Talk:Hurricane Joaquin

First chat
Just FYI, I am maintaining this Social Media Emergency Management (SMEM) group for Joaquin. Feel free to delve into any of the articles and resources we post. We will cite sources and curate content related to the storm. Don't consider us a "primary source" such as NOAA / NHC, or FEMA. But we may have some links useful to Wikipedians doing their job and looking for the latest information. Facebook: Hurricane Joaquin --Petercorless (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Fish storm
It looks like this is going to be one for the fishes, it will be noteworthy for it's impact on the Bahamas though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Way too early. There is still a great threat to the northeast, even if it doesn't move ashore. It could contribute to the ongoing rains and cause a huge flood event. I wonder what we'll do if the flood event requires an article but the storm is only a contributing factor. This could be crystal ball territory, but it doesn't hurt to start thinking about it. IMO, it should be redirected and included here. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The potential flood event should have its own article. Stage has been set by a decent dousing from a stalled out frontal boundary. Joaquin's only contribution will be extra moisture which is expected to be pulled into a cut-off low over the Southeast. Joaquin isn't enough of a major factor to warrant being the main title. We'll probably have to fight off incessant media claims to the contrary, though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because anything that doesn't hit the US is a fish, right?  Auree   ★ ★  05:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed the Southeast flooding should be a separate article, not here, with only occasional links. (If that low forms into a tropical cyclone itself, which is not likely, then that should be merged into that cyclone's article) CrazyC83 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

For future use
Just archiving some WPC discussions here for later use on the partially related flood event (nor'easter).


 * Short-range discussions
 * Sep 28 am // Sep 28 pm
 * Sep 29 am // Sep 29 pm
 * Sep 30 am // Sep 30 pm
 * Oct 1 am // Oct 1 pm
 * Oct 2 am // Oct 2 pm
 * Oct 3 am


 * Long-range discussions
 * Sep 28 am // Sep 28 pm
 * Sep 29 am // Sep 29 pm
 * Sep 30 am // Sep 30 pm
 * Oct 1 am // Oct 1 pm
 * Oct 2 am // Oct 2 pm
 * Oct 3 am


 * Excessive rainfall discussions
 * Oct 1 1408z // 2210z
 * Oct 2 0059z // 0838z // 1505z // 2253z
 * Oct 3 0137z // 0756z

September 29–30 frontal boundary event rainfall summary "Potentially historic" flood: 01 // 02 // 03 // 04 // 05
 * Storm summaries

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Record(s)
Soooo... is it worth mentioning in the article that Joaquin is the most intense Atlantic hurricane in the satellite era to NOT be spawned by or initiated by the influence of a tropical wave? I realize there is no super easy way to source that per wiki standards besides just linking to HURDAT, but a look through the Atlantic seasons since the mid 1970s (and honestly even back to 1950 or earlier) and reading of each intense storm's origins will show that all hurricanes more intense than Joaquin in either wind OR pressure were borne of tropical waves. There have been multiple major hurricanes, even a few category fours, borne of non-tropical lows or fronts, but none as intense as Joaquin. Lenny in 1999 MIGHT be an exception, but with Joaquin's 155mph peak, it's tied in wind speed but more intense than Lenny by pressure. Thoughts? EquusStorm (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing we can do with this information unless a reliable source mentions this record. Otherwise it would breach WP:OR. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Damaged caused in Haiti
The storm's treatment of Haiti is stated briefly in the article, but the section doesn't quite go into detail. That's not to say that the text is badly written. It just appears too brief. Should the article expand on the situation? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's only a limited number of sources available regarding Joaquin's effects in Haiti. searched in multiple languages to try and uncover more information but to no avail. More details may emerge in the coming days, but reporting is typically not that extensive in Haiti unless it's a major disaster (speaking from past experience with hurricane articles). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Deadliest hurricane in Bahamas region since 1929?
It seems worth noting that Joaquin is very likely to be the deadliest hurricane within the region since the 1929 Bahamas hurricane which killed 48 people in the Bahamas. While there likely isn't a single source stating this verbatim, I was able to find a source listing all the major storms to affect the country ranging in time from The Great Bahamas hurricane of 1866 to Sandy in 2012. - http://www.thenassauguardian.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40272:major-hurricanes-to-hit-the-bahamas&catid=84:hurricane The only reason I can think of as to why this information might be considered dubious is because all the deaths were on the El Faro, and not on land. However, one must take into consideration that in the case of the 1929 hurricane, at least 20 of the 48 deaths in the Bahamas were at sea. Would it be okay to add this piece of information into the article? --Undescribed (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from the lack of direct mention, which is what's needed foremost for the inclusion of this information per WP:V, the deaths in the Bahamas are not Bahamas-related. The 33 fatalities aboard the El Faro are deaths at sea and not tied into a national total (though if they were, it would be more towards the United States since it was an American flagged ship). As you mentioned, 20 of the 48 deaths from the 1929 hurricane were at sea so 28 deaths on land would be the baseline comparison to Joaquin's 0 deaths on land. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There were 0 deaths???!!! Jonah DeWeil (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protect!!!!!!!!!
There has been vandalism SO MANY TIMES recently, like the following edits: And worst of all... I would like this to be semi-protected. Thanks, 🐔Chicdat (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Hi ! Those edits are all from more than a year ago, and there hasn't been much disruption since then. We try to avoid protecting articles unless it's absolutely necessary, since most Wikipedia users just want to help improve articles. After all, we call it the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Semi-protection isn't needed here at the moment, but I'm glad you're keeping a close watch to make sure it doesn't get to that point! –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. And you're welcome. 🐔Chicdat (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)