among the storms named Beryl. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 10:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@KyuuA4: As others have already explained above, dropping the year from a hurricane article is common practice, regardless if the name is retired or not. That's the reason why Hurricane Beryl (2018) was previously located at Hurricane Beryl, since it was considered the primary topic at the time. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

There has only been one other Hurricane Beryl that did about $100 million and no deaths, this one likely did over $1 billion and did several people in. That's not even accounting for the records that this Beryl has set. It is fallacious to think that we will need till March to see if it is appropriate to dedisambiguate™. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I heavily oppose waiting until March to take off the year. That would be waiting the better part of eight or nine months. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong support for the reasons listed above -- no other Beryl has been remotely as impactful or strong as this one, and this is the primary topic for this name and will almost certainly continue to be in perpetutity. Jokullmusic 14:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support No Beryl has been as strong, notable, and covered by news/etc that this storm, so this qualifies under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Iovecodeabc~ talk | contribs 16:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong speedy support. As far as I know, only one other Beryl is called a hurricane, and this one is clearly more important than that one. There should be no need to wait a full 7 days to reach that conclusion, and the event is a matter of some urgency. This hurricane has surpassed several records. I am tempted to snowball close this myself, but my change of the Hurricane Beryl redirect was reverted, so I will refrain from doing so. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I am agreeing more and more with you. Speedy support as noted above in my vote. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In concur (I !voted above); a speedy close and move to Hurricane Beryl would seem to be in order. Drdpw (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The person who reverted my conversion of the redirect to a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT now supports the move, so the reason for my reluctance to close this myself is now gone, but I will wait some hours before doing that, to try to avoid the potential accusation of closure by an involved editor. Anyone else is hereby invited to close this or to object before closure occurs. Nearly all of the recent comments seem supportive of a speedy affirmative conclusion here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong speedy support as per above, additionally every other storm named Beryl was only a tropical storm except for the 2018 one, which was a fairly unimportant minimal hurricane. Sria-72 (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I would close it but I don’t know how. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve posted a message on @Hurricanehink’s talk page about it. He probably knows how. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

And apparently Hurricane Beryl already redirects here. Just FYI. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RMCI as a primer. ArkHyena (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ll defer to someone else because I did vote on this and some “wikilawyer” might consider me involved. But I’ll continue reading so that I can figure out the template. Still see a clear consensus on moving, so it’s only a matter of time. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add info on how unexpected it was

Beryl was not originally expected to become a category 5, as its first forecast only had it reaching a peak intensity of category 2 strength. Note that in the article please. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not unexpected. Since Hurricane Rick (2009), in the NHC AOR, only Hurricane Otis had an explicit forecast for Category 5 intensity that turned out to be right. --Jasper Deng (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

ok 24.115.255.37 (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng, can you please clarify your comment? ✶Quxyz✶ 14:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Otis didn’t even have an explicit category 5 forecast until it was already like a category 3 or 4. At one point, it wasn’t even expected to be a hurricane at all, it was just supposed to be a 40-50 mph tropical storm. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Plus, both of those storms you mentioned were Pacific storms. When was the last Atlantic storm that had such a forecast? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty normal. The first forecast for Hurricane Ian predicted a peak of Cat 2 (it became a C5). Lorenzo 19 was predicted to peak as a C3 five days out. The five-day forecast for Dorian had a TS, not a Cat 5. The first advisory for Michael 2018 forecast a tropical storm. Category 5 storms are usually unexpected, and the NHC often doesn't forecast them explicitly since there is usually a rapid deepening event, and that might be hard to predict. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongest June hurricane (by pressure)?

It is undoubtably clear that it’s the strongest June hurricane by wind speed since it attained Category 4 intensity on June 30. But since it reached a pressure lower than the previous most intense June hurricanes on July 1, does that mean it was a “July hurricane” when it reached this pressure. 38.53.173.101 (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't change it for that reason. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Audrey 1957 remains the strongest/most-intense June Atlantic hurricane on record as measured by barometric pressure. Drdpw (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, Hurricane Audrey was 946 mbar. This article now says 934 mbar for Beryl, but perhaps it was July when that reading was measured? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Im pretty sure Beryl was in the 950s at the end of June ✶Quxyz✶ 19:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2024

Add "Jamaica" to areas affected. Skylinesnerdandnothing (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

There is little information on Jamaican impacts currently 2600:1014:B160:CA65:0:45:35D2:6E01 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Another editor has added Jamaica to the article. RudolfRed (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Using WXFatalities on Twitter/X as a source

I don't think that fatalities should be sourced from the account's post itself, as that could be considered a self published source since the information is being cited off of the owner's own work, but rather they should be cited using the sources that the account got the information from and directly posted here. It would be more helpful to directly cite the information from the source it's gotten from and easily verify that it caused that many fatalities, rather than link to an editor's own account just giving the information without providing the sources it came from. Pinging @WeatherWriter: as he owns the account. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree there. A post on X from one of the Wikipedia editors would 110% constitute a self published source. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Is removing this as a source the reason why the death toll went down? NesserWiki (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is the article already being treated like Beryl hit it's peak?

Sorry, it's been a while since i've contributed to wikipedia so I've come here to ask, but why is Beryl's article being treated like it's post tropical/dissipated? Unless something has changed, I do not recall the standard for these articles having a still image at peak intensity with the infobox having it's peak intensity instead of current intensity, while the storm is very much active and tropical. Is this an error of some kind or am I not up to date on how the tropical cyclone wikiproject is being ran now? --zoey (trooncel) 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Im not sure either, first time Ive seen it like this. 🍙🌀CycloneIns✉ 23:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Trooncel and CycloneIns: Due to a recent Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion and a recent template deletion discussion, there is consensus that the infobox should not be actively be updated anymore with links to the NHC because Wikipedia is not a news site and it is not a good idea to keep it that way to give people the false notion that it is a site to get the most recent information on tropical cyclones, so we are no longer actively updating the information on tropical cyclones, are keeping the infobox to read the peak strength, and just updating the information on the tropical cyclone preparations and impacts as that information comes out now. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 00:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

One thing I think could be beneficial is a quick link at the top to current NHC information, perhaps as a template beneath the Current Event template. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There's {{Current weather event}} which has the parameter to add an external link e.g. to NHC. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A {{Current disaster}} template has instead been added to the page and provides no link to the NHC. Should this be replaced with the Current weather event template to enable this? ArkHyena (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

175mph?

Supposedly, an early-morning recon mission found sustained 1-minute recorded winds of 175mph, but the only sources I could find for this are WxAtom's post on X and Force Thirteen's video on YouTube before it was set to strike Jamaica. From what I can tell, this was reported by recon flights early on the second between advisories, and is receiving minimal coverage, but if anyone could find a better source and confirm this, I'd like to have this added to the article (I personally believe that Force Thirteen and WxAtom are reliable secondary sources, but for an exceptional claim like this I'd want a more widespread source such as AP or NBC, or for confirmation from the NHC). GeorgeMemulous (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your information is inaccurate, and, Force Thirteen not considered reliable secondary sources by Wikipedia, I do not know about WxAtom. Drdpw (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I was able to track the recon mission to Tropical Tidbits which gets its data directly from NOAA's National Hurricane Center, meaning I am confident this information is accurate; I'm just looking for an archive of the specific recon flight shown in WxAtom's tweet (NOAA3-0802A-BERYL at around 09:40Z June 2). It doesn't help that the site only features recent flights and only has flight level observations in image instead of plaintext and ground-level. If anyone can help find a reliable source for ground-level wind estimates from this specific flight, it would be appreciated. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@GeorgeMemulous: It is solely up to the NHC, not us, to draw that conclusion from the data in question.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand the policy issues at play here. Either way, I am unable to find a reliable source outside of the graphic which was relayed via X; even though it's almost certainly official and accurate, the NHC has not issued a statement confirming, denying, or acknowledging this sounding. The most likely case is that this specific recon flight will be confirmed much later on, after the system has dissipated, in some post-event summary or literature. It also may just be a 10-second maximum sustained gust, as opposed to 1-minute, but again, we'll have to wait until after this storm concludes. Until then, it's best not to add the 175mph winds until confirmed by the NHC or other contextually reliable sources. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Normally we only use a max intensity assigned by the NHC, which would be 165 mph in this case. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to post-event literature and analysis; Hurricane Ian and Hurricane Andrew were both recategorized as Category 5 after they dissipated and if it could happen with categories I don't doubt it could happen for maximum windspeed. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless the NHC says so, it is false 2600:1014:B160:CA65:0:45:35D2:6E01 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

NOAA3-802A-BERYL was organized by NOAA, the parent organization of the NHC, and relayed online through the NHC API. It just hasn't been acknowledged on their webpage or by all but a few sources (standard for any recon flight). GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who acknowledges and/or doesn't acknowledge anything here. The NHC official estimate for the storm at that time was 165 mph and that's what we are going with. Additionally, a wind estimate like the one you gave (175 mph) could be (among other things) (a) rain-inflated, (b) from a transient circulation that is not representative of the storm, (c) caused by breaking waves, and/or (d) SFMR readings that are inaccurate because they have been known to be too high on intense tropical cyclones. The NHC doesn't have to issue a statement on every reading it gets from recon aircraft and issues it's advisories and discussions with the info they deem to be the most important. Plus, there is also the TCR once the season is over, so it could be addressed then as well. ChessEric 18:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Title change ; Hurricane Beryl (2024)

there was another hurricane beryl, that had some similar characteristics. Maybe change the title to signify the year like the 2018 one has IEditPolitics (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion above had decided that this Beryl was far more notable and should not be disambiguated. ✶Quxyz✶ 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Original Research/Extraneous?

It's not currently in the article, but I wanted to ask those who are more familiar with it than I am. Would it be worth mentioning that Beryl is the first hurricane to make landfall in Texas in the month of July since Hurricane Hanna (2020), as well as the first to do so in Texas since Nicholas in 2021? Is all of it considered original research, or just extraneous that's not necessarily needed in the article? Gumballs678 talk 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It honestly doesn't seem like that large of an accomplishment, especially compared to it breaking decades old records. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Second this as being relatively meaningless, additionally it would definitely be WP:OR unless you have a reliable source for it rather than just looking through past articles on Wikipedia. AveryTheComrade (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Are "United States" and "Mexico" meaningful areas to list?

There have been efforts to remove some areas listed (Yucatán Peninsula, Texas and Louisiana), and replace them with United States and Mexico. In my opinion, that describes areas far to large to be useful; only a tiny fraction of their land mass is affected by the hurricane. The other areas are much more specific and give a much better idea of where the hurricance has affected things. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For the United States, assuming Beryl is going to make its way towards Ontario, it might not be the best to list out states. For Mexico, I would use it over Yucatan if Tamaulipas received impacts. Also, while we are here, we might want to look into Cuba as it looks like it should have been affected. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, if the area is notably affected by the storm, it should be included. Puerto Rico is a good example. Even though Beryl's rainbands passed over the island, it didn't cause any notable effect. _ZZ^Z'S 17:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think listing the individual states is the best option, but neither is listing the entire country. I believe listing regions would be most accurate, such as the "Yucatán Peninsula" and the "West South Central states." Simply listing "United States" and "Mexico" is too broad. Nicky571 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a regional term for the states from Texas to Michigan? ✶Quxyz✶ 17:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Either Central United States or multiple regions can be listed. Nicky571 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of what is decided I feel the impact table should be altered appropriately if any change is made. Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic also were impacted very regionally with only the southernmost sections appearing to have been impacted. Raskuly (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Impact table

I added the Template:Flag to the countries and territories listed in the impact table under the Impact section among other alterations but I had that one particular change reverted by @Drdpw. I simply added the template because I thought it looked more visibly pleasing and would draw a reader's attention to it as it is meant to be a summary of the total deaths and damaged inflicted on each country/territory. I don't see any harm in including this, thoughts? Raskuly (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

While the icons might be visually appealing, I have a feeling that MOS:DECOR applies here. I'm not confident in my answer, but I'll wait until other people give their two cents. --_ZZ^Z'S 03:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That is the applicable policy point. Flags, in articles such as this one, are merely decorative, added only because they look good. They serve no encyclopedic purpose and provide no additional pertinent information on the subject – Hurricane Beryl. Drdpw (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

What happens when we need to use geographic terms like Eastern Seaboard or Greater Antilles. For consistency's sake, I'd rather to not use template flag. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I appreciate your thoughts. @Zzzs @Drdpw @Quxyz Raskuly (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Just a quick subpoint since this is a talk page discussion now, besides two additional deaths in Grenada (on Grenada Island), the impact table numbers and stats should look like this version, obviously with 23 deaths and 7 deaths in Grenada, rather than the 21 deaths/5 deaths in that older version. I keep track of death tolls off Wikipedia for projects, but as of this moment, I am aware of 23 deaths. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The Barbados death likely did not occur, see #Barbados death. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 14:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we consolidate the islands in the impact table into the Antilles? ✶Quxyz✶ 18:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Jamaica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Grenada, which are part of the Antilles, were heavily impacted by the storm and it seems improper to include those three in any potential consolidation, but I am not opposed to the idea of any type of consolidation at all. Raskuly (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I have seen something like:

• Antilles (Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Jamaica)

Could we do that? ✶Quxyz✶ 18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No. The Antilles is too broad since it would have to consider the Leeward Islands, Puerto Rico, and Cuba (all were not notably affected by the storm). _ZZ^Z'S 19:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Haitian landslide on 4 July

Does anyone have any additional information in relation to this landslide on the southern end of the Tiburon Peninsula on July 4? It seems like this would possibly be in relation to Beryl given that it is categorized on this site as being a "Tropical Cyclone" disaster. Raskuly (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked over it and it looks like it directly links to Beryl, at least per that website, but i couldnt find anymore sources to back it up. Shmego (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Issue regarding Jamaica's deaths

ive noticed that the deaths in Jamaica has been increased to 8, But in my opinion, the deaths are not 8, Other articles such as this one implied there are 8 deaths in Jamaica in the title but in the actual article it was said there are 8 deaths across the Caribbean, There are also some other examples of the title being a bit misleading, but since it would've taken a long time to put them all here, I decided not to, in this case, the title of the source where the 8 deaths are based from (CTV) said there are 8 deaths caused by Hurricane Beryl, but in the article it implied that the 8 deaths were in Jamaica, Only CTV supported the idea that there were 8 deaths in Jamaica, while basically all other news channels said there were 8 deaths across the Caribbean. However, since I don't exactly understand some of Wikipedia's policies, I might be wrong, so I want to hear some opinions from other people. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm working to fix that. I have a full death toll from the Hurricane, so I can fix it up. I added the In Use template so hopefully I don't get edit conflicted. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

From searching around on the Jamaican Observer, I can see 3 names mentioned as having passed away, rather than the two listed. [1] speaks of 1 death in a community, and links to another article [2], where it speaks of a further 2 deaths. Haven't seen anything else mentioned, so I think the total in Jamaica is 3 unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beast01998 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also on Jamaica Gleaner [3], came across an article suggesting 11 fishermen may have sunk in the storm, yet this is unconfirmed currently. Beast01998 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The 11 people missing were actually 9, and all of them has been found according to this article, Reportedly, it was because they were trapped in Morant Bay due to the rip currents of the hurricane. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah seen an article confirming that all were rescued, great news! Must've been terrifying for them Beast01998 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did the death toll go down?

What caused that, just wondering? NesserWiki (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is really 12, not 22. There is a lot of miscommunication in the media right now, but the highest confirmed death toll is 12. If Wikipedia went by every source (i.e. not the confirmed death toll), it would be 24 right now. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. Is the death toll expected to rise again? NesserWiki (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is more likely than not to rise as more info comes out and due to people succumbing to injuries or accidents. A finalized tally should be known by the time Beryl's TCR is released next spring. ArkHyena (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. NesserWiki (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm hopeful that this is a positive sign as communications are reestablished in the hardest hit areas of Grenada and St. Vincent and the Grenadines and that this trend continues, but we shall see. Raskuly (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there estimate as to when communication will be established? NesserWiki (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Death toll update

It appears that at least seven people have been killed in Houston due to Beryl. I was wondering if the current death toll number accounts for some of those people. https://www.fox26houston.com/news/beryl-death-toll-houston-fallen-trees-flooding-fire NesserWiki (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No, but yes. Not all of these deaths happened in Houston itself but in the Houston metro. You can read the citations to know which have already been included. One drowning off of Interstate 45, two from fallen trees in Humble and Ponderosa Forest, and a house fire in southeast Houston. Raskuly (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. My question is- does this report increase the death toll to 19? NesserWiki (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Beryl's image

Image 1 (Current Image)	Image 2 (Briefly Used)

Good afternoon, everyone. I want to address the issue of which image of Beryl we should use before it could get out of hand in the future. Personally, I prefer Image 1—not because I uploaded it, but because it has several advantages. Yes Image 2 is closer to the peak but the resolution seems overblown. The maximum resolution of the GOES-16 satellite is 500m, which is the resolution of the image I uploaded. It looks like Image 2 was taken at 250m, which shouldn't be used for geostationary satellite images only 1km and 500m images should be used, that resolution is only appropriate for polar orbiting satellites like the Terra and Aqua satellites. Additionally, Image 2 includes artificial lighting from cities though not as prominent in the image, it could still be distracting to readers. We discussed a similar issue on the Hurricane Idalia's talk page last year, which led us to use the IR image for Idalia, I know a lot on weather satellites and their instrumentations. TheWxResearcher (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I prefer Image 1 to Image 2 because the latter has a tighter crop, which makes it more difficult for readers to visualize the storm's approximate location (the crop also affects the image's appearance, though not in a positive way IMO). Additionally, the artificial lighting in Image 2 bothers me because it can be misleading to users if they perceive it as real without it being clearly stated. _ZZ^Z'S 20:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Also going to note that Image 2 is inferior in technical quality per TheWxResearcher _ZZ^Z'S 20:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Image 1 looks way better, and it was only taken less than two hours after Beryl peaked. OhHaiMark (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Image 2. Beryl is losing symmetry in image 1 and WP:WPTC emphasizes representativeness of the peak intensity. Since infoboxes use small images, the technical qualities are very low in weight.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is the angle the image was captured by or the dimensions are wonky, but Beryl looks far more elliptical in Image 2 than 1. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Image 1 given it is far superior in quality. The two images are identical in storm structure and little change is discernible between the two so this claim of “losing symmetry” falls flat. It was still a Cat 5 in the first image, so that’s what we should go with. Additionally, the running best track from NHC itself and the 8AM (1200 UTC) intermediate advisory both have the peak of 165 mph / 934 mb pegged at 12z, so in essence with WPTC guidelines we go with the image closest to peak, which is the first image. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: Wrong. The discussion explicitly calls 10-12z the peak, so image 2 is completely in the peak and image 1 is not. The loss of symmetry between the two is obvious.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually they said “suggest”, meaning they can change it (and it will be in the TCR) and is fluid in nature. This is such an arbitrary nature to argue about when clearly the second image has issues of its own as stated above. The degradation again is not obvious at all, so this preference over one on the basis of “degradation” in which the outermost band looks slightly different just smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"Suggest" or not, it supersedes the operational BT by virtue of its higher temporal resolution, so you are still incorrect.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Image 1, but I don't think the lights in Zulia in image 2 degrades its quality. I feel like Beryl Image 2 is too tall. Not sure if this matters, but Image 1 also gives better context for location; the only reference point for Image 2 is Hispaniola as Lake Maracaibo is really hard to see in Image 2. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Image 1 – Image 1, at near-peak (just after) is sharper and provides a better overall presentation of the system; image 2, at peak, is cropped too close and provides a poorer overall presentation of the system. Furthermore, the everyday viewer would not look at Image 1 and think, "that storm picture is not at peak intensity", nor be bothered by the fact that Beryl is beginning to lose symmetry in that image. Drdpw (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Image 1 – Much more of the storm and the area around it is present to show how the storm looked in full, gives better context as to where the image is located, and looks overall more natural and clear than Image 2. That image looks too closely zoomed in on the storm, only showing its core and its closer outer bands completely, cutting off all the other details, and not giving much context as to where the storm is actually located, making it look less clear and natural compared to Image 1. For these reasons, I prefer Image 1 over Image 2. With that being said, I wouldn't be opposed to a zoomed out version of Image 2 showing its areas of outflow, its more distant outer bands, and some more of the area around where the storm was located like what's shown in Image 1, as an alternate, Image 3 option, as Image 2 is closer to peak intensity than Image 1, but Image 1 looks better and more clear with it being zoomed out the way it is. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 01:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Would You prefer a zoomed out version? Funnynick259 (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I can do that quite easily Funnynick259 (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  The quality would still be low, but if @TheWxResearcher: can upload a better quality version, I will consider changing my vote. _ZZ^Z'S 18:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Zzzs A few days ago, I attempted to redo the 07/02 1120Z image. However, since I download raw GOES-16 data and convert it into an image, the result appeared too dark where Beryl was located, making it look off. In my opinion the 1230Z image should suffice since the structure of the storm didn't degrade much between 1120Z and 1230Z, and at 1230Z, it was still classified as a Category 5 hurricane, with only a 1 millibar increase in pressure. TheWxResearcher (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @TheWxResearcher Was it possible for you to make some adjustments so the image looked more natural? _ZZ^Z'S 20:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Zzzs Unfortunately, no. I tried all sorts of adjustments, but the result still looked unnatural. I think it's because, at 1120Z, the sun had barely risen in the area where Beryl was located, making the image appear extremely orange, and I don't think we would want that representing the storm on here. TheWxResearcher (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @TheWxResearcher So that explains the artificial lighting. Normally, I would nag people on trying different dates or methods, but I guess Image 1 will do. Thanks for trying. _ZZ^Z'S 20:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have a version without any tweaks Funnynick259 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @TheWxResearcher I uploaded the untweaked version, I hope this helps! Funnynick259 (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think that it looks much more natural this way. Funnynick259 (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Image 1 – I too prefer this image. The cyclone looks quite healthy and is near its peak so I don't think it not being taken when it was taken at its true peak to be an issue. Raskuly (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Why is this not the front Image for Beryl? it shows the hurricane right at peak intensity, the current image shows it when it started to weaken. Hoguert — Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's a nighttime image (infrared), which is false colored. It is also not at its peak, which was at 12Z. _ZZ^Z'S 19:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I still believe we need to show Beryl close or right at peak Hoguert (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:WPTC/IMG _ZZ^Z'S 19:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I’d prefer a daytime image that is close to peak intensity. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  With that said, I support image #1. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  the thing is, the peak happened at night time Hoguert (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, it didn't _ZZ^Z'S 09:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to note that this is what fr:Ouragan Beryl currently uses. ✶Quxyz✶ 01:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: Tornado outbreak

Given the number of tornado warnings, and the fact that it was considered an outbreak, would it be worthwhile to ultimately create a separate article for the Hurricane Beryl tornado outbreak? The NWS will probably need several days to finish conducting surveys and collecting data to determine the number and ratings of the twisters, but is there a consensus for creating the article, like the ones for TS Debby (2012) and Hurricane Agnes? KirkCliff2 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I support at least creating a draft for this. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

And its remnants are currently spawning an additional batch of tornadoes in Western NY. I feel like we should seek a consensus on creating a separate article for the tornado outbreak, especially since it’s reportedly record-breaking for a tropical system. KirkCliff2 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Support creating said article. Will Béryl challenge Ivan 2004 (120) or Beulah 1967 (115) for number of tornadoes spawned? Drdpw (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Support too. It seems very possible and even if it comes short of the record, it is still very much notable as it was probably the most prolific hurricane-related tornado outbreak since Ivan. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And not to mention we have tornado outbreak articles for hurricanes that didn’t produce anywhere near the number of tornadoes that Beryl has. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention we have a Hurricane Ida tornado outbreak article and there were “only” 36 twisters. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And 39 from Isaias. Although one was a fatal EF3. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

My long drawn out point is that if we can have tropical cyclone tornado outbreak articles where only a couple dozen twisters touched down; we can easily have one that produces over or at least close to a hundred twisters. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Y A Beryl-tornado article was published yesterday: Hurricane Beryl tornado outbreak. Drdpw (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I didn’t know that at the time that I put that there. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

4 More Deaths on Union Island from St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Per: [4]. This would bring the death toll in the country to 7. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not necessary to start a talk page discussion to announce new non-controvertial information when you can simply add it to the article directly. If challenged (reverted), then bring it here per WP:BRD. Drdpw (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Just link the source and I'll update the death toll. NesserWiki (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I updated the death toll. NesserWiki (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, does this update account for the four people missing? NesserWiki (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the four missing people is from Venezuela SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Three of them (the missing in Venezuela) have been accounted for as their bodies were discovered. NesserWiki (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

May their memories be blessings. NesserWiki (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

According to AccuWeather, Beryl is expected to cost the government at least 28 billion dollars in damages...

Is AccuWeather a reliable source on this matte? And are there any sources estimating the damage elsewhere? NesserWiki (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No they are not reliable for damage totals. There will be reliable totals in the coming weeks though. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. NesserWiki (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Climate change connection

Several sources are claiming that Beryl's intensity is connected to climate change, would it be worth it to mention? ✶Quxyz✶ 16:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

These days, the media loves to go on about climate change after any significant weather event. The exact influence of climate change on Beryl is not something that is going to be established in a matter of days - that will require months of modelling and analysing the environmental conditions that Beryl has experienced up to this point, so as to separate natural trends from anthropogenic influence. Generic commentary about how higher water temperatures result in higher intensities or quicker intensification should be covered in Tropical cyclones and climate change; commentary about this season's abnormally high sea surface temperatures should be in 2024 Atlantic hurricane season#Seasonal summary and even that will be difficult to evaluate until after the season. Hurricane Harvey#Climate change is a good example of what a climate change-related section should look like in a specific tropical cyclone's article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 17:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In summary: no, not yet, especially if there's nothing actually specific. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 17:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think the line suggesting that Beryl's strength was due to human-caused climate changed be stricken from the article. Since the climate is indeed changing (human-caused or otherwise) there's no need speculating what the source of the change is. Therefore no reason to include that sentence. 52.144.111.232 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Possibly. But I’d say it might be a little too early to to that. Are there any reputable sources saying this? And if so, who? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Quxyz: Yes, if reliable sources are reporting that, then so should we. What are the sources? Nosferattus (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Id have to go throw a few sources to find exact webpages but I remember that at least CNN reported on it. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are three sources that talk about the record warm temperatures at least: [5][6][7]. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

None of those three sources make a direct link between CC and Beryl. France24 has one sentence on the increased frequency of extreme weather events, and the Guardian only has generic statements on increasing tropical cyclone intensity. AP at least mentions three factors contributing to the record Atlantic SSTs (La Nina, negative NAO, CC-induced slowing AMOC) but I'm of the opinion detailed commentary on the record SSTs should go in the season article instead. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 17:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

CNN isn't an unbiased source. Are there any scientific, NGOs, and neutrally funded organizations saying so? 52.144.111.232 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Any connection to climate change should be mentioned in the meteorological history, such as the warm water temperatures. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Anything else would be speculation and conjecture. Drdpw (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a separate CC section is needed, since that's just part of the met history. Can we get a discussion on whether this section is even necessary? The fact that the waters were warm is more of a factor of the season, not this individual storm, so some of that content might be inappropriate for this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why record SSTs aren't in the season article. I am on the fence on climate change being added, however, enough news stations mentioned it where I might as well ask. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether it's a separate section or not. I just wasn't sure where to put it. Since the current coverage is linking the warm waters specifically to Beryl's unprecedented development (rather than the hurricane season, which hasn't really developed yet), it seems like it makes sense to have it in this article. Although I imagine people will be talking more about the hurricane season in general once it is later in the year. Nosferattus (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In recent years, it's become a bit of a cottage industry for news sources to link storms with climate change. That doesn't mean it is or it isn't happening, but climate is about long-term averages, not individual events like this. That's why it's important to document the various factors at play, and include them where appropriate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

True, but this specific storm seems to be focusing some attention on the issue. For example, the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines apparently was chewing out Europe and the US for not meeting climate goals as Hurricane Beryl was smashing through SVG.[8] That's not something that happens with every storm. Nosferattus (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting! I'd consider that "aftermath", since there's a political element to the storm that has exasperated the effects, namely the inability to get anything done on climate change. These leaders of island nations are rightly frustrated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we want to scoot some of the CC stuff into a new aftermath section or is it too early? ✶Quxyz✶ 18:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not too early for an aftermath section. In the coming days, we'll be getting reports out of the islands how they plan to rebuild and restore everything. A political leader's first statement would be a great start to the section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well now the content has been deleted entirely, due to it being "speculative". Regardless of it being speculative or not, it is being discussed by the media (and scientists and politicians) and it seems like the discussion is significant enough to warrant inclusion per WP:WEIGHT. Nosferattus (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources discussing climate change link

Putting these here for reference... Nosferattus (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• BBC - Entire article is about link to climate change. Includes quotes from several scientists.
• Salon - Entire article is about link to climate change. Includes quotes from several scientists.
• Time - Entire article is about link to climate change. Includes quotes from a climate scientist.
• Forbes - Several paragraphs of discussion. Includes quote from climate scientist.
• AP News - Two paragraphs and an audio interview discuss the link to climate change.
• NPR - Audio interview about link to climate change.
• Washington Post - Four paragraphs discussing the link to climate change.
• The Guardian - Article about the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines complaints about climate inaction in the wake of Hurricane Beryl.
• Mother Jones - Another article about the statements by the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines.
• France 24 - One sentence about link to climate change.
• Axios - Several sentences interspersed in article, although only one specifically links climate change to Beryl specifically (rather than to the season). Includes a quote from a climate scientist.
• NPR - One paragraph about link to climate change.
• Reuters - Section about link to climate change.
• Haaretz - Two sentences about climate change link.
• CNN - Small section on link to climate change. Includes quote from climate scientist.
• The New York Times - One paragraph about the link to climate change.
• Los Angeles Times - Two paragraphs about the link to climate change.
• The Times of India - Several sentences interspersed in article.
• CBC/Radio-Canada - Another story about the statements by the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Should we mention the media's discussion of climate change in the article?

Put your opinion here.

• Yes - There's significant discussion of this in reliable sources, including coverage entirely devoted to this specific topic, so per WP:WEIGHT it should be mentioned. Nosferattus (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Maybe, Conditions of the Atlantic should be mentioned though. Already in article. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  My opinion has changed slightly, I'd prefer to wait for a few months for some case studies to be done on Beryl. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support I think it goes without saying that Hurricane Beryl is an unprecedented storm of the likes that we have never seen before. If you can reliable sources for this topic, I'm all for it. ChessEric 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning no on specifically covering the media discussion of climate change and Beryl, but yes to covering the facts about unseasonably and persistently very warm sea surface temperatures in the Main Development Region being conducive to early rapidly intensifying tropical development as occurred with Beryl. Drdpw (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Neutral to leaning no - don’t really care what you all do when it comes to mentioning climate change. But I lean ever so slightly against it just based on the fact that climate change is a months and years long process.

  West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  @WestVirginiaWX and Drdpw: To be clear, no one is saying that climate change caused Hurricane Beryl. Climate scientists are saying that climate change contributed to the unusually warm waters that helped fuel Beryl's unprecedented intensification, which is not a particularly controversial statement.[9][10][11] And even if it was, Wikipedia doesn't take sides in controversies, we just report what reliable sources say (with attribution), and there is no question that this is a major aspect of the media coverage of Hurricane Beryl (see above). It's a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR for us to omit such a significant aspect of the media coverage just because we personally disagree with it or find it speculative. Nosferattus (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree on that. Still going to stay neutral in this one though. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  A bit of me still has a feeling that it may be fear mongering. Based on what User:Zzzs says, it might just be better to wait a few months for some case studies to be done on Beryl. ✶Quxyz✶ 13:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Quxyz: If there's fear-mongering, we report the fear-mongering. That's how Wikipedia works. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and WP:WEIGHT. We don't pick and choose what to report based on our own personal opinions. If RFK Jr. says vaccines cause autism, we report that. If Trump says the election was stolen, we report that. Even if you think climate change is just a conspiracy theory, we still have to "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Nosferattus (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Wait Although people are saying it has a connection to climate change because of the warm waters, we should wait until further, concrete evidence strongly supports the hurricane's connection with climate change. I'm not saying it wasn't caused by climate change. I'm just suggesting we wait a little longer until a scientific consensus is reached. --_ZZ^Z'S 03:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Changing my vote to No since the media is not a reliable source, especially for topics like this. When more peer-reviewed academic sources about Beryl's relationship with climate change are published, then we can use those instead of whatever social media says. --_ZZ^Z'S 15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support as media coverage is clearly extensive and notable as demonstrated by Nosferattus. Of course, media sources are significantly less ideal than published and peer-reviewed academic sources when it comes to a topic like this, but we'll have to wait longer for that. ArkHyena (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, given that storms like this are only going to be more common in the future and it's likely climate change played a part in this storm's strengthening. Poxy4 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• No. The news media are not reliable for scientific topics; they're journalists, not scientists. Anything you're finding now is also a primary source, because it's published at the time of the event rather than being a later summation of sources dating from the time of the event. Wait until it's discussed by scientific journals or scientific monographs from major publishers. In the mean time, we can introduce something saying that climate change is generally making these storms worse; such a statement will be sourceable by existing scientific journals or scientific monographs. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• No per Nyttend and my comments above. Mainstream media is not reliable (in Wikipedia terms) for describing the existing scientific consensus on how anthropogenic climate change influenced Hurricane Beryl; higher sourcing standards (WP:SCIRS) should be applied here. This exclusion of mainstream media from reliable sources also addresses the WP:WEIGHT concerns. I'm still of the opinion that wider commentary on the record-breaking sea surface temperatures should stay in the season article, where it can be described in more detail (especially as it looks to be a recurring theme for this season). The current sentence on the anomalously favourable conditions in the meteorological history is sufficient and doesn't go into excessive detail. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Scientific analysis

The first (brief) scientific analysis of the influence of climate change on Hurricane Beryl has been published here: "Hurricane-force Winds and Heavy precipitation in Hurricane Beryl mostly strengthened by human driven climate change". Nosferattus (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Quxyz, Drdpw, and Zzzs: Would you object to me adding the following summary to the end of the Meteorological history section: According to an analysis by ClimaMeter, a project of the Climate and Environment Sciences Laboratory, hurricane-force winds and heavy precipitation in Hurricane Beryl were strengthened by climate change. However, natural climate variability, notably the Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, likely played a role as well. Nosferattus (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a paragraph such as that would fit better in the Records section. Drdpw (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I added it to the Records section. Feel free to edit or move. Nosferattus (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If this is going to be truly balanced, let's find sources that question if it's climate changed. Everyone in Europe thinks they're causing climate change. 52.144.111.232 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not necessarily what balanced means. Please read: WP:DUE. ✶Quxyz✶ 01:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Where's the source on the Canadian death

I was unable to find any records of someone dieing due to Beryl in Canada. NesserWiki (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Young person in Canada dies from Hurricane Beryl’s remnants | AP News 128.147.28.93 (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the source on the 41st death?

I was unable to find anything about a 41st beyond the article saying it. Also, it isn't listed in the impact table. NesserWiki (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the 3 new deaths

That is all. NesserWiki (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, I did a bad job explaining a previous edit. That led someone to think the death was 47.

I once again apologize for the confusion this caused. NesserWiki (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Barbados fishing fleet decimated - source provided

90% of Barbados' fishing fleet is either damaged or destroyed. In addition, the article highlights more details on Beryl's impacts in the area.

https://barbadostoday.bb/2024/07/16/fisherfolk-navigate-uncertain-waters-after-beryl/ Mickyals (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Failed verification

Hey Quake1234, I noticed you reverted the death toll for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines from 8 back to 11. You removed a few sources with that change as well, but still left one in place. I went to do some verification checks and that source, the one you added, directly stated Saint Vincent and the Grenadines had 3 deaths, not 11. I went ahead and added a failed verification template next to that. Can you double check to make sure you listed the source you wanted to? Also, I am only aware of 8 deaths, not 11, so I am curious what the source is as well. Either way, it isn't the one currently listed, so it needs to be corrected. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Failed verification

Hey Quake1234, I noticed you reverted the death toll for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines from 8 back to 11. You removed a few sources with that change as well, but still left one in place. I went to do some verification checks and that source, the one you added, directly stated Saint Vincent and the Grenadines had 3 deaths, not 11. I went ahead and added a failed verification template next to that. Can you double check to make sure you listed the source you wanted to? Also, I am only aware of 8 deaths, not 11, so I am curious what the source is as well. Either way, it isn't the one currently listed, so it needs to be corrected. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Before the storm fades from memory too much...

Now that Beryl has its place in history, it has been added to List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, List of Barbados hurricanes, List_of_Jamaica_hurricanes#2000–2024, List_of_Texas_hurricanes_(1980–present)#2020–present, and List of Cayman Islands hurricanes. I have to thank all of the editors who've worked on the article and kept it up to date. I think this is one of the better articles for a recent significant hurricane. That could be because the editor energy went into adding content to the article that wasn't just keeping the met history up to date. The main thing to look out for now is the recovery/aftermath, which is where most current-ish storms tend to fall short long term. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding people in shelters

Do numbers of people evacuated to (seeking safety in) shelters belong in the preparations section or in the impact section? Right now some are noted in one while some are noted in the other. Drdpw (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Drdpw When I was editing the article I put all of those numbers into preparations. My logic behind it was: one, (a bit hard to explain) but if the hurricane hadn't hit the islands, or the forecasts messed up the intensity, people would have still been sheltered; two, it was just how the article was formatted before I added the numbers for other nations. ✶Quxyz✶ 19:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the death toll from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

This article uses multiple sources for its death toll. NesserWiki (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

NesserWiki, according to the reliable source removed from the table there have been six fatalities in SVI. You changed the death toll to eight. However, the referenced article says nothing about the number of faralities. Please restore the former information which is backed by a reliable source, or find another source that supports the claim of eight. Drdpw (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

it actually did say something about the deaths, Look at the report, and download it, You can see a table including the number of deaths. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Another branch article proposal

It just occurred to me that a side article for Beryl’s meteorological history (following standard naming conventions) would plausibly be merited, given its long life, unusual track, early development and many landfalls. So, does the consensus suggest creating the article? KirkCliff2 (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The Meterlogical history isn’t notable enough for an article in my opinion 2603:80A0:17F0:B60:6977:125E:19C1:60B5 (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Splits of these article aren't usually about notability, but size. If the local community determines an article section to be too long, the section would be split into an article. _ZZ^Z'S 22:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I still think that Effects of Hurricane Beryl in Texas and Hurricane Beryl tornado outbreak were split prematurely. ✶Quxyz✶ 10:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I would start by adding information that isn’t currently in the article, but is pretty important. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did my edit get reverted??

Hey, @Drdpw, can I please know why I got reverted? SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I question whether deaths due to hyperthermia / heat exposure during the Texas power outage should be counted as indirect Beryl fatalities; I see them as a step removed from deaths due to injuries sustained from storm damage and drownings. This I why I reverted the edit and suggested that you open a discussion on the subject on this talk page. Drdpw (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright thank you, but would that mean all the 10 deaths due to hyperthermia would be removed? SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

They shouldn’t be listed as direct fatalities by any means but given the fact that the power outages were directly caused by Beryl; I think they should be mentioned maybe in the aftermath section. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Or alternatively, since there is apparently an “Effects of Hurricane Beryl in Texas” article (that I didn’t know about until just now), it should probably be mentioned there. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the death toll in Texas account for deaths outside of the Houston area?

I've seen some news reports say that there are 36 confirmed deaths in the Houston area, but others say there are 36 confirmed deaths in Texas as a whole. I want to make sure the 36 deaths listed on this Wiki aren't leaving out some deaths in Texas. NesserWiki (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What date are the Houston deaths published? I couldn't immediately find a date on English Wikipedia but French Wikipedia clarifies the 36 deaths for the entirety of Texas is for July 25. English Wikipedia, on the Texas subarticle, claims 22 people have died in the Houston region. ✶Quxyz✶ 13:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a more proper place to put an infrared sattelite imagery of a hurricane at peak intensity?

Is there a more proper place to put an infrared sattelite imagery of a hurricane at peak intensity? Should I put it at “Meteorological History”? Beluga732 (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No. We already have an image of the tropical cyclone near its peak in the infobox, we don't need another. Unless it's showing something else important, the image doesn't add much EV to the article and should not be included. _ZZ^Z'S 00:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; also, the image proposed frames the storm poorly and cuts off the southern most part of its circulation. Drdpw (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)