Talk:Hurricane Milton

Tornadoes

Due to (what appears to be) a large amount of tornadoes spawned from the outer bands of Milton, would the tornadoes be necessary to have a separate article once more info comes out? Something along the lines of Hurricane Beryl tornado outbreak Wildfireupdateman (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No. See WP:NWEATHER, the entire Weather WikiProject has had a massive dispute over this since the April 1-3 outbreak, I'd say that an article is not needed as of now. SirMemeGod  19:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There should be a mention in this article though of any tornadoes confirmed. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Clyde (talk · contribs) Someone's already made a page. It's May all over again (funny enough). :) SirMemeGod  21:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have draftified it. SirMemeGod  00:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I know this is off-topic, but shouldn't we add the image of the wedge tornado? SillyNerdo (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If it is public domain or freely licensed then yes. If not then we probably shouldn’t. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If it’s an FDOT image, someone can correct me if I’m wrong but I think stuff coming from the state of Florida are ineligible for copyright. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It probably falls under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-automated as it specifically mentions traffic cameras. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And plus, FDOT cameras are managed by the state government of Florida; which releases nearly everything they produce into the public domain. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It would certainly be a candidate for Commons nonetheless (presuming it’s a free image); whether or not it’s notable enough for inclusion here is to be determined. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sir MemeGod: A record number of TC-induced tornado warnings is an easy claim to notability. An article should be made.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. A mention of the warnings could easily be done here. Nobody knows how many tornadoes actually touched down, and making an article would 100% be TOOSOON. SirMemeGod  12:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Why TOOSOON? There's enough content for a separate article. Notability isn't in question yet. GNG does not mean the content has to be decidable now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Why TOOSOON? Because Wikipedia isn't news. We still don't even know exactly how many tornadoes have occurred, something essential to an outbreak article.

Striking out, my opinion still stands though. We'l see how information looks either later tonight or tomorrow. :) SirMemeGod  17:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That's complete and utter nonsense. Tornadoes are often discovered well after the fact as they get surveyed and then get gradually added. Project-wide policy supersedes what NWEATHER says, and NOTNEWS is not violated when we report things after the fact as reported by reliable secondary sources. Your argument makes zero sense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• With all the points above in mind, I do support the creation of a separate article that covers Milton's tornado outbreak. I really don't think TOOSOON is the case here; the coverage of the tornado outbreak itself is already attracting significant attention with fatalities as a result of it contributing to that (e.g. Associated Press). Additionally, the record amount of tornado warnings from a tropical cyclone could also establish notability of the outbreak as well, as aforementioned. There is a draft here – though it'll need substantial updating and improvement. ~ Tails Wx 13:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Voicing my strong support for the publication of an article as soon as possible. It's been several days since the outbreak, and already some early surveys have been conducted, so TOOSOON no longer applies. This is undoubtedly a major tornado outbreak, possibly one of the largest and most impactful on record associated with a TC (though it would be nice to have an RS to back that up!); several large, violent, deadly, and widely-reported tornadoes struck populated areas, so this passes GNG with flying colors. ArkHyena (it/its) 13:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support – Similar to the points that have been made before, the scope, deadly nature, and widespread effects swiftly blow out any tropical storm-related tornado outbreak we've covered. Only one I can remember even coming close to this one may be the one related to Hurricane Isaias, and this one had many more unfortunate fatalities, as well as injuries. As such, a standalone article is more than warranted, even if only, as of now, in draft format as presented by Tails Wx. Mjeims (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Support There's many tornadoes and there has been multiple fatalities. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose/Wait while the tornado outbreak did cause some fatalities and damage, I do not believe that is the most notable part of Milton nor the deadliest and would be better off as a Florida subsection. The draft is oh so small for a tornado outbreak of a tropical cyclone and waiting until more information comes out would be the best solution. _ZZ^Z'S 18:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I would support an article, this outbreak has tied or broken multiple records 2600:1014:B16B:1DF9:0:3A:7FDE:D401 (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Tornado section

So there definitely is a need for information about the tornadoes in the article, especially since tornado reports are starting to come out now. I think tornadoes should get their own sub-section within Florida, since that's where all of the tornadoes are. Milton's article is only 4,000 words right now, so I don't think a tornado sub-article should be split off yet, but I do think the makings of one can be started within the tornado section. There could be information why there were so many tornadoes - a sting jet I believe? And then since there were so many tornadoes, there could be individual accounts of the tornadoes, but at a certain point I imagine that could get split off. Thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There was over 200 words of disputed content that Got removed. Also, 6 deaths in a tornado outbreak almost always guarentees an article. And with expand section templates, an article is reasonable. I will try to find more specific tornado-related content. --Crete44 (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If a tornado killed 90 million people (hypothetically) and absolutely zero sources talk about it (also hypothetically), then it doesn't warrant an article. Deaths don't determine what does and doesn't need an article. See the 2023 Bethel Springs-Adamsville tornado, which in itself killed nine but doesn't deserve an article. SirMemeGod  15:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Comparing individual tornadoes to outbreaks isn't a viable strategy. Plenty of sources already talk about it, but many of them don't add anything. Much of the info in the article is heavily tornado-specific and should be trimmed. Plus, there are multiple "expand section" templates as I said earlier, so there should be enough content once those are resolved. --Crete44 (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It was just an example, since you talked about tornado(es) fatalities. SirMemeGod  16:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

sources are talking about the deaths though 2600:1014:B16B:1DF9:0:3A:7FDE:D401 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as the article is only 4,500 words right now, I still don't think there should be a separate tornado sub-article (at least not yet). I moved the Florida impact section around, with the first paragraph being the meteorological impacts (winds/rains/surge). The second paragraph is deaths/injuries. The third paragraph is examples of the individual damage. Then the tornado info is its own section. Hopefully the organization has been improved to make it easier to navigate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s actually officially only 3931 words (which should be over 4200 if my contributions weren’t thrown away.) There is a really bad lack of coverage with this, with too much information focusing on the broad impacts but refusing to discuss specifics. As an example, not a singular source mentions rainfall totals in Orlando or the surrounding area, mentions any impacts in the Jacksonville area, and the only source I found regarding a radio station from NWS Melbourne going down was Twitter, which should generally be avoided. If we had good coverage of this and the tornadoes, a sub article is a no brainer. I did find another piece of information regarding the tornadoes I put in the draft, but for whatever reason, there is a major lack of coverage with this storm.Crete44 (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink and Sir MemeGod: I expanded the tornado article by adding an article and am attempting to build a section for the Spanish Lakes tornado. Also, this article is slowly expanding, so the tornado outbreak article should be ready soon. Crete44 (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case then feel free to keep adding to the main article. There's a chance that the tornadoes are such an integral part of the story that the sub-article isn't even needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Subarticle will be needed, as there is no adequate way to summarize each of the tornadoes in the article, especially when the section is finished, and when the main article is finished. This is going to be a historic tornado outbreak for the state of Florida, and shouldn’t be lumped in with the rest when both articles are finished. Crete44 (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

List of United States tornadoes from August to October 2024#October 9 event? SirMemeGod  14:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Which won't be able to handle all of the Spanish Lakes tornado content once completed. I know you don't want an article, but several others above do, and the info to support one is finally starting to build.--Crete44 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The tornado outbreak part transcends two areas of interest. It definitely warrants an article on impacts alone though. It would almost certainly have one already if it was not part of a tropical system. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorists

Would it be worth mentioning that some conspiracy theorists have made debunked claims that the hurricane is artificial or was engineered? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The fringe theories don’t seem to be special enough for weight in the article. HurricaneMilton2024 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

question (for HurricaneMilton2024): who are you? HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season Wildfireupdateman (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@HurricaneKirk2024; you do realize there is something called a ping if you’re trying to get their attention. But I would NOT recommend pinging HurricaneMilton2024 if you’re suspecting sock puppetry. You should just WP:DENY if that is the case. Would like @GeorgeMemulous, @ChrisWx, and @ChessEric to see this.

To the above three: If you suspect Milton is a sock, do not notify me, do not reply back here, just send him to SPI. If you don’t suspect any sock puppetry; also don’t notify me, or reply back; just ignore the message in that case. Thanks. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Did a sockpuppet just question another sockpuppet!? That’s hilarious! XD ChessEric 23:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think yes. There's a lot of high quality coverage from RS regarding this topic. aps (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Which storms should go in the see also?

I am asking The question of which storms should go in the see also? Normally I would boldly add them myself; but since it’s a bit of a hot button issue right now; I’d like to gain input from others. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to make a vote for Helene and Ian. Ian because some of the flood records mentioned Ian as a yard stick for previous records and it largely impacted the same areas. Helene because a good amount of reporting emphasized that the impacted areas were still dealing with Helene recovery, and the storm’s proximity to each other. Paycheckgurl (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

We would not put in Helene because it's already mentioned and linked, per MOS:SEEALSO. Charlie 2004 might warrant an entry for the somewhat similar tracks they took.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Should Dorian be on there because of its similar intensity? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve went ahead and added Ian and Charley though. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Although @Paycheckgurl, while we can’t add Helene to the see also here; since the only Milton links on the Helene articles are through templates; I’ve went ahead and added Milton to Helene’s see also section. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I have removed Milton from the Helene "See also" listing, as Milton is already hyperlinked inline in the article's Aftermath section, where more could be written about how Milton complicated the Helene relief effort in Florida. Drdpw (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t know that. I thought it was only in the template. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ll make subsections on this for storms I’m proposing to add to the see also: and we can discuss each storm individually. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Dorian

Rationale: Dorian was the last Atlantic hurricane to have winds of equal or greater intensity to Milton.

Support – per my nomination. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – Dorian is not analogous at all, didn't impact the same areas and the strength is also way different, Dorian wasn't even put in Wilma and Gilbert's see also section even though it's just as strong by windspeed. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – Dorian is not analogous to Milton in the ways that matter: dissimilar track, and impacted different areas. Nomination rationale is mere trivia. Drdpw (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to withdraw my support; and thus withdraw my proposal for both Michael and Dorian. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Michael

Rationale: Michael also impacted Florida in 2018. Milton was Michael’s replacement.

Weak support per my nomination. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Michael's track is not analogous to Milton's, nor are the areas of Florida impacted the same. Also, nomination rationale of Milton being Michael's replacement name is mere trivia. Drdpw (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to withdraw my support; and thus withdraw my proposal for both Michael and Dorian. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

1935 Labor Day Hurricane

Rationale: Had the lowest pressure ever recorded in the U.S. and anywhere on land. Also impacted similar areas of Florida.

Weak support per nomination. A little more iffy on whether or not this should be included. But listing for discussion anyway. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose. While the area of Florida impacted by the 1935 LDH is similar to Milton, its track is not analogous. Also, nomination rationale of lowest pressure is mere trivia. Drdpw (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for additional storms

@Drdpw:, any suggestions then on additional storms that should be added? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Going to re-ping @Drdpw since the first one failed. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the first one sent and I didn’t know it; so I apologize if you ended up getting pinged twice. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Did a Little digging and no SW Florida major hurricanes jumped out to me as particularly analogous to Milton. Perhaps others can discern one or two hurricanes that are. I see that Hurricane Gladys (1968) has been added by another editor. Drdpw (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The only ones I knew of were the ones I already added; and that was Hurricane Charley and Hurricane Ian. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Donna impacted similar areas; but probably needs more to be put in Ian’s see also than here. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Storms that are out of the question

The following storms are NOT being discussed and won’t be included because of their links in the body of the article:

• Hurricane Helene
• Hurricane Harvey
• Hurricane Irma
• Hurricane Maria
• Hurricane Wilma
• Hurricane Rita

This list may not necessarily be exhaustive.

Wikisource for peak intensity advisory

On Wikisource, NHC Advisory 11A was written out (see it here). Another editor has said there is "no need" for it. Wikisource things are linked to on several weather articles including 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Frances, Hurricane Jeanne, 2024 Greenfield tornado, and Tornado outbreak of April 25–28, 2024, even if there is a reference to the same item already in the article(s).

The Wikisource box is relatively small (smaller than all the images and tables currently in use), so I do not see why it would be a bad thing to include a link to the entire text of the advisory announcing the peak intensity of the hurricane...i.e. the fifth strongest Atlantic hurricane measurement announcement. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to not rely on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyways, I have to agree with Drdpw. I do not see the point as it is a relatively meh advisory compared to something like Otis's (which looking at Otis's article, turns out it's not there). ✶Quxyz✶ 18:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

For Otis, I would point to WP:NOTDONE. Just for reference, there is practically nothing NOAA-related on Wikisource (see Category:PD-USGov-NOAA), as stuff from NOAA started getting added to it within the last year. All it means is Otis' advisory needs to be typed up and added. Simple as that. Both your argument and Drdpw's argument is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. OTHERSTUFF can be used if it shows a pattern, which it clearly shows Wikisource items can be used on weather articles, including hurricane articles. So, do you have any non-IDONTLIKEIT / non- "I don't see the point"-style arguments against it? For reference, it could even be placed in the see-also section (along with the Commons' template). Right now, both of y'all seem to be arguing that it should not be anywhere in the article whatsoever and y'all are basically using IDONTLIKEIT-arguments. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, it is not a particularly useful or informative template/link. I could see the point of including it if the information was significant and its inclusion was beneficial to readers. However, the point for including it is Wikisource things are linked to on several weather articles, hence WP:OTHERSTUFF. Drdpw (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

So the official announcement of what was peak intensity is "not a particularly useful or informative"? Really? Please explain that out some so I can better understand how NOAA announcing sub-900 mbars is not informative or useful to readers. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Milton is an odd storm where its peak intensity, and therefore its associated advisory, really didn't matter for the public; Yucatan was grazed by the outer reaches of the storm and Florida only got impacted by a Category 3 Milton. Otis's is different; Oaxaca was almost immediately impacted by Otis as a Category 5 strength hurricane, which is the strongest Mexico had ever experience. It also came on the heels of one of the least expected and most dramatic rapid intensification periods in history. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the issue here really about Milton's peak intensity or about the use of Wikisource? Because the inclusion of a source mentioning the storm's near-record peak is obviously warranted, but why can't we source it directly in the article instead of going through Wikisource? JayTee⛈️ 16:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It is linked directly in the article. The issue seems to be editors saying the Wikisource text should not be linked anywhere on the article. Earlier, I pointed out how several other articles have Wikisource links in the article which are also cited references in the article. The 2024 Greenfield tornado article is a good example of that, where Wikisource has the NOAA damage survey, which is also reference #11 in the article. One possible issue I saw from others was maybe because it was inserted into article-space (in the text, similar to where the Wikisource links are for the Greenfield tornado). I even proposed putting the link in the see-also section, which is where the Commons template is, i.e. in the "See also" part. That seems to have also been opposed. So yes JayTee32, the issue is specifically about whether the Wikisource text should be linked at all into the article, whether in the article-text space, See also section, or even the external links section (as seen in the Hurricane Katrina article's "external links" section), as editors seem to have opposed an inclusion link to it in its' entirety. So the discussion is specifically whether the Wikisource item should be linked anywhere in the article (i.e. is it useful to readers at all). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter To be completely honest this sounds like a trivial problem so I'm surprised you're facing so much pushback on it. If the Wikisource is the best available source we have for Milton's peak intensity it seems logical to include it in the article and add it to External Links. JayTee⛈️ 23:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! The page has been validated on Wikisource (meaning checked by at least 2 editors to be complete and accurate without typos), and the kicker, it is currently linked on Wikisource’s Main Page! Such a trivial thing, but we are actually having the discussion on whether it should even be linked here or not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have placed the Wikisource template in the external links section. Drdpw (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we starting a new trend where we are putting major storms' advisories where they peaked? ✶Quxyz✶ 00:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Milton peaked in intensity during an intermediate advisory hence why we're using an advisory not a discussion. Also generally advisories mention pressures while discussions rarely give the exact number. JayTee⛈️ 01:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Image of tornado in wrong section

I accidentally put an image of a tornado in Florida in the section for Cuba. Could somebody please move it? It will not let me do it on mobile. Thank you CandleWickipedia (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Just copy the file and put it in the actual place, I'm a mobile user and that's how I do it when there's situations like this for example. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Moved from User talk:Quxyz/Archive 2 § October 2024

@Crete44, We do not usually mention the reopening of businesses in the aftermath, the section is usually reserved for stuff like rebuilding and long term effects. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a disservice to our readers to not include this information. We mention the closing in the preparations, and some of the parks will have delayed re-opening dates (Busch Gardens Tampa) so it is only reasonable to include them. Especially for Disney, probably the most famous theme park in the world.Crete44 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If the opening was delayed due to damage or other circumstances, then I would keep that. But if it just reopened as usual, it really does not need a mention beside in the preparations section. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Some were, some weren’t but all should be mentioned especially when we have an “expand section” template.Crete44 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Crete44, Is it allowed for you to move my comments to another page? ✶Quxyz✶ 15:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there’s a template I’m supposed to use but I’ve seen discussions moved multiple times.Crete44 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Added, but I would advise for the future against moving a discussion from a user's talk page to an article. Would be best to partly start over by creating a new discussion while keeping the progress made at the user talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Expand section means that there is more data available and is routinely placed for major hurricanes as they usually end up with paragraphs of information relating to the recovery phase. It doesn't mean add everything tangentially related to what happened with the passing of the storm. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the hurricane and the effects it had; it's not intended to be a "service" to readers to let them know when businesses reopen. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)