Talk:Hurricane Eta/Archive 1

Archive 1

Maybe Vandalism, Semi Protect Edit Request

This Says Category 1 Hurricane Eta, It is not a tropical storm! Winds are at 90 not at 70. Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Please phrase your issue as a change x to y request. Drdpw (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Also @Hurricanestudier123:, you are autoconfirmed, so you can edit semi-protected articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No geostationary image?

@FleurDeOdile: Are we not doing geostationary images for this storm? I mean, I don't care if we do or not, but since it was something that was consistently implemented, I was just wondering.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Storm category

I just woke up, knowing that Eta had the potential to become a category 5. I haven't found any sources that mentioned it, so I was kind of wondering the source you found that mentioned it having hit that category. 47.219.203.95 (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Here, it will be bad either way. I like hurricanes 13:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, that source also said it's only a category 4. I was wondering the source for whoever originally said it was a category 5. Either way, this is going to be a terrifying storm, and I'm praying for Honduras and Nicaragua! 47.219.203.95 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, the person who did that is probably a vandal, there was no source, and he may be a sock puppet of another person who kept upgrading Storms (such as Laura) to Category 5. I like hurricanes 13:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Turns out it was some weird anonymous user (2600:8807:8280:2DF:C43F:B683:961:290A, if an admin is reading this) who made this bizarre claim and potentially had bias against one particular country. Not very good behavior and a bad reflection of what God would want :\ 47.219.203.95 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw similar edits on Hurricane Delta. It's probably just a troll. Not a huge deal. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This (2600:8807:8280:0:0:0:0:0/48) is an idiotic vandal who has been using multiple IPs to vandalize for months now, if not a year. They seem to have admitted to being Wyatt2049, who was indeffed last year for sockpuppetry and vandalism. If this is true, this person is probably an LTA. Please report all future cases to WP:AVI or to an administrator. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There actually is much evidence to support that Hurricane Eta could’ve been a category 5, but I still think whoever upgraded it on the wiki is just probably a troll. MANORVOanonymous (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@MANORVOanonymous: Yes, but they put in bold that god would turn the storm into a Category 5 in 200 minutes or something and put the wind speeds up to 200 miles per hour and gusts up to 270.. I like hurricanes 02:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-analysis?

If Eta were to be hit as a Category 5 hurricane before making landfall in Nicaragua, I'd be sure it would re-analyze it in the first or second quarter of next year? (after removing the names of the 2019 and 2020 hurricane season by the WMO). --МОДОКАУ 20:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Any changes to the storm's peak intensity would be made during the NHC's post-storm assessment, yes. Usually these reports are released by April of the following year. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Faith

Closed. Discussion should continue elsewhere The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

One of the primary things this site espouses is good faith. With that I'll ask C. Eric why the unilateralism? Who decides the list is too long, for example. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Also this edit of yours. It was named the strongest storm of the 2020 season until surpassed just over two months later by Eta. That is news as a matter of fact. It's not necessary to say it is the 2nd strongest storm of 2020? Really? Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It was my personal opinion, but I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. I just think we should stick to hurricane strikes in the area. Plus, if Eta moves back out into the Caribbean, the list is going to get even longer. That's all.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, that's WP:OR, which isn't allowed.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

No way, you do some good editing however your understanding of OR is incorrect and these few edits are also not right. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Howdoesitgo1: What do you mean?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

What is meant by asking what do I mean? Some of the things you are editing are not factual; I suppose it's good to try to follow OR if you are doing so. You could be incorrect at times. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Howdoesitgo1: You need to be clear what the original research violation is. If you accuse ChessEric of something, you need to explicitly say it out with evidence. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

To destroy, he is not using facts correctly. I will be happy to explain it to him. My edits are precise and correct. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Chipping in: I was editing Hurricane Zeta during the time when the hurricane hit the US. I noticed a few edits from ChessEric that were fairly questionable. The info about the landfall "near Cocodrie, Louisiana" was changed to "in Cocodrie, Louisiana" by ChessEric. Then the lead sentence was changed by this user to say along the lines of "Zeta is currently so and so...after having impacted the Yucatan peninsula some days ago". The info about the Yucatan impact was already further down the lead paragraph. I do not believe the lead sentence about the current state should also go on talking about the past. These may not be a big deal but it does show some ways of editing that are not necessarily better. So yes User:Howdoesitgo1 has a point here and I do question the "faith", as in the title of this section.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the title faith is because one of the site standards is to think of all edits as purposeful and useful. I could have named it good faith too. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep good faith has the same idea--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is off-topic. This page is to discuss the content of the article, not the attitudes or behaviors of editors. That is what user talk pages are for. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The article's content can only be there by people adding it, and with that, their associated attitudes and behaviours. Definitely not off-topic.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's the See Also section that's been hotly disputed, the whole section with the other hurricanes in the past can all be considered WP:OR. Because it is us Wikipedians deciding which hurricanes go on, or not. This section has been fought upon in the past, and would likely happen with future hurricanes.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want to accuse someone of something, please provide evidence, or else it's a baseless claim and can be a violation of attacking other users. @Howdoesitgo1: please stop accusing other users without evidence. And also, please stop your disruptive editing by adding unnecessary words (a storm which was a likely tornado) and phrases on Hurricane Zeta. In addition, most of your edits were of poor grammar or reverting correct grammar to incorrect grammar (in Acworth, Georgia, a→in Acworth, Georgia a It's getting disruptive. You can accuse other editors of disruptive editing, but please don't do it yourself. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It is off-topic when the complaints expand to edits made to other articles. If the issue is with an editor's behavior on multiple articles, it should go on the user's talk page. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Not off-topic. The issue applying to this article is the See also section with the addition of other hurricanes, which the person closing the section did not address. Thank you.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

As how the article stands now I judge it is too long.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If I may say something: every edit I make on these hurricanes is based off (a)the NHC, (b)the NWS, or (c)trusted news organization. I'm not going to say all my edits are correct, but I follow the trends I saw off of other articles and THAT was what I was doing for Hurricane Zeta. The lead sentence during active storms from what I've seen talks about what the hurricane is doing followed by what it has done. That is why I changed to what I did. Also, landfall points can be up for debate and I'm pretty sure I meant to put near not in so I'm sorry about that. However, to say its a "questionable" edit on my part is VERY offensive to me when I had to put with the vandal that wanted to change a current hurricane threatening Louisiana to Cat 5 status for 20 STRAIGHT MINUTES. Think about that next time you want to criticize me please.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It was good that you took out the edits from the vandal. That is not an excuse to make other edits that were not correct, or questionable. Hope you understand.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You act as though Eric deliberately made an incorrect edit. Anyone who makes a lot of edits will make a bad edit from time to time. Everyone has errors in judgement. And, at that, the error was a minor one. Again, you are going off topic. The edit in question was to hurricane Zeta, so if you have an issue with it, the discussion should be at Talk:Hurricane Zeta or on Eric's personal talk page, not here. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This thread here was to do with the edits on Hurricane Eta. There was a dispute on the See also section. That's why the thread is here. Understand? And as I said before, I think the See also section is getting too long, especially when the hurricane itself is don't dead yet.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought this was closed. Move on please. The faith thing literally happened several days ago. If you want to continue the debate, fine with me. Just do it on either WP:DRN, User talk:Jason Rees, or WP:ANI. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Panama

The section about Panama rain damages is doubtful. Not only the Hurricane is too far but the article does not make any link. The article is just saying "Las condiciones inestables del tiempo se mantienen en los próximos días." (The unstable conditions will persist for the next few days).

Pierre cb (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: The storm had a very large outflow. The rains in Panama may have been cause by moisture associate with the storm and/or its outermost rainbands. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The cited source, however, does not state that the flooding is due to Eta, so it's OR unless we can find another source. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pierre cb, @TornadoLGS , the only rainfall, in the area around the time the article was written was in association with Eta. Also the source says “the recent rains” which most likely refers to Eta. Note also that they sentence says “possibly” and infers that it’s possible to be associated with Eta, even likely. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Current Information

Someone needs to update it as it’s no longer a hurricane and is currently weakening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.109.93 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Initial Sentence

I was looking at the initial sentence for this article and the way it was written really didn't read well in my mind. I was going to change it to something that sounded better, though I was worried that the sentence might lose the pertinent information that, although it had a certain intensity mark, that it had weakened, though it was still a concern. I was thinking of changing it to "Hurricane Eta is a currently active tropical depression over Honduras that, before making landfall, became the second strongest November hurricane on record." I recognize this may become moot if someone changed to reflect a location or intensity change anyway, but I figured for the sake of setting a more readable stylistic standard for the first sentence it would be worth changing earlier. So what I'm asking is, is this sentence an okay substitute? I don't want to screw it up and confuse people who may be at risk from this storm. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico

Does anybody have any information on preparations in Guatemala, impacts in El Salvador, or both for Mexico? Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

impacts will come out soon Meteorologist200 (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

possible category 5

Created by sockmaster. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

so I read the New York post article that the anonymous user posted and it seemed very relevant and interesting maybe we should look more into that subject Meteorologist200 (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Meteorologist200: Since now it’s only speculation, we cannot add it. Everyone is desperately waiting for the TCR to come out so we can see the actual intensity.~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: The Washington Post Capital Weather Gang is a pretty reliable source, at least for this kind of analysis. This is not putting words in NHC's mouth by any means.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: No. The NHC did not say whatsoever that that ETA was a possibly a C5. This is just an assumption by a news company. Same as if TWC or Accuweather said it was possibly a C5. Just say there was a lack of data due to cancelled flights. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: They didn't but unlike with actual meteorological parameters like pressure and winds, opinions like this can be stated in a way that's compatible with NHC's words. The content even says what NHC said. The source is the weather department of a very reputed newspaper. If TWC said the same thing, it'd be even more reason to put it in.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: I fail to find a NHC advisory saying that Eta May have been a C5 or above the intensity. It is unofficial then to say that Eta was stronger than a 150 mph C4. The WP article is still a speculation. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Michael 2018. Although that was 155. I still think we should wait and see. Also, what about Lorenzo 2019? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: Even in Michael's case, they have no mention in the advisory of a possible upgrade. @Destroyeraa: Grammar: "may" should not be capitalized. Unofficial opinions are not banned as long as they are reliably sourced, are framed as what they are, and can't be construed as putting words in NHC's mouth, which this is. I don't think you're going to convince me otherwise, so your only option is a WP:3O.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If it is okay to put an opinion into the article that isn't against what Jasper Deng said above, but I feel we should wait until the TCR comes out to know for sure. I feel it could be confusing to the unknowing reader who doesn't check the NHC or read articles often, as they will see that the system is a Category 4, yet there is an opinion that says that I could have been Category 5. I don't know, I just think that some people might get mixed up, but maybe that is just me. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 02:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The "but the NHC..." clause is amply sufficient, except perhaps that we should mention that their opinion is the official one. Eta is a unique case where recon almost completely fumbled. Something similar happened with Hurricane Willa.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of confusion much of an issue since, even if a person doesn't check the NHC, most major media outlets go with the NHC's intensity assessments anyway. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

True, I didn't really think of that part. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 02:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Please don't point out grammar mistakes that are not on Eta's article here on this talk page. Yep, I capitalized "may" accidentally since I was editing on an Ipad mini at the time. @TornadoLGS: The Washingtong Post did go with the NHC, put put there own speculations on Eta's intensity. Why not say that there was a lack of recon data and remove the speculation? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: What is your problem with speculation other than that it's not an official word? We could even make it more explicit by saying "According to the Washington Post" or something. The reader should be left to make this call, not us. It's only WP:DUE weight to include this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It also seems that the talk of Category 5 intensity is based on some Dvorak estimates, rather than a simple lack of aircraft recon. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's both, really. The ADT final numbers increased substantially in the three hours or so since reconnaissance left and agreed well with the data when we did have those two eye passes. But I think it's undue weight to include that much intricate detail over why.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Then add the part abotu Dvorak backed with a source! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No. Did you not bother to read the part of my comment where I said "it's undue weight to include that much intricate detail over why"? What I edited into the meteorological history is trimmed compared to what you originally wrote and should not be expanded; if anything it should be condensed further.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it would be going into too much detail to mention Dvorak. At most, we could keep the whole discussion of category 5 to two sentences. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to go to bed now. But I’ll say leave it and if it doesn’t get bumped up in post season reanalysis, re-remove it HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favour of having what The Washington Post wrote about the chance of the hurricane being a Cat 5. It is not confusing, and I think it actually underlines the idea that these wind speeds and categories the NHC reports are merely estimates and are not a precise measurement.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

From USA TODAY (November 2) about Eta maybe becoming a Cat 5 – Hurricane Eta gains historic strength, could reach Category 5 status when it hits Central America on Tuesday – "The hurricane center said Eta is expected to strengthen over the course of the next 12 hours and could possibly become a Category 5 storm of historic proportions." Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless the NHC puts out anything about this, leave it out.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Listen, I didn't mean to make an argument. When I saw the article I saw it was from a known news source and that it was interesting. I wanted to share it here. I do understand that the NHC never let out an advisory on this so for now, we will just wait. Hurricane Michael was cat 4 at landfall but was upgraded. Same thing could happen so keep a look out on it.

Meteorologist200 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Continue to pray for those in Florida and Mexico. Meteorologist200 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

In that instance, it was only forecast, at one point, to reach category 5 strength. A forecast intensity that was not realized is generally not worth mentioning. The Washington Post article is a different matter, as it discusses other sources suggesting it did reach category 5. I'm not entirely opposed to mentioning it. After all, we do mention disputed ratings for tornadoes, though admittedly the Fujita and EF scales are more subjective than the Saffir-Simpson scale. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Meteorologist200: no need to apologize. Discussion is encouraged! Cheers. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That was cause Michael was a cat 5 for only 30 minutes. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: Michael's tenure at Category 5 had nothing to do with this. In neither case did the NHC speculate about any upgrade before the TCR.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, the category 5 stuff is in meteorological history yet I thought you removed it? Meteorologist200 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I put it back there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng, Meteorologist200, and TornadoLGS:I really don't agree with this. The planes WERE there around the time of peak intensity so I don't believe that is necessary. Let the NHC say something about this rather than put in a speculation please.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Arguably not.

1. First and foremost, the plane failed to sample the northwest eyewall that, with a west-south-westerly motion, would've had the highest winds, at least 5 to 10 knots higher than the south and southwest eyewalls that were sampled once each.
2. Even with those limitations, there was an SFMR reading of 135 knots in the south eyewall.
3. ADT numbers rose from 6.4 at the time of the sampling to 7.3 about three hours later. If anything, the 6.4 estimate was slightly below what the mission suggested at the least. The plane that was to be in there for that time had to abort.
4. The pressure continued falling during the two passes that were conducted; 5 mb in an hour is a pretty decent rate. There is no denying the storm was still intensifying so it is unlikely the successful mission got the absolute peak intensity.
5. The KZC pressure-wind relationship applied to even the advisory pressure of 923 mb yields about 140 knots, let alone any lower pressure that might have happened after.

So this is actually something with a good case behind it and something we really should mention. Sticking to what the source said and not more is perfectly reasonable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so your objection is not valid.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: (1) I watched the plane that traveled through the storm at that time. It DID go through the northwest eyewall. (2) 135 knots in not 140 knots regardless of what was missed in sampling. (3) The NHC had the option to raise the wind speed at the ADT numbers. They did not see enough evidence to do so. Why are we not taking that into account? (4) How do we know the pressure continued to fall after the flight? There is no evidence of that. (5) Just because the KZC pressure-wind relationship would normally yield 140 knots, it is not always true. Delta's peak winds of 145 mph just last month came when it had a pressure of 956 mb. By comparison, Epsilon had a pressure of 951 mb with its peak winds of 115 mph. So that argument is invalid. We shouldn't put premonitions into this article and I am strongly against including it.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric:

1. Wrong, just wrong. I tracked it too, and it went into the north eyewall, not the northwest. This is just dead wrong.
2. But combine this with my earlier first point.
3. They have discretion to not do so in a real-time situation just like they did with Michael.
4. Because the rate at which pressure drops is not a step function (physical processes like this are typically continuous functions), it's highly unlikely to have just suddenly plateau'd, especially in light of my previous point about ADT.
5. Wrong. KZC takes into account storm size, location, movement, and radius of maximum wind and it also lined up pretty nicely for Epsilon. You clearly didn't even bother to do research about KZC.

Besides, it's not up to us to have this debate here. The bottom line is that this is verifiable speculation by a major, reputed source. Including just a sentence or two is perfectly fine. Our job is to serve our readers, not parrot the NHC. Several other editors have already said that is fair to be included; you're not going to win this argument.--Jasper Deng (talk)

@Jasper Deng: It DID go through the northwestern eyewall. I tweeted about it. Besides, can't we just wait for the TCR? It was 7 mph short of Cat 5 intensity. If it was 155, I'd be fine. But 150? No. This was one source making a claim and I see absolutely no reason to mention. There are plenty of other storms that may have reached Cat 5 intensity (i.e. Joaquin), but we don't put in speculation unless its from the NHC because THAT it where the OFFICIAL AND FINAL call comes from. Also, don't give me that about trying to WIN an argument. I'm allowed to give my opinion and that is what I'm doing.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC) And one more thing to everyone out here. Short of editors getting in my case, this is like the third or fourth time that has criticized or attacked me when I'm just making opinion or edits in the past two weeks, which is really frustrating and annoying. This has been a long hurricane season and I understand that, but please, just take into consideration that we are here to have a discussion.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric: You tweeting about it is an "it is so because I said so" argument and does not work. Learn to debate properly. This graphic is misleading: you wrongly assumed that the plane didn't turn to the northeast, which it very clearly did right after (the final dropsonde was dropped there – even according to your very own tweet right after the tweet you posted). In Joaquin's case there was no reliable source making this kind of statement and in any case, other stuff exists (a red herring) is not an argument either. This is like trying to write a summary of a football game (of any code) with only what the referees call without any mention of a controversy (Snowplow Game). "I have a right to my opinion" is not an argument neither. What is the point of this? Nothing you can write about this will convince me because it's clear you're unable to even interpret the evidence correctly (firstly you didn't look at the full track of the plane, or you would've picked up on the sharp northeast turn in the eye, secondly you didn't even bother to research KZC and pretended to understand it above). Andrew was 130 knots before reanalysis upped it to 150. Lastly, WP:SHOUTing will do you no favors. I'm not replying to you anymore; your only option is a WP:3O by one of the above editors. I'm sorry that it's unreasonable to expect you to satisfy the burden of proof for your claims.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Okay. That was just disrespectful. Again, I'm entitled to my opinions and will not stand for personal attacks. I understand what your saying and I respected what you were saying, but YOU did not return the same kindness. I'm reporting this.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we have reports from reliable sources on the possibility of category 5 intensity in storms such as Joaquin? Strictly speaking, Wikipedia article should draw upon secondary sources. As I mentioned above with tornadoes, articles list the official rating, where one is available, but that does not exclude mentioning disputed ratings, especially in instances of possible F5/EF5 intensity. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we have any that would've been available before the TCR.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Put back on the article what The Washington Post said. Thank you. FYI, I've read the whole discussion above up til this comment.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It should already be there, though as I said before I may need to tweak it to emphasize that NHC's opinion is the official one here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's disappeared.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's because ChessEric put it in an HTML comment. I undid that considering that with your support, that of TornadoLGS, that of HurricaneTracker495, and Meteorologist200 (five including me), I think there's fairly good support for including this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I just made an edit. I wrote in the sentence The Washington Post that made the claim.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

What you wrote was not exactly right (the Post only said it's possible, not that it probably did, reach Category 5 intensity) so I made some more edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope that's wrong the article said several meteorologists not with NHC thought Eta was a Cat 5.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

How about now?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The article at large went on about the problems with the aircraft collecting data. It's on this basis that people thought it was Cat 5. Cheers.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The lack of aircraft recon is not the sole reason for the claims of category 5 intensity; the claims are also based on Dvorak intensity estimates. But I don't think we need to go into detail on the aircraft mechanical problems. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears the news article talks briefly about the Dvorak, albeit many paragraphs down from the top.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for yesterday. One sentence about is fine.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

anything new on it? Meteorologist200 (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Meteorologist200: Especially given the record activity of this year, don't expect a Tropical Cyclone Report on Eta until mid-February at the very earliest (and more likely well into the spring).--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles for meteorological history and impacts in Central America and Florida

This article is getting LONG and there will definitely be articles needed for Eta's track and impacts in certain areas. Has anyone started this yet?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to start these yet, the article is only 20 kB prose. The recommended size for splitting is 40-50 kB prose. Just focus on improving the main article for now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

maybe after this dissipates we can decide Meteorologist200 (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ETA’s true wind speed

Okay, i know that we only have accurate records when Hurricane Eta wasn’t at its full peak, but I think it is important that we stress we actually have no idea how strong this incredibly devastating hurricane was. It is quite unlucky considering that from the satellite stand-point, it looked like this was an insanely strong category 5, but we never got to have the true wind speed due to none of the jets leaving and making it to Eta.... We had readings of winds from 175-(almost)200 mph when using different technologies, but we never sent out anything until after the monster storm started losing strength, meaning there is only the info we have back when it was still at 150 mph. MANORVOanonymous (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@MANORVOanonymous: this topic has been discussed extensively in the above #possible category 5 section ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Let it be.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath sources

Please don't forget about ReliefWeb when expanding the Aftermath section. It's an invaluable resource for relief efforts in every country. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Thanks for the heads up!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Effects in Hondouras/Nicaragua article

I don't focus in the writing as much as I do in say, updating info or taking part in antivandalism. However, I was wanting to know about an article for either one. Particularly Honduras, because it caused $5 billion at least and killed 62 people. It was at least a tropical storm and likely a hurricane. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Just keep adding to this article for now. The Nicaragua section is tiny. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I asked this already.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Honduran damages

@Destroyeraa: I saw you changed the damage estimates on Honduras to 5 billion in Honduran currency to USD - I changed it back to 5 billion USD, as the article draws comparisons to Mitch and clarifies that it was more than Mitch in Honduras, which was 4 billion USD. I don't actually read Spanish past a very beginner level, so I've used google translate for this, so I can't quite confirm that's the intended meaning. YellowSkarmory (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@YellowSkarmory: Ok, sure. I don't know much Spanish either, and you can't copy-and-paste it into google translate in my browser. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Found a source that explicitly states an estimate of 75 billion lempiras which is US$3 billion rather than through comparisons. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That's probably a better one to use then, as it shouldn't be disputed. YellowSkarmory (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Eta would possibly be hitting Florida as a Category 1

I heard on the news that Tropical Storm Eta would likely hit Central Florida as either a tropical storm or a Category 1 hurricane. Should we add some more predictions on Eta rising northeast? Also, the storm track at the section Hurricane Eta#Meteorological history needs to be updated. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thats WP: OR(the first part). HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Image

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

---

{{I hate that we have to do this again but someone (cough, @FleurDeOdile:) still thinks it’s fine to revert and cause an edit war over a high quality image to a lower-grade image of Eta at peak.

Nonetheless here’s the two images:

0350Z

0355Z

I obviously prefer the first one as it is 1.) much more vibrant 2.) it’s a larger image size 3.) it is higher in quality and 4.) it is not overly saturated with regards to the landmass.

I really hope this can be resolved frankly because I do not want a Delta repeat again. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Weak preference for image 1 since it's a bit more zoomed. But if saturation is that much of an issue, then I could go with image 2, perhaps slightly cropped. However, @MarioProtIV: @FleurDeOdile:, both of you are edit warring, and I will put in a request for full protection on both pages if I see any more image reversions. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Image 2Thank you for starting a discussion as I would be ticked off to find more edit wars. Anyway, I believe image 2 is better. As FleurDeOdile said, you can see the land better in image two and I do believe the vibrancy and saturation of image 1 is overly done. Quality of the two images are about the same, but I still prefer image 2.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Image 2The quality in the pictures are basically the same, Image 2 is brighter, which I prefer. But seriously, are we having an edit war over basically the same images? FleurDeOdile usually does most of the images, and he does a pretty good job, just let him do his thing. ARegularWisconsinite🌀 ^(talk) 18:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral I honestly can't see the difference between them. They look the same to me. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Image 2 You can't really tell them apart at a quick glance but as ARegularWisconsinite said Image 2 is brighter and it is easier to see land masses Cyclonetracker (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Big deal: they are practically identical.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, either one is fine for the article imo. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 22:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral Something inbetween the images would be my preference, but I assume we don't really have that. YellowSkarmory (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral Looks like the same image. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Sigh they look the same, but if I had to choose, Image 1. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Why- they look the same (why is this even a discussion), but if I had to choose, I would do Image 2. I likehurricanes 01:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral SMB99thx my edits 03:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)}}

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

Reference for the missing

Hi:

Lately the number of missing persons has been added to 3 countries in the table. I am sure there is but I cannot find any mention or references supporting those in the rest of the text. Can somebody correct this?

Pierre cb (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

References 9 & 12 cover Mexico and Guatemala's missing - I'm not sure about where the Panama number came from, though. YellowSkarmory (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Y. I just found this reference for 62 missing in Panama. Pierre cb (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Reuters report

I saw a report by them saying there has been a mudslide today with 10 deaths in Guatemala. I assume this is from Eta. I can't find the report, is anyone able to find it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.126.173 (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

[] Here you go. YellowSkarmory (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead length

Is it just me, or is that lead insane? Can we cut it down a bit? Thx, Gex4pls (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gex4pls: That's just what happens when storms don't go in straight lines and affect millions in the process. LOL! It is possible to chop some of it, but I'm busy with something else right now.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks man. Gex4pls (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It was definitely overly detailed for a lead paragraph. I was able to cut out a decent chunk as parts could be generalized or simplified. Exact timing and progression of things isn't needed as long as the general idea of what happened is conveyed. Readers can refer to the meteorological history section for that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: I know that most of the impacts were in Central America, but shouldn't we at least include something about the storm hitting other areas in the lead sentence.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric: the opening sentence should cover the most notable aspect of the storm, which would be the effects in Central America, rather than listing everything about it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Gotcha!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Nicaragua deaths

I'm Nicaraguan. I'm writing you to inform that official resources are official resources. The SINAPRED, the prevention board of Nicaragua, stated that "No se registraron afectaciones en vidas humanas." Which means:There were no effects on human lives. So you are citing from Reuters but this news agency did not confirm the source from the official government, just for unofficial sources. Could you please correct this cite? Thanks.

Here is the official resources, you may add it. SINAPRED Regards.--🌀 Byralaal (+505-chat-toMe) 00:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Eta

Can we make this page, I think it's notable Thingofme (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thingofme: Destroyeraa has made a page for it here.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Subarticle for Nicaragua and/or Mainland USA

@Destroyeraa, ChessEric, I like hurricanes, SMB99thx, Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricane Noah, and KN2731: I was thinking about it-should these areas also have subarticles like Honduras?

Points to note

1. Eta in Guatemala killed 53, with 96 missing, and did $386 million in damage at lowest
2. The USA saw 11 deaths across Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas, and at least $1 billion in damages.

Over the weekend I'll be extremely busy with Draft: Effects of Hurricane Charley in Florida(feel free to help!), and won't have time to work on this. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please try and expand the main article first before jumping to sub-articles. I've said this before, but splitting off content when the main article has room to expand just lends to articles rotting away. Honduras was split off with only three paragraphs in the main article. It doesn't help anyone to just copy/paste the content into another article and then do nothing with it. The main articles receive far more viewership than the sub-articles, especially meteo histories as those have a very niche audience. I applaud the enthusiasm behind building more articles, but from what I've seen it has come with very little increase in substance. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but Guatemala might be something people look up. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

So expand the main article section and give them information. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

when and if i have time. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Central America? Yes, absolutely. The U.S.? No. I think that could fit in the article. Additionally, a lot of the flooding in the U.S. outside of Florida was because of Eta's moisture along a cold front, not Eta itself.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No need for a sub-article at this point. There is only 26 kb of readable text. A lot of the article's length right now are the references. Please add to this article before makin a sub-article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional Image to Meteorological History

Hi! Should we had this image to the Meteorological History section? Or another section?

Hurricane Eta nearing peak intensity satellite loop

🌀HurricaneGeek🌀 {talk} — Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Eta 2020-11-13 0200-0300Z South of Carolinas.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

C1 Image

Are there any images of Eta as a C1 in the Gulf? If there is, I think should be included in the article. 🌀HurricaneGeek🌀 {talk} 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree; however, I am not sure where I would find the image from the exact time; you can ask one of the more experienced editors to find it. HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 13:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Super Cyclonic Storm Corona: Super late reply, but I found two images of Eta as a Cat 1 off of Florida: 1, 2. Hope this helps! – 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 00:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks! ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 11:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Deaths

As far as I can tell, the source that lists 94 deaths in Honduras and 60 in Guatemala is a source that combines both storms into the same article talking about impacts. However, I'd like someone else to take a look at this, as I could be misunderstanding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this source combines both Eta and Iota hurricanes deaths and damages, any data from it should be replaced by previous figures (as far as I know: 46 for Guatemala by https://www.lapresse.ca/international/amerique-latine/2020-11-11/ouragan-eta/le-guatemala-appelle-a-l-aide-internationale.php# and 74 in Honduras by https://www.laprensa.hn/honduras/1422553-410/muertos-honduras-depresion-tropical-eta-evacuados-inundaciones). Pierre cb (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi Protection Request

This needs semi protection, i dont know how to send a request however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justcgi (talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There have only been a couple instances of vandalism in the past two weeks. Semi-protection isn't necessary right now. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

WHY?

Why in the world does the preview have only 1 citation??? ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 18:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:WHENNOTCITE, "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead." Hope this answers your question. Drdpw (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Drdpw: OK, but other articles have at least 7 citations in the lead, so why only one here? ~~ 🏅🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🏅 19:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Split the meteorological history?

Created by sockpuppet. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Eta was pretty complex in terms of track so i think it deserves an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowiskwpoopi (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There’s no need at this point, given the size of the article, but if this article gets extended much more, a split would be warranted. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose until this article grows sufficiently. Noah^Talk 20:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose who's ready to add 15KB of content to this article? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)