Talk:Hurricane Irma/Archive 2

Updates
Updates can be found at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/#Irma  Bobherry Userspace  Talk to me!   Stuff I have done  15:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So why does the "current storm information" section of the article still have 11 pm last night instead of 2 pm today as shown at the NHC site?LE (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

UK Response
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hurricane-irma-more-than-20-tonnes-of-uk-aid-on-its-way-to-the-caribbean

Holland85 (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Category 4
Hurricane is at category 4 in the latest report; expected to remain category 4 until Florida landfall, but intensification is possible after the eyewall replacement cycle finishes. I updated the infobox a bit. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Titanium Dragon The info box says category 5, still. 107.77.212.85 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As of the past ten minutes. It said Category 4 before that. Master of Time   ( talk ) 03:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 107.77.212.85: The hurricane re-intensified. Happens. We'll see where it ends up at landfall; it depends heavily at this point on whether or not it impacts Haiti and eyewall replacement cycles. Titanium Dragon  (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind too that this is not a discussion forum, and the discussion of Irma's future intensity doesn't belong here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been downgraded again to a category 3 hurricane. I still see an old picture, and classification of category 5 in the infobox. 166.216.158.234 (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Preparation -- Florida
Please add to the part about Florida (edit as desired):

. If it were used like this, though, the second parameter would be required in order for the sentence to be complete. There would also have to be a an "if" surrounding the entire sentence based on whether or not the first parameter is used.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 23:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Equinix, Inc. has announced plans to house additional staff and supplies through the storm at the Network Access Point of the Americas (NOTA) data center in Miami, to help maintain internet connectivity between the United States and Latin American countries, and also between Latin American countries that route traffic through Miami. NOTA is situated 32 feet above sea level and designed to withstand Category 5 hurricane winds.  In the event of a disruption at NOTA, some of its traffic will reroute through the South Florida Internet Exchange.
 * sorry, didn't notice this discussion, thanx for pointing it out. Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe filling a certain parameter could just make the main sentence longer, like "Please refer to your local weather service or media outlets for the latest weather information pertaining to a specific location or the National Hurricane Center's (or whatever agency) most recent [url public advisory] on so-and-so storm for more general information ." Master of Time   ( talk ) 00:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like that idea,, though using it probably wouldn't be limited to just hurricanes. At the very least, we would probably use it for hurricanes and tropical storms.  Instead of the NHC, how about the National Weather Service, which the NHC is a part of?  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 13:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The agency would be a parameter since it won't always be the NHC issuing advisories (for example, central Pacific storms will have advisories issued by the Central Pacific Hurricane Center). Master of Time   ( talk ) 17:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Atlantic multidecadal oscillation - need expension
Concerning the Environmental factors#Other Factors section: It needs a severe amount of expansion. Just one sentence briefly talking about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is all there is currently. (I'm looking for more info including natural warming of the sea and differences from previous years.)--Halls4521 (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Records section
There is an extensive list of records for Irma so should we add a section for them: ATLANTIC WINDSPEED ''" with winds increasing from 70 mph (110 km/h) to 115 mph (185 km/h) in only 12 hours." It's wrong and the link doesn't mention that. I have calclulated it : 50 mph to 175mph from the 30 of august at 11AM to the 5th septembre at 7:45 AM (from https://weather.com/storms/hurricane-central/irma-2017/AL112017 )''

Tied for second strongest Atlantic basin hurricane in terms of winds 185mph (behind Allen at 190mph) Yes but with 3 others (Labor Day, Gilbert, Wilma): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records#By_highest_sustained_winds

Strongest Atlantic hurricane in terms of winds (not Gulf or Caribbean Sea)

First Category 5 to affect St. Barthelemy, St. Martin, Barbuda Not sure : 6 others Cat 5 hurricanes to affet French west indies: https://doi.org/10.5194/cpd-11-1519-2015 

Longest lasting Atlantic storm 180mph+ (beat Allen at 18h) Furthest east occurring Atlantic storm 175mph+ at 57.7W (was David at 66.2W) Strongest impact on Leeward Islands 185mph (was Okeechobee 1928/David) Strongest land falling Atlantic cyclone behind 1935 Labor Day ATLANTIC OTHER Most ACE in 24 hours (was Allen) 11th lowest pressure recorded in the satellite era (13th on record) Helped contribute to the 10th overall time with 3 hurricanes in the basin (first since Sep 16-17 2010) Helped contribute to making 8/7 to 9/6 tied for the most hurricanes to form at 6. GLOBAL Tied for third strongest landfall 185mph (with 1935 Labor Day/Joan 1959, behind Meranti 2016 and Haiyan 2013 at 190mph) lots of these are already in the article with sources INFOWeather1 (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * For "Atlantic other" the last two should probably go in the season article instead of here, and the second looks like trivia (generally I've only seen top 10 getting a mention). And an update: "Longest lasting Atlantic storm 180mph+" should now be "Longest lasting tropical cyclone 180mph+ in satellite era". ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 08:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * We could also look into the info that the United States has never been hit by two Catagory 4 or higher (at landfall) hurricanes in the same year according to historical records starting in 1851.Klayk (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This solves a lot. Downside is it's outdated by more than half a day. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 03:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They update that file twice a day.LE (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It is actually the second time on record two category 4 hurricanes hit the United States at category 4 intensity in the same hurricane season (1992 was the first, when Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki made landfall in the United States as category 4 hurricanes). It would, however, be a record considering only Atlantic hurricanes, as Iniki was a Pacific hurricane. Rye998 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Powercuts
Does this article mention that Hurricane Irma has been the cause of lots of powercuts?Vorbee (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All hurricanes that impact populated areas cause power outages. I think this info doesn't need to be added until after the storm has subsided, since many news sources will provide estimated numbers of customers who lost power during the storm (with info from the power companies and government officials). For example, I have accessed TECO's power outage webpage and the percentage of customers with power keeps falling (it was about 85% about 8PM EDT and is now down to 77.6% [165k customers without power] at 9:20PM EDT). AHeneen (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Section for politics?
Should we add a section on politics, example content Miami Mayor To Donald Trump: It’s Time To Talk About Climate Change. prokaryotes (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not yet but if this storm directly triggers a substantial increase in pressure on the president sure, although sadly, I think that's far-fetched. YE Pacific   Hurricane  21:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's premature, though I also admit that I have been debating whether to work this into the "Aftermath" section: Britain 'not doing enough' to help its Caribbean territories ... I suspect there will be a lot of criticisms and debates in the coming weeks and months; we have time. Beginning (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've encountered a couple articles about the poor response to territories in the Caribbean. Doing a Google search to find the ones I read, I couldn't find them, but here are a few more criticizing the UK's response: Theresa May urged to explain lacklustre Hurricane Irma response, Hurricane Irma shows it is high time British Overseas Territories had representation in Parliament, Hurricane Irma: Boris Johnson And Priti Patel Blasted For UK Response. I also encountered an interesting article from the Miami Herald concerning the response from local officials. AHeneen (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of articles about the Dutch and especially French responses, with enough uproar in both places that King Willem-Alexander and Emmanuel Macron scheduled emergency trips to the region. Seeing as a substantial portion of the region now has to be rebuilt from the bottom up, and at a time when colonialism is as heated a topic as ever, I can see us eventually winding up with a post-mortem article along the lines of Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. But we should probably let the thing dissipate first.  In the meantime, I'm bookmarking links. Or should we have a sandbox space to gather them? Beginning (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Kinda replying to myself here to say that it's reached the point where avoiding politics, especially in the Caribbean, is a disservice to readers. It's a dominant theme in the coverage of the British, Dutch, and French territories in particular.  I worked in a line under Aftermath->British Overseas Territories and will likely add more to the Saint Martin section once there's news available about Willem-Alexander and Macron's visits. Beginning (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't think so for now, but once it is officially over, we can/should add it. Tybomb124 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Mainland US Death Toll
I feel as if the individual falling off the roof and the traffic accident prior to the hurricane's arrival should be omitted from the casualties. These were reported prior to the hurricane even reaching the Florida Keys If someone dies of a heart attack in New York after hearing about the hurricane are you going to report that too?

In my honest opinion we should omit the US mainland casualties until after the storm has subsided. -Robtalk 05:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * We include casualties caused by storm preparation, because they are an indirect consequence of the storm. Typically they're included parenthetically, but we do include such indirect effects on other hurricanes. Titanium Dragon  (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

need SEMI?
To prevent random van by the anons that something this big (read: over 100 edits in 14 hours)attracts? L3X1 (distænt write)  18:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Page protection settings not correct
When editing, there is a box that says "Edits to this page from new or unregistered users are subject to review prior to publication". I've have my account for several years and at least a couple thousand edits, so I'm certainly not a "new" user (and obviously not unregistered, since I was logged in), yet after submitting an edit, it says that my edits are awaiting review. The page protection needs to be looked at to fix this problem. AHeneen (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you make your edit after an IP has made an unreviewed edit, your own edit may not be auto-accepted. Master of Time   ( talk ) 00:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pending Change Reviewer Comment Yes, it would be helpful if pending edits could be checked before adding another one to the queue. thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)  18:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Impact
Someone changed the US impact from $100 billion to $20 billion but did not include a source. No sources cite $20 billion in damages, only the $100 billion figure. Please revert. 2604:5500:19:4F5:EDF3:6701:2C86:881A (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The source is farther up this talk page; adding it. Tito xd (?!?) 07:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Track map
What happened to it? It was interesting and informative on the track of the hurricane. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Alex of Canada


 * Skirted the west coast of Florida, lost its warm-water feed once on land, and dissipated to post-tropical Monday night. —  Wylie pedia  09:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017
In, the table needs the following edits:
 * Each of the header rows is marked, which is simply redundant and it's messing up the following "Anguilla" row.  Delete that (and the following pipe symbol when it's no longer needed).
 * There's no no need for  on the header rows (that's supplied automatically by the leading  ),
 * The "Haiti" row is out of alphabetical order, and
 * The "text-align:right" present in each row can be moved to the table header (appended to the existing   to make  ) and the row headers simplified to a bare.

With all those corrections, the table is as follows, but I'd recommend making the described edits to the live page rather than cut & paste, since the page is very busy and someone else may have editing it in the meantime.

104.153.72.218 (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Have done the first three points. Tholme (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

WPC
I've been bothered by this for a while but is there any reason we are not including the current infobox/CSI for WPC advisories? There is still infromation to update so why not include it like we've down with systems this year pre-Harvey? And while others have argued it's not a tropical cyclone, I'd like to point out we include stuff on potential tropical cyclones, so there's an elevated amount of inconsistency. YE Pacific   Hurricane  13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know. At this point, winds aren't an issue anymore, just limited flooding (mostly just heavy rain), but I'd be down with maintaining position and image updates for a tad bit longer. This link is still providing up-to-date images. Master of Time   ( talk ) 17:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Cuba
At least 10 deaths have been reported.. Names ARE included, it doesn't seem fake: https://www.todocuba.org/huracan-irma-diez-muertos-cuba/ --Molokaicreeper (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Reported by BBC, so I added it in. Jdcomix (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I just confirmed these are all REAL, by this live Cuban stream (Ten [10] deaths confirmed): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRdq9bdhKAQ --Molokaicreeper (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And another source, this one in English: http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-irma-cuba-20170911-story.html --Molokaicreeper (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017
The amount of money people have to pay is $50 million not $30 million. FireCat222 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Total is in the billions not millions. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  22:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Death count
The article has the death toll at 49, were are the other 6 deaths mentioned in the infobox? Also, how many of the deaths were directly or indirectly caused by Irma (should we separate them)?--Halls4521 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Most intense landfalling U.S. hurricanes
I Know that Wilma Hurricane was more intense of all Hurricane with 882 mbar (hPa); 26.05 inHg. The list inside it's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonioputin (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It was the most intense hurricane overall (according to the records use), but it was not the most intense during landfall (on the U.S. or anywhere in the Atlantic or Gulf Coast).--Halls4521 (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However, then, Irma is not among the top 10 in this list because Gilbert (1988), Dean (2007) and "Cuba" (1924) were most intense during landfall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Gilbert

Barbuda
No one was missing in Barbuda. The family could not contact the girls so they raised an alarm to British newspapers. They are currently in Antigua.

Also, the 2 year old did not die during the evacuation process. He flew out of his mother's arms during the hurricane while they were trying to walk to a shelter. NelBell (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have more current citations, I can help you make those changes. Beginning (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Under "Impact" section, subsection "Antigua & Barbuda", the article incorrectly states "A total of three storm-related deaths have been reported on the island." In Barbuda, only one person - a 2 year old child - died. The reference, a CNN article, states that "Irma killed at least three people, destroyed government buildings, tore roofs from houses and left islands without power or communications." This was referring to the total number of deaths in the Caribbean that had been reported at that time, not Barbuda specifically. Article should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.80.8.95 (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Irma image
I don't know whose idea it was to transclude the GOES-13 image (which we use to make it faster, easier, and less contentious to update) directly onto the Main Page, but we should either use something else there or have a Main Page-only copy created. Now, the image is outdated. Most editors are not administrators so cannot just bypass cascading page protection. We should just use the most recent quality color image on the Main Page and re-enable updates to the infobox image. Master of Time  ( talk ) 16:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We do need to remove this image form the front page and end the protection on the file. I pinged some admins who could potentially resolve that. Supportstorm (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the image with a local copy of commons:File:Irma 2017-09-06 0536Z.jpg. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for quickly addressing the problem. Master of Time   ( talk ) 19:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

But now we can't migrate the two images (including "Irma 2017-09-06 1745Z.jpg" to the "Satellite images of Hurricane Irma" category on commons. do you mind fixing this? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had a Commons admin add the categories. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The current image is like 9000x6000 pixels, if opened it can cause low end computers to crash from 4GB + ram usage needed to render it. It should be cropped.Mister Infamous (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Environmental factors
In response to this edit. Since the media is covering this brought topic, there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't reflect these aspects. prokaryotes (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of tabloid science. Of course global warming leads to warmer oceans and thus facilitates hurricane genesis, but it is a bogus claim to attribute a particular hurricane to global warming, as if it had not existed (or would have been weaker) if there was no global warming. Climate model predictions are about averages, not individual events. Thus the effects of climate change (on hurricanes and else) should be discussed in separate, more general articles (like effects of global warming on oceans or similar). Keep this article about Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Irma only. --bender235 (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia considers WAPO and NASA as reliable sources, in fact the WAPO article appears to be written about Irma and by scientists who published in peer reviewed literature about it. Can you quote the part of the cited material which includes what you refer to as bogus claim? prokaryotes (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove This is not needed there are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia about this topic that this section does not need to be on an individual storm article. If people want to post articles about this then they should cite supposed examples underneath an article about the effects of climate change on individual storms since this is a highly contentious topic. As far as I'm concerned these sections are simply trying to force a PoV within the articles. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic is only highly contentious if you give equal weight to the arguments of a fringe minority of scientist, for more see climate denial. Notice also that this talk page is not a forum to discuss personal opinions. Other than that, if you for instance search google news for HURRICANE IRMA CLIMATE CHANGE, you literally get pages full of results, example Even Fox News is admitting that climate change helped make Irma super strong prokaryotes (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. See NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory quote from your highly reliable source WAPO: "it is premature to conclude that human activities — and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming — have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity." As such it is fair to say that giving undo weight to people who are trying to link any and every storm to climate change could fall into the previous user's claim of tabloid science. While the link is certainly note worthy and worthy of a lengthy article, it is not suitable to have any mention that any specific storm is being advanced by climate change without having some context that the science is unsettled. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Citing the argument that activity increased, is not supported by the actual cite and content added to article space. prokaryotes (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong remove - We don't need to add this to every strong tropical cyclone's article. Jdcomix (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove – I don't have a problem with mentioning AGW's impact on tropical cyclones, but I think we should wait until studies that are storm-specific on its impacts on storms like Harvey and Irma. Otherwise, we'll just be adding this kind of section to every tropical cyclone article in existence, which I don't think is practical. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things: (i) a claim mentioned in passing in a newspaper interview, even if it is WaPo or NYT, and even if it is a renowned scientist, does not qualify as a WP:RS the same way a peer-reviewed study does. (ii) if a global-warming-influence-on-hurricanes study concludes something along the lines of "for a projected amount of X of carbon emissions the expected number of major hurricanes per season will increase from 2.7 to 2.8", it does not mean Hurricane XY is directly attributable to carbon emissions. I'm sure you personally understand that, but the average Wikipedia reader does not have sufficient quantitative training to properly judge statements like the ones that are currently in the article. We should avoid paragraphs which are so easily misunderstood by the uninitiated. --bender235 (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Since, Irma coverage consist of environmental factors too, and because we cover these aspects on other articles (Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Sandy, and similar Hurricane Katrina and global warming), we should keep the section.  prokaryotes (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And see this fine with the Hurricane Katrina and global warming, I would be quite supportive of having an article like this after the storm is done. As I'm sure there will be much discussion on rising sea levels and Miami's vulnerability to Irma and future storm's as a result of climate change and as well of SSTs. However, it is premature to have this now. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section should be kept, given the prior Wikipedia coverage. It's not problematic. kencf0618 (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep The section properly notes the existence of the phenomena, without drawing any inference that it has affected this particular storm. Oddjob84 (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why is it relevant in the article about this particular storm, rather than in say 2017 Atlantic hurricane season? --bender235 (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove Simply POV pushing unless it can be demonstrated that his storm was caused by climate change, though of course, we must have cooled in the 12 years no major hurricanes came anywhere near N.American until Hurricanes Harvey and now possibly Irma.--209.34.200.5 (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this argument has been repeated. Nobody is claiming that a particular storm is caused by climate change, instead it has been attributed in part to human emissions resulting in global warming, primarily from burning fossil fuels. prokaryotes (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure..there were no hurricanes before the year 1850...of course the sediments and soil samples support this notion.--209.34.200.5 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove Not specifically related to Irma. Warming conditions apply to all tropical events. Information does not need it's own section or to be added to every tropical event. Should be moved to Hurricane general page. Govtrust (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Strong keep Clearly well-cited material about the specifics of Irma's relationship to the present state of global warming are relevant. This includes sea level rise, warm seas, and whatever else reliable sources come up with that are measurable and relate to Irma. To censor these would be a form of denialism. Fellow editors should make themselves familiar with the Climate Change Discretionary Sanctions linked at the top of this page when discussing. --Nigelj (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes...but shall we ignore the dozen years before Harvey since the last major hurricane hit the U.S.? Of course we shall as that did not support the CC argument did it. Love how hot button words like denialism can be tossed about by anyone that is being politically correct and used as some scared tactic that anyone, even someone that believes climate change is real but feels that it has no reason to be barfed up all over this article should be sanctioned.--209.34.200.5 (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, liberals are not worried that climate change might be fake. Lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And the sanction thing is on dozens of things. Countries that hate each other, whether Ancient Egyptians were black, white or in between; 9/11, acupuncture.. They're there because some people kept disrupting after they lost the argument. Things can be taken off that list, like Ayn Rand was. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No link is being claimed between hurricane frequency and global warming. Please try to keep your choice of words civil and constructive when discussing reliable sources to use to improve article content. --Nigelj (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second there, nobody here is denying global warming. It's just that this particular article is about a single storm, not about climate. Just like Bridge Murder case is about this particular murder case, and thus not the right place to elaborate on the history of domestic violence in general. --bender235 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument basically says that you did not read the section content, and or cited references. prokaryotes (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you need to realize what this article's scope is. It is not about global warming in general, not even about Caribbean sea water temperature, it is about a single storm. --bender235 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Mild Remove The link between climate change and Irma is tenuous. While it is likely climate change played a role in its strength, it is hard to quantify by how much. See for example this Washington Post piece: The truth about Harvey and climate change. Irma was not caused by climate change, and that inference can be made from the edit. TelosCricket (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Keep - I won't turn this into a discussion or debate about climate change itself, but this is a subject of notable public interest and I wouldn't call for leaving the reader uninformed. It is a noteworthy point that this is about a single storm, though I've heard many recent news stories regarding Irma as an example of this adding on to the 05 questioning if Katrina was "just the beginning" in a trend of powerful storms. Regardless of whether the section on climate change is kept or removed, we should include a link to separate articles that better elaborate on this correlation and any allegation of causation. As for the environmental factors section itself, I'd support keeping that as it is very noteworthy to provide a section that better elaborates on how Irma was able to sustain 75 hours as a category 5, surpassing even Allen. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Remove since the section doesn't really add anything pertaining to the storm at this time. YE Pacific   Hurricane  14:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors involved in same discussion at Hurricane Harvey, last month., , , , , , , . prokaryotes (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Informing the reader is a cause I support, but why does it have to be in this article? The connection between climate change, sea water temperature, and hurricanes should be detailed in Atlantic hurricanes, not (repeatedly!) in Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, and apparently every future major hurricane. To carry this ad absurdum: if we (based on flimsy newspaper science quotes) try to connect the dots between global warming and the intensity of Hurricane Irma, shouldn't we also add some paragraphs to Tropical Storm Cindy and why it didn't turn in to a category 5 hurricane? I mean, do you see how ridiculous this is? --bender235 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly support having a centralized article for it to be detailed with said centralized article being responsible for sections detailing reporting on any individual hurricanes. As for your comparison to Tropical Storm Cindy, I take multiple issues with your wording: the first being that Irma's duration as a category 5 is exceptional, the second being that it actually is valuable to describe what factors prevent or allow the advancement of a tropical storm, but it would be a false equivalence to say that every hurricane article warrants an entire paragraph dedicated to that. In other words, if Cindy dissipated due to going over cold waters, going over land, or having high wind shear, that should be mentioned in the article. As for Irma's case, many factors made it a record-shattering storm that gained unprecedented interest, and it is for the best to give detail that does justice to that. September is a uniquely active month in hurricane season and Cape Verde hurricanes are usually some of the most powerful, but Irma has been a uniquely powerful storm for many reasons that we can and should go into great detail on, such as how consistently it had access to warm waters and the significance of why and how waters are warming. Again, I'd support having a more centralized article be responsible for greater detail, but if there is any storm worthy of much content relating to its environmental factors, Irma is that storm. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to write Hurricane Irma emerged because of a certain sea water temperature and other meteorological coincidences (and this article, like every other hurricane article, has a section called "meteorological history" which is perfect for that). But it is a different thing trying to connect these events to global warming. Climate change is about (increases in) long-run averages, not the specific weather conditions during a particular week. We have to be careful not to confuse readers in this regard, most of whom are not well-versed in statistics. And we have to be careful not to echo misleading claims from the media.
 * I mean, just look at the non-sense that is currently written in the "climate change" paragraph: "Scientists point out that global warming contributes to warmer ocean waters and more moist air for rain, and that the strongest hurricanes were recorded in recent years, including Irma." The claim is poorly written, badly misleading, and factually wrong. The reason we recorded the strongest hurricanes in "recent years" (whatever that weasel term implies) is because systematic measurement only began post-1950, with radar and eventually satellites. We simply don't have complete records from prior times. No one knows whether the Great Hurricane of 1780 actually had the same duration of category 5 winds in the week before landfall as Irma does, because no one cared to measure. And when people eventually did try to measure wind speed, major hurricanes often times destroyed their simple instruments (like during the Great Beaufort Hurricane). Where storm records were reconstructed they often show evidence contradicting the statement above. For instance, the (by far) strongest hurricane in the past 5,000 years in Belize occurred around 1500. All in all, this sentence cannot be fixed because it's not even wrong, so we should just remove it.
 * And we have "Because of sea level rise it is assumed that the storm surge of Irma and other storms will cause greater flooding to vulnerable areas," which, too, is nonsense, because it implies that it is the 10-inch steady sea-level increase over the past 100 years that's flooding Florida instead of the temporary 15-foot storm surge. A lot of people with only basic scientific knowledge read Wikipedia, and we have to be careful with misleading statements like this. --bender235 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No it isn't nonsense. 15 feet + 0 is 15 feet and 15 feet + 10 inches is 15 feet 10 inches. This is more. How is that complicated? It is not too surprising that the strongest hurricane to hit a small target in 50 centuries didn't occur in the last one (the global warming century). A Category 5 landfall in a target as big as America is a very rare thing. There are only 3 since official records began in 1851. If this is average then in 5,000 years there'd be about 90 Cat 5 hits, all or almost all between where North Carolina sticks out and Texas. This is maybe 2,000 miles (measured perpendicular to the hurricane tracks) while Belize is about 200 miles. So it is not surprising that Belize had not had a Cat 5 landfall since official records. This would imply about 9 Cat 5 hits in 5,000 years, 1 or 2 per millennium so of course it is not surprising that the strongest was in 1500. It would take a very powerful global warming to make the last few decades that have most of the global warming have a stronger Belize hurricane than all of 3000BC-AD~1950. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was surprising, only that it contradicted the statement currently written in the article. And you basically confirmed it. Formation of a Cat 5 hurricane requires a combination of rare events. These will occur and have occurred throughout all of history, and it is misleading to claim that for Irma we need to connect this to global warming, but for the Great Hurricane of 1780 that must have formed under those very same combination of circumstances, we do not.
 * Again, all I'm trying to say is that climate change affects long-run averages, not individual events, and we should be very careful how we phrase statements to not confuse our readers.
 * And by the way, Belize was just an example. They had a near-Cat 5 landfall with Hurricane Hattie, still that 1500 AD storm was much stronger. There's similar evidence for (and again, just an example) St. Catherines Island, where the last major hurricane strike was the 1893 Sea Islands hurricane, but there are six similar events in the 3,000 yrs before. So it's just misleading to claim "the most intense storms were recorded in recent years." That's just a consequence of recency bias. --bender235 (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

(Commenting because I was pinged.) It is a matter of WP:WEIGHT. For example, yes, it is true that if I put a bumper sticker on my car it will give me lower gas mileage (more weight means lower gas mileage), but keeping my tires properly inflated would have much larger effect, and buying a Prius as opposed to buying a Hummer would have a larger effect still. It's a matter of giving proper weight to things that have major effects vs. things that have minor effects. Here is a graph of what causes relative sea level rise/fall along the gulf coast:

https://coastal.er.usgs.gov/geo-evo/research/images/Subsidence_Fig2LG.jpg

More information:

https://coastal.er.usgs.gov/geo-evo/research/la-subsidence.html

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong remove. The section as-is does not make any connection to this particular storm. Eyewall replacement cycles are also very important when considering the question of storm intensity and therefore we cannot credit Irma's sustained intensity purely to environmental factors. No single storm was caused by climate change. The particular environmental conditions Irma encountered (low shear, warm waters) should be covered in the meteorological history section. Also, "Since, Irma coverage consist of environmental factors too, and because we cover these aspects on other articles " - that's a WP:OSE argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay if you insist we can have this discussion on each article. Bottom line, media is covering this storm to the extent which justifies the section. I am also in favor to bring this up for a larger voting process, to include the section on causes/factors in the related style guide. prokaryotes (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have to mimic media coverage. Just because newspapers uses single hurricanes as a hook to inform readers on the consequences of climate change doesn't mean we have to do the same, because we do this in separate articles with the appropriate scope (unlike a newspaper could). --bender235 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong remove - Environmental factors for this hurricane aren't markedly different from that for others, and can be discussed just fine in the meteorological history section. Just because this one grew out to be a "superstorm" that is being hyped up by the media does not mean that there were suddenly different factors at play here. If people want an overview of the factors that contribute to strong hurricanes (including the globally increasing oceanic temperatures), they can refer to the Tropical cyclone page.  Auree   ★ ★  20:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Environmental factors can be very different, see for instance the section on subsidence Hurricane Harvey. prokaryotes (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We can mention risk factors for Florida, such as its karst geology and flat topography, but those are strictly separate from meteorology.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And where do you suggest to add things like above average SSTs? I have no problem with blending the section content into different parts of the article space. prokaryotes (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Risk factors go under preparation and/or impact. Warm water belongs in meteorological history due to its pertinence to the storm's history.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was about to suggest this. The current section is titled "environmental factors," which alludes to meteorological factors: average oceanic heat content, high sea surface temperatures, etc. *With proper sourcing*, this should be mentioned in the meteorological history. The NHC usually covers sea surface temperatures in their storm discussions, but if there are other credible sources that link the conditions to globally warming temperatures, I don't see why that couldn't be mentioned. It simply does not require an entirely separate section.   Auree   ★ ★  21:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove - While I think what's said is *correct*, this article should keep focus on Irma as an event. The distinction is that the article should write about how climate change affected Irma, not how Irma demonstrates climate change. But the deleted section (that is, the way it's written) doesn't really contribute to understanding *Irma* - it's more about understanding *climate change*. As others mention, the effects of climate change can be noted in other sections as appropriate - it doesn't need its own section. (I would also note that a more expansive section about "how Irma demonstrates AGW / climate change" could conceivably become appropriate in the future - for example, if there is some important political shift that happens due to Irma (or Harvey/Irma as a pair) that becomes an important part of Irma's impact, or if Irma in particular gets attention from climate change attribution studies.) Disclosure: I"m coming back from inactivity to put in my two cents after seeing a reference to this discussion off-WP. —AySz88\ ^ - ^ 21:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For political discussion see the section at the bottom, already going on. OffWP seems like canvassing... dayum.prokaryotes (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment People mostly argue around climate when making their point, however the section scope includes more topics. For example with this storm the typical geological circumstances seem relevant (flooding in everglades, exceptional SSTs prior to landfall, maybe the freshwater lake and those levees, and already saturated soils). prokaryotes (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The severity and impact of Irma is clearly due to its unprecedented sustained intensity, and this is certainly linked to elevated sea surface temperatures. Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "...certainly linked to elevated sea surface temperatures." Yes, it is. As it was for Hurricane Allen, the Hurricane of Santa Cruz, the Great Colonial Hurricane, and every hurricane that has ever occurred. --bender235 (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - with caution due to WP:POLD: Other articles about hurricanes have this section, and discuss both sides of the issue. So PLEASE just make sure both sides are discussed equally and fairly (without all the political stuff). Also, it isn't (always) solely about climate change as some people think it is. There's also conditions of the sea/ocean (Tide, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), Flood Table, etc.) and land to consider as well.--Halls4521 (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not every hurricane has it, so the WP:OSE argument "it's in other hurricanes' articles" is not valid here. Also, per WP:DUE, we generally do not discuss both sides of this issue "equally". We report the viewpoint shared by the preponderance of reliable sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, the influence of long-run natural phenomena like the AMO on Atlantic hurricanes need to be discussed in 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, not in every single hurricane article. --bender235 (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove - This is becoming a routine thing with scientists crying "Global Warming!" during every major hurricane that hits. These reactions should be moved to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season as it provides better context. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Remove per WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV. Yes, some outlets want to make hay. It's not our job to parrot what they say. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Consensus is clearly to remove the section and add a section regarding environmental factors to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, can we close this now? Jdcomix (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree environmental factors should be added to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Brian Everlasting (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep this section is important because warmer ocean temperatures contribute to stronger hurricanes. People should be informed that air pollution has a real impact on their lives and hurricanes like Irma and Harvey are fueled by air pollution that causes global warming. Brian Everlasting (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - Shouldn't this be moved to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season then? Global warming has had an impact on more than just Irma hence why it is out of focus. For the next major hurricane, should we cut and paste the same info used in this article for that one? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If a hurricane is strong enough and important enough to merit its own article, then the article should also include a section about environmental factors which may have caused the hurricane to strengthen. Brian Everlasting (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We could always mention it in a sentence rather than a section and have that sentence be a wiki-link to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. The argument that is being made has to do with redundancy and focus on just Irma rather than the overall picture. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess we need to make it mandatory for commentators to read the previous discussion first before they comment. No one doubts that climate change leads to warmer oceans and warmer oceans lead to hurricanes. The point is that warmer oceans are a long-run phenomenon, not something that fluctuates from day-to-day. As a consequence, we should (if anything) include it in the article that describes the whole hurricane season, not a single hurricane.
 * Maybe it's just me, but it seems this quasi-political frenzy to mention global warming in every short-lived natural catastrophe is hurting its purpose. If for every hurricane you scream "see, there's your global warming," you basically invite the silly counterargument of "where's global warming now?" for every week where there isn't a hurricane.
 * As I said before: the majority of Wikipedia readers does not have a natural science or quantitative methods background. In general, they will confuse long-run averages and probabilities of single events. That's why we need to be cautious. --bender235 (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong remove Wikipedia is not for unscientific soapboxing or agenda/POV-pushing. The left-wingers in this thread would do well to actually consider climate science rather than insisting on drawing a connection between specific hurricanes and climate change. This comment applies as well to other articles (namely Hurricane Harvey) which also attempt to do the same. Mélencron (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Went and condensed this section to stick to known facts of the case. The arguments against drawing a causal relationship between a weather event and climate change seem strong in above discussion.--MONGO 13:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing so, but the debate still remains on if the info should stay as a section or not. Do you have an opinion regarding this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I only removed some section subheadings, condensed the subject and stuck to what we can support as factual.--MONGO 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Per AGF, and RFC re-added content, facts are established per cites. prokaryotes (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit...attempting to shut others up you disagree with, by threatening them with a discretionary sanctions tag, is POV pushing to an extreme. I am the primary author of Retreat of glaciers since 1850...so its you that should be facing sanctions dude for your inability to be neutral.--MONGO 14:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You going to readd the tags since you said in your edit there is still an ongoing Rfc or shall we leave them down to demonstrate you're a nonneutral editor?--MONGO 15:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I want to clarify my earlier comments for my strong removal, as I think the supporters are missing the point. I agree that the affect of climate change on tropical cyclones (TC's) in general is important; however, that is outside the scope of both this article and the season one, unless there is evidence that specific to an individual storm/season was directly linked to climate change. In this section, that isn't the case, however. "Scientists point out that global warming contributes to warmer ocean waters and more moist air for rain.[239] Because of sea level rise it is assumed that the storm surge of Irma and other storms will cause greater flooding to vulnerable areas.[240][239]" doesn't specifically link the storm to climate change - it links TC's in general to it. The second bit "Data collected by NASA shows ocean surface temperatures in the path of Irma are above 30 °C (86 °F), capable of sustaining a Category 5 hurricane.[241]" probably should be moved to the MH, although I would cite the NHC rather than NASA for the claim. The next bit "The Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation is a long-term cycle in the Atlantic that affects hurricane-forming conditions and is currently in a state that is associated with good hurricane conditions.[242]" is only arguably true, but either way isn't directly linked to Irma. The last bit "The warm sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic, along with weak vertical wind shear have made it more favorable for hurricanes to form and strengthen. Previous years of this occurring include 2005 and 2010, which had very active hurricane seasons.[citation needed]" is unsourced and not related to the storm. Much of what is covered in the section should belong on Wikipedia in general, and wikilinked, which is the case here since tropical cyclone is linked in the article. YE Pacific   Hurricane  15:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The refs specifically cite Irma in regards to the content. Additional, besides content tied to a specific storm, there is the idea to create an extra article, see discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Katrina_and_global_warming#Merger_proposal prokaryotes (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref 264 mentions Irma as one of many storms responsible for climate change in general, while Ref 265 discusses how FL is more vulnerable to hurricanes in general. Not what I'm looking for - I'd like to see stuff like "According to W, sea level rose by X%, which increased damage to Y by Z". YE Pacific   Hurricane  05:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Many of the "remove" comments are some version of "Well, gee, we could talk about ______(this)_______ in any strong storm article, so it should be dropped".  Ooops.   This line of reasoning is logically fatal because we'd have to substitute the _______(this)________ with (A) Wind, (B) Rain,  (C) Storm surge, (D) Warnings, (E) Impacts.... you get the idea.   By applying this deletion argument to all factors that regularly appear in the RSs about strong storms we are left with nothing to say at all.   So just because the "(this)-factor" frequently appears in RS about strong storms is in no way a reason to omit it in our coverage.  On the contrary, when multiple RSs cover some aspect of strong storms that is an obvious reason we keep at least a brief discussion, and maybe more, as appropriate in particular cases.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet another person who did not read the comments above. Let me dumb down the argument a bit further, just to make sure the message is getting through: if the "environmental factors" section was about short-term factors that actually caused this storm's genesis, it would be no problem (in fact, if that was the only thing in this section it would be superfluous since that is what the "meteorological history" section is for). But Prokaryotes wants to include sea-level rise and long-run climate change in this section, so clearly things that are not unique to this storm, and things that will "still be around" next week when there is no storm at all. My argument, and that of most people with "remove" comments, is to summarize these long-run factors in an article that looks at the long-run perspective (either 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, or even Atlantic hurricane) rather than repeating them again and again in every frigging hurricane article. Because, and I hope now it sticks, these factors do not change in the short-run. --bender235 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We could do with less personalization. I did read that argument also and if you note my remark, I explained I was answering another line of reasoning.  I will address this one in a new outdent.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were setting up and then defeating a straw man that no one actually argued. --bender235 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well with wind, rain, storm surge, we can easily find some specifics (ie "High winds occurred across X, peaking at Y on Z" rather than "Strong storms produce strong winds", so we include them. YE Pacific   Hurricane  05:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. See WP:NOTSTATS.   We write articles that explain things with context and meaning.  That goes 'way beyond mere statistical reports.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My hypothetical instance wasn't simply a statistical report - it was the highest wind total in X. I don't favor blindy listed a bunch of random wind/rain/surge reports without any context. YE Pacific   Hurricane  13:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove. We cannot link any particular storm to global warming/climate change, nor can we say with any real certainty that global warming is making hurricanes worse overall. 538 ran an article about this yesterday, but the TL;DR is that the historical record is too poor to really attribute any of this to global warming due to lack of knowledge about the frequency/intensity of historical storms; the data is inconclusive. A discussion of this sort of thing belongs in another article, likely Atlantic hurricanes, Tropical cyclone, and/or Climate change. The actual climate change section in the article itself as of right now is entirely useless and has nothing useful at all to say about climate change and how it relates to this particular hurricane; it is redundant with the meteorological history section. Titanium Dragon  (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove - There are currently 6 sentences on this section. 4 have nothing to do with climate change.  For example... "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" - dude, the PDO is the PDO, it oscillates, you know... sometimes it favors cyclone formation, sometimes it does not... the current text says it currently favors.  Yeah, impressed.  What does that have to do with global warming? Do you want me to add a sentence saying that late summer/early fall "favors" cyclone formation in the Atlantic, and that the current season "currently favors"?  Does Early September (ES) have much to do with global warming? (Yeah!  It is an Environmental Factor� © !) The whole section is useless. XavierItzm (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename section to "Compounding Factors" or "Relation to global warming" (I voted keep! above so this is an update)......  Once a storm is formed, many things can compound its impact on society.  This section used to list some of those.  Alternatively, we could follow the convention under Hurricane_Sandy.  Certainly if the only thing that will remain in this section is climate change, the caption "environmental factors" is something of a stub at best, or an WP:EGG at worst.   By the way, in case you don't already know, at our articles on Climate change and Global warming there is a frequently-debated and long-enduring consensus to treat "climate change" in general at Climate change.  That article talks about the idea itself be it cooling/warming, ancient times, whatever.  For the current climate change in earth's history, we are covering that at Global warming.   This is why my rename proposal (and the "relation to global warming" section at Hurricane Sandy that I originally researched and added) is phrased the way it is phrased. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it make more sense to just put whatever information is relevant in the Meteorological history section? That's kind of what it is for, and a lot of the information is redundant with that section. Titanium Dragon  (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. I agree the current content is weak and a better way forward is for someone with time and interest to do tons of research on what the RSs say.  That said, global warming is inherently about climate aspects.   Certainly climate and weather (meteorology) are related, but they aren't the same thing.  So I kinda agree with you and kinda don't.  That's why, at Hurricane Sandy, the "relation to global warming" section has its OWN heading but is a SUBSECTION of meteorology (and I know this to be true rather than merely infer it to be true because I'm the bloke that did it). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Trim heavily or remove It really is too long, and while I think it's useful, it should be heavily changed and moved somewhere else appropriate in the article. If that can't be done, just remove it then. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  13:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Dissapiated
This hurricane is dissipated however the infobox still says currently active. Can someone please change this?-75.179.18.235 (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Twitter as a source
The article cites Twitter in several places. While citing Twitter on non-BLPs isn't strictly prohibited, it sets a bad precedent, especially on a highly viewed article such as this. If the info is significant it'll surely be discussed in higher quality sources. Lizard (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. As time goes on many of the Twitter sources should be able to be improved to RS. I think the main problem with Twitter is when people use it to direct source opinions. L3X1 (distænt write)  23:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * i'd say that if they're posted by governmental organizations (verified, of course), i'd treat them the same as a press release.but that depends heavily on the context, i think -- Aunva6talk - contribs 07:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Twitter can be a reliable source for some content and I don't necessarily see any reason that the Twitter references should be removed/replaced. The Twitter refs used in the article are a mix of government officials/accounts, media, a scientist (Philip Klotzbach‏Verified account) whose tweets have been embedded in many news articles about Irma, and one of a seasoned (no pun intended) meteorologist. I don't see how these are any less reliable than a press release or direct citation of news articles (in fact a couple of the tweets from media include a link to a full article on the topic). AHeneen (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Intensity
It seems as if someone changed the top section to remove a bit of historical comparison. Listing it as the fourth most intense hurricane after Katrina (2005), the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane and Hurricane Camille (1969), would be more informative. I realize that doesn’t play into the effort to chalk Irma up to climate change, but facts are facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.45.115.4 (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it's the 7th most intense. See the records section in the article, which lists the top ten most intense hurricanes to make landfall on the US. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health  ‖ 13:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The more intense hurricane is Wilma in 2005 with 882 mbar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonioputin (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But not at landfall (See Below). The 1935 Labor Day storm hold that distinction.--Halls4521 (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However, then, Irma is not among the top 10 in this list because Gilbert (1988), Dean (2007) and "Cuba" (1924) were most intense during landfall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Gilbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.206.19.67 (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Preparations by Google
Does this really need its own section? Jbracke2 (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, it reads like WP:SOAP, particularly as most of it is self-ref'd or with no other references. If someone else wants to remove it, I wouldn't object. EP111 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Got rid of the section. Completely violates WP:SOAP. Jdcomix (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Template problem
I edited the button bar to stop the RHS spilling off screen by putting a gap after the 7th storm. This was reverted.

Heres the reference: Template:Hurricane_season_bar_gap

Says: "When there are over 14 buttons in a season..." This should be 7 to account for Button plus Name. There's no mention of "10". As you see here, the box is a mess on the right.



Your screen resolution may vary but this is what shows on mine, and seems to fit with the help text. Can I have some feedback to help fix this, please. David Crayford &#9742;  12:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2017
Hurricane Irma dissipated September 12, 2017Ligers360 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Ligers360 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  JTP (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Impact in the Bahamas
The article text details the impacts to the Bahamas, but they have not been included in the Death and Damage by Territory chart. Have any numbers come out of the Bahamas in regards to deaths and dollars in damage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.2.234.188 (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

US Damage total
Why are we using $100 billion as the damage estimate here. I'm seeing several sources suggesting a LOT lower. Most sources I see put damage total lower with some I see suggesting a number more in the 40-50 billion range. For example:, , --Kuzwa (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * From the sources currently used to cite $100 billion, the minimum I'm seeing is half of $100B at $49-50 billion, the maximum is double at $200 billion, some even $230 billion, but I'm seeing extraordinarily different estimates with every article. It'll evidently take time to have a more solid number, but for now this average is acceptable, yet undoubtedly temporary and subject to change. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The $200 billion estimate was revised downward to $50 billion, and there are multiple citations for much lower damage figures ($10–$50 billion) as noted by . I don't see how we can justify having $100 billion in the infobox or the damage table. Tito xd (?!?) 23:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we just give a range, eg. "$20-230 billion (estimated)"? I read a few articles talking about how far off the mark some of the earlier estimates were (the ones in the hundreds of billions), but will need to search for them later. AHeneen (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Need assistance downloading a GIF radar loop to add
This radar loop of Irma crossing the entire state of Florida would be a great addition to this article, but I can't figure out a way to download it. With Chrome/Windows, I can only save one frame if I right-click and select "View background image". If anyone can figure out a way to download the radar loop, please upload it to Commons and add it to the article. AHeneen (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See Files for upload -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Daily path projections
Whose brilliant idea was it to keep updating the one filename File:11L 2017 5day.png with new versions of the projection, instead of creating a series of files, one for each day (or whatever). Is there now no way to show, in an article, what the projection was e.g. as the storm approached the US?  E Eng  15:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a standard practice because we include the project NHC path as the storm is active since it's IMO not worth uploading a new file. If we opt to include what the projection was as the storm approached the US, we could re-upload the file. YE Pacific   Hurricane  15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that makes no sense at all. Both Wikipedia and Commons operate on the principle of not throwing away information. Your approach is exactly what a news site would do, and that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is. Files aren't just used the way you envision them being used, and you pull the rug out from under other editors by changing the file without warning. I want this -- can you supply it please?  E  Eng  16:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That kind of file reuploading seems to be rather standard for hurricane files on Wiki(p/m)edia, I agree that it needs to be changed however. Also, that file name is overly vague. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To say the least.  E Eng  19:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. While it is standard for hurricane path files, it should be changed so that the intermediate files can be used. For the regulars that update these files, why not just create a category on Commons ("Category:Hurricane __ NHC 5-day forecasts" or "Category:Tropical Storm __ NHC 5-day forecasts") and upload individual files with a standardized name, eg. "Hurricane __ [time] UTC [date] NHC 5-day forecast". AHeneen (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All very sensible. Now, can someone resurrect the image I linked above as its own file? I'd like to use it.  E Eng  01:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. For 99% of storms, the image is only used on Wikimedia projects while the storm is active, and as such, the common file name makes updates across various languages and projects instantaneous. If you want to create separate files for the individual versions, you can do that, but the unified file format for current advisories should stay the same. Master of Time   ( talk ) 01:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't hate the idea of creating a gif-type file that strings all the advisories together, though (although due to "technical" limitations, I'm sure that any gif with too many frames would not display correctly on Wikipedia). Master of Time   ( talk ) 01:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not a weather report or news site, so our priority is not to "makes updates instantaneously", but if you want a "current status" filename that keeps getting updated, that's fine. But each version along the way needs to be frozen as its own file, and those should be listed on the description page of the "always-up-to-date" file; and the "current" file should be deleted at some point, since obviously it will make no sense a month from now. Now can I please have the file I keep asking for?  E Eng  01:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't need to have a file for each advisory since they're seldom used in articles for non-active storms. When they are used we can upload them separately. Also, this is the link to where the NHC keeps their files for past advisories of Irma, if that is what you are asking for. YE Pacific   Hurricane  01:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This is beginning to get ridiculous. Your attitude, and that of Master of Time, is anathema to the fundamental purpose of the Wikimedia projects, which is to be a repository of content available (and convenient) for reuse by others. The fact the you don't foresee a reuse that you don't foresee (duh!) is irrelevant. And if you think you've saving server space or something, you're cruelly deceived: all those earlier images are still being stored, just awkwardly stacked up as prior versions of that one filename so that no one can make use of them.

Now that I think about it, the right way to do what you want to do is to store each day's (hour's, whatever) update as a separate file with a permanently meaningful name, and have a redirect (or maybe a template) that always points to the "current" one. Articles wanting to show "current status" should reference the redirect; updating the redirect updates all the "current" stuff in articles.

Pinging back and, because it's time to put a stop to this nonsense in time for the next big storm. If I insert a projection of Category 5 Irma Approaching Florida into an article about climate change, or the politics of disaster preparation, I don't expect that a week later you'll have made nonsense of what I've done by changing it into Cloudburst Irma Poops Into Illinois.  E Eng  02:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to accuse an entire WikiProject of bad faith editing or engaging in practices "anathema to Wikimedia's fundamental purpose", go ahead, but that doesn't make any of your assertions fair or warranted. Master of Time   ( talk ) 03:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've accused no one of bad faith, and what makes my criticisms fair and warranted is that they're fair and warranted. It's very common for editors working only in a narrow topic area to come up with practices that are inconsistent with the way things are done project-wide. I note you've avoided actually responding to what I've said about why what you're doing is unacceptable, or why my suggested procedure isn't a real improvement.  E Eng  03:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The redirect idea is good, in my mind. The filename is unacceptably vague, too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There could be one file that gets constantly updated, while each update is uploaded separately and all are placed in a category as I suggested above. That would solve the issue of having one file to use across projects without the frequent updates. The file that gets updated routinely will simply remain as the last graphic released by the NHC for a storm. I think an appropriate name would exclude "Hurricane" or "Tropical Storm" and just use the storm name, eg. "Irma NHC most recent forecast track" (I can't come up with a better name, but feel free to propose/discuss a better file name). This would only require one rename when a tropical depression becomes a named storm. There are two ways of addressing that issue: 1) just leave the file name as "TD Ten NHC most recent forecast track" and create a new file for further updates using the storm name (eg. "Irma NHC most recent forecast track") and changing the file name in the source code on WP articles; or 2) rename the file on Commons (see Commons:File renaming). Since only stewards, administrators and file movers on Commons can rename files, several regulars with the tropical cyclone articles should request to become a filemover if option 2 is adopted.
 * One thing not mentioned above that should be considered is that the goal of Commons is to be a media repository for freely-available (eg. public domain, CC-licensed works) content. The continual updating of one file doesn't help with Commons' purpose since the older file versions are not really accessible for use on other Wikimedia projects, whereas having separate files for each update is much more in line with Commons' goal. AHeneen (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I said all that stuff about reusable content above. It seems to me the redirect is a much better approach.  E Eng  13:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Actual Windspeed At Landfall
The sustained wind speeds reported at NOAA marine data buoys at Key West and Vaca Key, the two locations closest to the landfall and within the radius of the eye, never exceeded Category 1 speeds. Thus while the hurricane has been reported as a Category 4 landfall at Cudjoe Key, the most obvious source for wind speed observations, marine buoys, fail to confirm the intensity by a wide margin.

The data for all marine buoys can be retrieved at http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/, and historical data for the last 45 days can be found at http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_realtime.php?station=KYWF1 for Key West and http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_realtime.php?station=VCAF1 for Vaca Key.

Citation 209 for windpseed at landfall confirms that the maximum sustained windpseed at Key West was 71mph and the maximum gust was 90mph.

Therefore a new section in Irma covering the actual windspeed and its inconsistency with the Category 4 landfall report in the Wikipedia article is justified based on the these unbiased facts reported by US government scientific instruments.

JAQUINO (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This constitutes WP:Original research, a violation of Wikipedia policy. We have the landfall stated as Category 4 as that's what the National Hurricane Center estimated based on reconnaissance aircraft data. However, simply including the maximum observed winds without making any assumptions is fine to add. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that this is prohibited "original research." The definition of "no original research" is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

The proposed section on actual windspeed at landfall brings data reported by the National Data Buoy Center into the article. Therefore by definition this information is not covered by the prohibition cited, specifically: "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." The NDBC reporting system is "reliable" and "published." I have included the links and any interested party is free to follow them.

There is no reason that the actual verifiable wind observations at the surface during landfall are not a legitimate part of the Wikipedia article. However one could argue that much of the current section on intensity can be characterized as prohibited original research, with citations of wind speeds reported without links documenting the sources of those observations. The article may continue to report factually that the NHC identified the hurricane as Category 4 at landfall while also rightly noting that observed wind speeds at key marine reporting station near landfall were not consistent with that categorization.

JAQUINO (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Including the observations is completely fine, but going in with the pretense of using it to prove the Category 4 landfall incorrect is not. Raw data can't be used to prove a point without reliable sources backing up the claims. That's my concern here. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on the feedback from Cyclonebiskit it appears that the current article is characterized by the use of original research in that the US surface wind speed observations included are not documented by references to the underlying sources.

Furthermore the article is unbalanced in its intensity report because the clearly objective measurements from the NDBC system have been omitted, even though these very measurements will likely feature prominently in the final assessment of this event, which may well include a not unprecedented change in the assessment of the storm's category, as occurred with Katrina . Additionally, there are multiple references to wind gust surface measurements and no references to sustained wind surface measurements, which clearly biases the article regarding the wind speeds observed at landfall.

I propose that the article should be edited to include a balanced perspective on the observed surface level wind speeds, with documentary references for all of the observations. I cannot speak to the "raw" data concept introduced by Cyclonebiskit. Most of the wind speed observations in this article appear to be "raw" data. Is the NDBC data more "raw" than the unsupported observations currently cited?
 * No, the issue is that you are suggesting we use raw data to support a novel conclusion not advanced by the source of the data. It is NCEP's job to determine whether NDBC data contradicts the Category 4 operational intensity, not Wikipedia's. To do what you suggest would be a blatant violation of the no original research content policy. Tito xd (?!?) 01:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What Cyclonebiskit is saying is that the NHC has the authority to look at raw data and best determine a category rating. Since the raw data is a primary source you can use it in the article, but you cannot infer other conclusions from the data alone; e.g. raw data was 67 kts therefore it was only a category 1. In hurricanes, or any weather event, the maximum winds are never sampled. So even if you had raw data to back up an intensity you would be under sampling a storms maximum winds (even if by marginal amounts). And most of the winds that backed up the NHC's claim of a landfalling Category 4 where from SFMR measurements aboard aircraft reconnaissance. Those aircraft sample a whole lot more area than a network of nonlinear surface stations would. Just saying. Supportstorm (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

To repeat, I propose that the article should be edited to include the observed surface level sustained wind speeds, with documentary references for all of the observations. This is clearly an improvement. I did not propose any changes beyond properly documenting the wind observations that are included and including significant wind observations that were omitted. This would include highlighting that the sustained winds estimates are based on aircraft reconnaissance and there might be links regarding how aircraft reconnaissance of hurricane wind speeds are carried out.

Since I am not proposing to draw any conclusions from the data beyond its inclusion in the article, it seems odd that this in the slightest bit controversial. Cyclonebiskit agreed there is no problem with including the data and that is the extent my proposal.

I do not understand the comments that this is original research. It clearly is not. Furthermore it is clear that the NDBC data is no more raw than the undocumented reports that are included in the article.

JAQUINO (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that buoys do not accurately measure winds when there are high seas. The crests and troughs over- and under-expose the anemometer to winds. This is likely the reason for the winds being so much lower than would otherwise be expected. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Dissipation
So the date keep getting set later and later. I just want to clarify that the WPC discontinued continuously tracking the low on September 14, 03 UTC over central Illinois. Link:http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/archives/sfc/2017/lrgnamsfc2017091403.gif Supportstorm (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Florida
Hi. I thought it would be beneficial so I went ahead and added a picture of a boat washed up on the side of US 1 in Florida. Hope that's okay! Glevy017 (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the nice picture. AHeneen (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Damage Summary
Where's the damage summary to compare disasters? Rtdrury (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Image
and argue against inserting this new image of Irma at peak which was created:



They claim that it looks like Maria at its peak, and while that may be true, it’s not my fault both storms ended up peaking in identical areas with similar looks. The new one has a better lit eye while 1745Z has a bad angle on the eye and doesn’t match up to the true intensity, like how it came out on the 5th when it first was a C5. Personally I think the new image is better. Any other thoughts and/or opinions? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not restore the image while it is under dispute. This image looks, quite literally, like a clay model of the storm. We don't get a direct top-down view into the eye, and in any case, reconnaissance data suggests the true peak of winds was 160 kt at 18z - all the data after that point suggested only 150-155 kt.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Inclided to agree with Jasper; regardless of the similarities to Maria or not, the original image looks much better and gives a much clearer perspective of its location.  Auree   ★ ★  23:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, the original image was closer to the peak intensity of Irma (at about 15:00 UTC on September 6). The angle on the original image may be slightly offset, but this can be fixed somewhat by cropping and re-uploading the image as a .png file. This method would also make the original image more Irma-centric, and presumably, just as suitable as the proposed replacement. I don't have the time to upload a cropped png image for Irma right now, but I can do that later on (perhaps around this weekend?). All things considered, the first image is the closest image we have of the storm at its peak, so if we're going to operate on the basis of using peak images, the first image or a derivative version should be used.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That being said, both images are good pictures and we should not be having an edit war over this. But as noted earlier, the newer image is not close to Irma's peak, and the said image is also a little too similar to the appearance of Maria at its peak. While this is probably just coincidental, for our readers, this can end up causing some confusion, especially since sight is the most dominant human sense, and because we want to be as clear as possible on Wikipedia, we should avoid using images with identical likenesses whenever possible (especially for 2 powerful storms that formed within a month of each other and moved across similar areas).  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, unless I'm wrong, the track data indicates that Irma peaked around 2100 UTC on September 6 (the way the article was worded made it kind of hard to tell). But the 2nd image does have the similarity issues.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The running best track indicates a wind peak at 18z - and reconnaissance's highest uncontaminated SFMR measurements occurred at that time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then someone needs to go into the article and clarify this. Right now, the exact timing of Irma's peak intensity is rather ambiguous.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * what’s wrong with this one? It honestly looks better and it was 185/916 at the time it was taken.



The eye here is clearly more visible due to the infrared, so I don’t see why we can’t use it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the above for why this one is not as good. Also, infrared is inferior to visible in this case. It is not an accurate depiction of the storm as one would physically see it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If confusion is possible because the images of the two storms are similar, it can be avoided by an explicit mention, e.g.,
 * Note: Although this image is very similar to that of Hurricane Maria, the images really are independent of each other, and each shows the storm whose article it is in. --Thnidu (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why complicate things unnecessarily though?—Jasper Deng (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm personally in favor of the 0225Z image. I feel it portrays Irma's intensity the best, as the current one has a bad angle on Irma's eye and makes it look much weaker. Just my opinion, though. I would also like to add that this "consensus" took place before these images were uploaded to wikipedia, so they didn't have a chance. - Garfield —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion leans towards 0225Z. Due to it having a clear visible eye, and being at peak intensity at 2100 UTC. Swivel Here (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Article length
The overall article is pretty informative, but also a rather lengthy one which could benefit from getting branched off into a couple of sub-articles. In particular, articles for the Meteorological History and Impacts would be ideal under the circumstances. Obviously, this is my personal opinion, though, and any measures taken are subject to consensus. KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article hasn't surpassed any length limitations yet. Unless a significant amount of information is added later on, it's best to keep the information in a single article.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's presently at 66 kB prose, which is in the "split" territory per WP:SIZERULE. More of a suggestion than a rule, but there are plenty of potential sub-articles this can be split into as mentioned above. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, but if most of the new articles would be relatively brief, or if there won't be any more substantial additions to this article, then an article split really isn't needed at this time. A clearer article division level would be 100 kb in prose, which this article has yet to reach. As you have said, it's more of a suggestion than a hard rule, but there are a number of notable exceptions to the page limit on Wikipedia. In the end, I think it all comes down to whether or not splitting up the article benefits the reader more than keeping the info all together in one place (also more accessible).  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sidestepping the size for a moment, the main reason this article is "only" 66 kB is due to lack of expansion There's a gargantuan amount of info yet to be used given how many islands/areas were so severely affected. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A MH article is also one of the subpages that needs to be split since there’s a lot of info that could be put on there since there was so many records broken and just the sheer intensity of the storm. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure GC has a sandbox for another sub-article. YE Pacific   Hurricane  01:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

U.S. death toll
The U.S. death toll should be 100, with 91 in Florida, 5 in South Carolina, 3 in Georgia, and 1 in North Carolina. The Florida total was compiled with four sources. The first source provides a county by county toll. It mentions the 12 deaths at the Hollywood Hills nursing home, but for some reason doesn't include it with the 9 other deaths in Broward. So we're up to 81. The second source raises the total by 1, as now there would be two deaths in Collier County. The third source adds an additional death for St. Lucie County. Now there's 83 deaths. The fourth source increases Monroe County's death toll to 14, eight more than the first source says. So 81 + 1 + 1 + 8 = 91--12george1 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to put these on here to make it easier to understand. The first source is the baseline
 * Irma death toll up to 69 in Florida - Title says 69 deaths. It mentions the Hollywood Hills Nursing home deaths (12), but doesn't add it to Broward County's total, even though they should be indirect
 * After a death in Everglades City, rising concerns of a public health crisis - Adds another fatality for Collier County
 * Event Details: Tropical Storm - Adds another death for St. Lucie County
 * Hurricane Irma-related deaths rise to 14 in Florida Keys - Adds eight deaths to Monroe County--12george1 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the 2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season page according to these sources. Swivel Here (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Now that the NHC has released it's official report stating: "In the United States, 7 direct deaths were reported, and an additional 85 :indirect deaths occurred, 80 of which were in Florida. Hundreds more were injured before, during, or after the
 * hurricane," I would think that's the official values, and so wouldn't they be used? Do we have a policy on which is used?  And any idea on where the discrepancies lie?
 * JeopardyTempest (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Peak intensity standards
It appears that the NHC advisories [https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2017/al11/al112017.fstadv.031.shtml? peaked] Irma at 160 knots, but that the best-track/final report have it at 155 knots. I'm guessing there are standards regarding which source to use, but I haven't come across them, so hopefully they can be linked here. I'd figure the NHC report is the standard (and that inline comments should be added to deter subsequent edits back to the larger values?) JeopardyTempest (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes the final report trumps all previous intensity estimates. Unless special notes are made, we rarely refer to the operational values once the TCR has been released. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Weather Underground blogs cannot be used as sources?
Can somebody please explain to me why blogs posted by certified meteorologists such as Dr. Jeff Masters from Weather Underground cannot be used as sources? This revision of mine keeps getting rejected for purportedly being "dubious", even though WU blogs have been used as sources in several other areas of the article. --Undescribed (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern is based on WP:SPS.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS states the following: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. --Undescribed (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, Jeff Masters has a M.S. in meteorology and a PhD in air pollution meteorology. Weather Underground is a reliable blog. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, WP:3O and all.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Another issue might be that the blog is from 2016, Irma is from 2017, the blog (unsurprisingly) doesn't mention Irma, and the edit changed numbers... ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Footage of Irma
So there is no video of Irma actually happening on here. So I replaced a video of aerial damage in St Martin. There is a picture of the damage right under it. The video I uploaded got removed without any explanation at all. PoisonCarnival8 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * according to the admin who removed it, the video violated copyright restrictions. The upload has been removed from Wikipedia accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The video doesn't even belong to the author that is watermarked on the video. Plus, when Irma was heading for Florida, that video was on all the news networks. The footage is from MahoBeachCamera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoisonCarnival8 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please try reading the numerous copyright notices on your talk page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Final Landfall intensity
According to the new TCR from the NHC Irma’s final landfall was a Category 3 with 120 mph winds. I don’t know if this TCR is broken or screwed up. Can you help me? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8280:47C3:6CDE:D593:107F:E8FF (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There is not new TCR so it must be broken on your computer Tardis459 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2018
This article omits the fact that Hurricane Irma made first landfall on the Caribbean island of Barbuda, and as a result caused the most devastating damage there. Barbuda was in the eye of the storm. Barbuda also had one death, not three as stated here. 86.112.191.89 (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There's an entire section on Barbuda in the Impact section, which covers the damage in a good degree of detail. The article may not explicitly mention the first landfall, but Barbuda is the first landfall mentioned in the Meteorological history section. "Most devastating damage" is a claim that would require citation to reliable sources. As to the number of deaths, the cited source (NOAA's Tropical Cyclone Report) states there were three deaths, as stated in the article. If this is incorrect information, please provide reliable sources to refute the existing information. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Annular characteristics
In two places the article says the storm took on annular characteristics. I can't find an authoritative source supporting that statement; in fact, one source printed a retraction of their previous claim about the storm being annular. I realize there's a difference between being annular and having annular characteristics. In any event if someone has a source supporting that claim, please add it. (It was not mentioned in NHC's TCR at all). ☽Dziban303 »»  Talk☾  00:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018
In the lead, "followed by  Hurricane Maria two weeks later," 219.76.15.16 (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done--B dash (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019
Pressure was 914, not 917 207.172.180.75 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅  General Ization Talk  22:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Change image for Irma please
Whoever changed hurricane irma image to dark, please change it back. It looks like it was taken in the 70s, but not the more modern days. Please change. I am ip and irma is protected. Please change. Thanks 2602:306:8BB9:4E20:E8D9:7DD5:BE4F:FDB8 (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. I changed the image back to the one that was previously used. However, the darker image is the only colored satellite image that we have of Irma making landfall on Barbuda, and it is also the closest image that we have of Irma to its peak intensity. I changed the image back because this image (showing Irma approaching Barbuda the day before its peak) appears to be the one that is preferred, and also because it is relatively close to the storm's peak. If the editors end up preferring the landfall image (the only one that actually shows Irma at its peak), then I will be changing the main infobox image back to the landfall image. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the landfall image; the only problem that some people seem to have with it is that it is rather dark.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For anyone who's interested, I've posted the image in question. And yes, it is the image we have that is closest to Irma's peak intensity.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Additionally and furthermore
Further to this edit, which was also me, I see it is still peppered with "additionally" and "furthermore". I am pretty sure this is in the MOS somewhere. Additionally, it is bad writing and furthermore it also makes us look stupid. Please consider removing them. I can't at the moment. Thanks 2A01:4C8:1039:89E4:F023:9F6D:CA63:AF45 (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Protection
Does this article really still need protection? One might have hoped that silly vandals would have given up and gone elsewhere by now ... Cheers, 2A01:4C8:1039:89E4:F023:9F6D:CA63:AF45 (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You may go to WP:RFPP for requesting unprotection. --B dash (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2019
add real facts 2A00:23C4:FE98:8200:ED11:440D:36BC:D7B5 (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. B dash (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2019
Damages in Cuba is $13.185 billion, this data has numerous source to proof, and should be reliable. Miami Herald, The Mast Online, Business Insurance, EFE (in Spanish), and Red Cross report 219.79.97.3 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done B dash (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico damage/deaths counted separately from the United States?
Puerto Rico, while not a US state is part of the country of the United States of America, yet its death toll and damage are listed separately. The article should clarify that the part listed under 'United States' refers to the continental US only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.223.212.78 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Wind speeds
I know for a fact it was 185 mph. Papa hwe hwe (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was lowered to 180 mph after a reanalysis. Have a look at the reanalysis here.  I Need Support  😷 23:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Image change maybe?


So I was looking through Irma’s images and I found that the 0536z image is actually pretty damn close or spot on to the peak intensity. For some context, Irma’s TCR states that the pressure bottomed out at 914 pretty much as this image was taken, and the winds are still 150 kt. Granted the current one also has a fantastic structure as well and the eye, and winds were also at peak but the pressure had yet to bottom out. I think maybe we should change the image for Irma to the 0536z one, but if the current one should stay then I’m fine with that as well. Thoughts? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Image 2 (the original) – Both images are fine, but I personally prefer the current image. It looks better overall, IMO, and it is close to the peak intensity. The second image is the closest image that we have to the peak, but it doesn't look as nice as the other one, especially since it's a lot darker (it also looks much too dark on smartphone screens).  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Image 2 partly because 0536z is the middle of the night so it was cropped. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This was not 180mph it was 185mph
Not Joeste656 (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The official source we use for tropical cyclones, the National Hurricane Center, said that this was 180mph in their [https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL112017_Irma.pdf. tropical cyclone report for Hurricane Irma.] This means that the storm is 180mph. -Shift674-🌀contribs 01:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021
yvbufd rdwnjh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhgujbn jh (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. Obvious nonsense request. Keep this up, and you will be blocked.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021
Irma killed 15 people, not 21. Zoe haverkamp1 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

❌ Please do not comment that this is based on the source, this is clearly the figure in the infobox. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
I have a new image you can add! I dont have the file so here is the link https://www.google.com/search?q=Hurricane+Irma&rlz=1CAOJOO_enUS918&sxsrf=ALeKk00qa8TnSO8_z_Yz3fGGsD9llHB-ww:1615405469416&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinubCpvqbvAhWbHc0KHYGFAvAQ_AUoAnoECBUQBA&biw=1366&bih=665&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=sm-eYRqLz4_4CM

I hope you like it! LuigiIsSuppreme989 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2022
In the "Caribbean" section, please replace "32 municipalities" with "32 communes" and make those words link to Communes of the Guadeloupe department. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Streded (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wind speed
Look at national hurricane center advisory archive on this hurricane Link: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2017/IRMA_graphics.php?product=5day_cone_with_line_and_wind in advisories 26A to 32 to see that this was ACTUALLY 185 mph. Wikipedia is unofficially going for 180 mph and protecting this unofficial, possibly incorrect information that hurricane irma was 180 mph not 185. Wikipedia is an odious apparatus. Edit of edit (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The intensity is based on the tropical cyclone report, which is official and supersedes the intensities given in advisories. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The tropical cyclone report says 180 mph wind for less than 24 hours but advisories maintain this intensity for 2 DAYS STRAIGHT and 185 mph for nearly 36 hours?!?!?!?! there is no way the storm could be that op says tropical cyclone report Edit of edit (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A reanalysis of the data is done either later in the season or post-season. The tropical cyclone report was first posted in March 2018. There's also a comment that can't be missed while trying to edit the maximum wind speed, this chat isn't going to result in anything productive here. – The Grid  ( talk )  02:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)