This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hurricane Ophelia (2017) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Hiberno-English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The track image seems to be truncated far south of the storm's current position - I presume this is because protocol denotes that the track image ends when post-tropical transition begins, but isn't it a little misleading in this case - considering that the biggest impacts will be felt in Ireland and possibly the UK, and yet neither of these countries is even visible on the map in the image? Is it possible to extend the track to include the landfalling post-tropical stage?
This article will definitely need a "Records" section (in keeping with all of the other TC articles that depicted storms that have broken some records). Ophelia has already broken the record for being the most intense storm observed that far east in the Atlantic, and it will probably break some more records in the days to come (once the system reaches the British Isles). As such, I will create this section as soon as I can add some more material to it, assuming that the section isn't already created by then. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 03:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
NRL stopped updating the VIS-IR link with new images. The only image available at the link that is newer than the one currently being used (with is from ~30 hours ago) in the infobox is a mere 30 minutes newer but lower quality due to being infrared instead of visible. We'll need to use images from other sources. Master of Time (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@ MarioProtIV and Master0Garfield: Seriously? Are you two really bikeshedding over this? Since peak intensity was operationally assessed to be 15z, Master0Garfield's image should take precedence. Mario, please do not revert others' edits without using an edit summary, the fact that you earlier did that here is not helpful at all.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I really don't think it matters if the image is a few minutes off peak if it looks much better. The image I posted shows Ophelia's eye much more clearly, and I think it would look better on the page, JMO. - Garfield —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The time of peak intensity is arbirtary anyway because they don't put an exact time on it, to the second or even to the minute. Do you really think tropical cyclones just happen to reach their peak intensity exactly on the hour every single time? It's rounded to the nearest advisory etc. so since Master0Garfield's image is the better one (better defined eye, much clearer etc.) and is still within an acceptable time frame I'm putting my support behind him and reinstating it. Buttons0603 ( talk) 16:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@ MarioProtIV:, why did you undo me when I added a comma to the image description? I felt that the comma was needed to set off a parenthetical phrase. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@ LightandDark2000 and MarioProtIV:, why must you resume edit-warring over the infobox image? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hurricane_Ophelia_(2017)&diff=next&oldid=831606906 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hurricane_Ophelia_(2017)&diff=next&oldid=832425009 Remember that @ Callanecc: said that anyone who changes the image, even if it's just a revert, without consensus, which neither or you two had, would be blocked. Here's a thought: Why can't the infobox show both? And so you don't get into an even more petty edit war about which one should be first (and appear by default), I think that commons:File:Ophelia 2017 track.png would be an unbiased option. What do others think? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@ 109.155.167.10:, did you not see the comment in the infobox specifically saying to not change the image without obtaining talk page consensus first? @ Xyklone:, while 109.155.167.10 shouldn't have changed the image him/herself in the first place, @ Callanecc: said that anyone who changes the image without consensus would be block, even if the user was just reverting another edit. This slow-moving edit war has been doing on for too long, and I think that I've finally thought of a compromise. What if the infobox allows visitors to the page to switch between the two images, and to prevent an edit war over which image appears by default, also put the track in the infobox and have that display by default. @ Jasper Deng and Jason Rees:, what are your opinions? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Jasper Deng: Are you edit-warring over the same thing in Hurricane Juliette (2001) and Hurricane Carlotta (2000)? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Jasper Deng: Can you give me one good reason for not including the latest advisory on a Category 1-force cyclone? There is no established policy saying "remove all information" just because a system is not tropical, and this definitely seems counterproductive. The only sense I can rationalize this is at the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season article because the system is not tropical, but this is a serious system that you are removing current information from despite it having its own dedicated article. Master of Time (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
Infobox hurricane current}}
and removing all current information?
Master of Time
(talk)
03:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)I would advise against doing so until the storm is not threatening land. Figfires Send me a message! 03:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
|time=
parameter) before removing it permanently.
Master of Time
(talk)
04:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)I see no reason why we shouldnt adapt the infobox and continue using it in this situation advisories are being issued under the heading WONT54 EGRR. Oh and @ Yellow Evan: AFAIK the UKMO are a WMO appointed RSMC for the Atlantic basin (RSMC Exeter), in the same way that the NCEP is. Jason Rees ( talk)
Surely this storm has dissipated now? ( Paul237 ( talk) 19:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC))
Many news related the extremely high temperatures and strong winds in mainland Portugal and Spain with hurricane Ophelia: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/15/deadly-spanish-wildfires-bear-town-vigo-hundreds-evacuated/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/portugal-spain-wildfires-forest-fires-ophelia-villages-evacuated https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/world/europe/portugal-spain-fires.html
This Sunday has been classified the worst wild fire day of the year, which is highly uncommon since the fire season has already finished. The toll death is already at 31 and unfortunately will rise since large areas of the country are uncommunicable. Is it appropriate to include this information? Japf ( talk) 12:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
IMO the wildfires shouldn't be in the article at all, since they're not caused by Ophelia but by arson, and it is arguable how many casulties the wildfires would have caused with and how many without Ophelia. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 03:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Correlation does not equate causation, so I think it is wrong to attribute wildfire deaths to Ophelia in the way the article does at present. I'm pleased the info box makes the distinction. Lacunae ( talk) 23:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I know this may seem trivial, but what is the grammatical point in these commas? The sentence is not a run-on without the commas since there are not two independent clauses. Master of Time (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we use the DMY format on Atlantic hurricanes? We usually use the MDY format and besides the fact that is impacting the UK and Ireland, I see no reason to have it in DMY format. Alternate proposal would be to convert to MDY for the US-based parts (infobox, MH). -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 21:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Auree ★ ★ 10:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus/revisit in Spring if name is retired. Arguments on both sides are about even in terms of weight and support from Wikipedia policy. There does not appear to be consensus on whether or not the title should be changed, so it will remain as "Hurricane Ophelia (2017)". The Portugal wildfires shouldn't be weighted heavily as part of the direct impacts of Ophelia, and when excluded the system doesn't stand out much from other windstorms that strike the British Isles regularly. As a side note, there is some support for moving the article to "Storm Ophelia" based on its name in Ireland and the United Kingdom. There isn't enough commentary on that aspect for me to make a decision with the third possible title so if editors wish to move it to "Storm Ophelia", they are welcome to start up another discussion. Keeping Storm Ophelia as a redirect to this article suffices for now. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 17:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hurricane Ophelia (2017) → Hurricane Ophelia – Honestly this one looks to be the notorious one, given it did over a billion in the UK/Ireland. Although 2011 was stronger, that one did minimal damage. Small chance this is like Isaac 2012 again where it does the most damage (as C1) in the billions but not the main topic. Thoughts? MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 16:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose It's only the second day after and the storm already dropped off the news outlets. There's no further destruction like with any other European windstorm. The effects on the iberian wildfires are only indirect. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 03:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Neutral This may be an excessively long response for a !vote without a position one way or the other, but hopefully the rationale behind it is useful. It's difficult to determine to what extent this meets our precedents for primary articles right now. This storm does have many characteristics that I'd say warrant being the primary, such as causing a significant amount of structural damage as well as significant loss of life, and this storm also has many unique factors such as being a rare tropical/post-tropical cyclone to strike Europe (and even more rare is that it struck at hurricane force despite being extra-tropical). That being said, ambiguity does remain. I wouldn't support "Storm Ophelia," "Ex-Hurricane Ophelia," or "Windstorm Ophelia" unless I knew with confidence that we had an established precedent that the common name applies here and, as said by CycloneIsaac, would likely necessitate that Hurricane Sandy be referred to as Superstorm Sandy due to its common name rather than its official name. I offer conditional support with the condition being that the name is retired. When considering that many of the comparable storms to Ophelia occurred in the 19th century, one certainly could make the argument that an event as uncommon as this wouldn't be quickly forgotten, but we can't know what people will think of this storm in the next decade. Ophelia certainly can't be grouped with highly recognizable and catastrophic storms such as Katrina, Wilma, Sandy, and this season's Harvey, Irma, Maria, etc. With that in mind, there have also been far less catastrophic and far less recognizable storms that still warrant being the primaries of their respective names because they were destructive enough to be retired. I recommend reopening this rename request after the season has ended because the clearest determining factor in this instance should be whether or not the name is retired. If there will never be another Atlantic storm named Ophelia, we can make it the primary (unless a Pacific storm causes the name to be retired twice). If it does not get retired, the current name should be sufficient. BrendonTheWizard ( talk) 05:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Considering this is clearly no consensus I’m wishing someone can close this. Will wait to see what WMO says in March/April. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 11:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Once again pinging @ Cyclonebiskit: to close this since there is clearly no consensus to move the page. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 11:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Can person who reverted my edit back to 'a third man died' please not repeat this and acknowledge that this wording is rude and insensitive to the family of teh woman who died? There is a word in the English language for human individuals regardless of gender and that word is 'person'. No 'third man' died, the tragedy is that three people died. The gender of the third person to lose their life is made clear by teh secon part of teh sentence which states that a tree fell on his car. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 16:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I've protected the page to sop the disruption. Please discuss edits here before changing.
At a glance, I'd say we probably want to keep UK European date format as the thing hit the UK/Ireland Europe. That is to say rather than the US format. That's something you can discuss here.
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
22:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
My sourced report of RTE's article on a possible link with Global Warming was reverted, with the edit description:
I have reverted it back with the edit description Per Talk, so I am now givng my reasons here.
Tlhslobus ( talk) 20:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
We must not forget, Ophelia did all of this in mid 70s water temperatures. There are other factors besides this. Caesar Panda I ( talk) 00:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"...We must not forget, Ophelia did all of this in mid 70s water temperatures...." - Which immediately puts the kibosh on "warming" nonsense (however "reliable" one's hysterical and possibly politically-motivated source is). The National Hurricane Center's own discussions noted a COLD upper troposphere over the north Atlantic at the time (resulting in an unstable environment over the not-as-cold ocean). Cold atmospheric "heights", if anomalous and global, are a result of diminished solar activity. It should also be noted that Ophilia was probably not any stronger than Debbie, which hit Ireland in 1961 (Ophellia had lower maximum gusts despite hitting the island directly). We just have better satellites now.
Hi:
I find very overblown the estimated cost of the storm as indicated in the Infobox (1.8 billion US$). This comes from and article citing a panel of expert estimating the economical losses mostly on the basis of the lack of economic activity (close businesses, factories, etc...), as very little actual physical damages are expected. This large amount should not appear there or be qualified as hypothetical.
Furthermore, the death in the Iberian fires are not the result of Ophelia. They were mostly deliberatly set before the passage of the hurricane. Only an increase of the wind far away from the system has helped fan the flames. According to the distance from the system the wind should not have be some strong either (see these analysis maps where the strongest winds are 30 knots). This is just journalistic houpla! How can it be counted as Ophelia's fault?
Pierre cb ( talk) 13:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I still think it would be a good idea to just change the name to Hurricane Ophelia without the (2017) it did far more damage and caused far more deaths than either the 2005 or 2011 one. Over 1 billion pounds of damage, the biggest storm in 30 years. Even if it's not retired, this is the one people will probably be looking for. BananaIAm ( talk) 18:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm including the link to the discussion in the title because this article and talk page are going to get more views. Please only state your opinion on the talk page for Windstorm Ophelia (2017), not here, or else your opinion won't be counted. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 00:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hurricane Ophelia (2017) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Hiberno-English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The track image seems to be truncated far south of the storm's current position - I presume this is because protocol denotes that the track image ends when post-tropical transition begins, but isn't it a little misleading in this case - considering that the biggest impacts will be felt in Ireland and possibly the UK, and yet neither of these countries is even visible on the map in the image? Is it possible to extend the track to include the landfalling post-tropical stage?
This article will definitely need a "Records" section (in keeping with all of the other TC articles that depicted storms that have broken some records). Ophelia has already broken the record for being the most intense storm observed that far east in the Atlantic, and it will probably break some more records in the days to come (once the system reaches the British Isles). As such, I will create this section as soon as I can add some more material to it, assuming that the section isn't already created by then. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 03:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
NRL stopped updating the VIS-IR link with new images. The only image available at the link that is newer than the one currently being used (with is from ~30 hours ago) in the infobox is a mere 30 minutes newer but lower quality due to being infrared instead of visible. We'll need to use images from other sources. Master of Time (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@ MarioProtIV and Master0Garfield: Seriously? Are you two really bikeshedding over this? Since peak intensity was operationally assessed to be 15z, Master0Garfield's image should take precedence. Mario, please do not revert others' edits without using an edit summary, the fact that you earlier did that here is not helpful at all.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I really don't think it matters if the image is a few minutes off peak if it looks much better. The image I posted shows Ophelia's eye much more clearly, and I think it would look better on the page, JMO. - Garfield —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The time of peak intensity is arbirtary anyway because they don't put an exact time on it, to the second or even to the minute. Do you really think tropical cyclones just happen to reach their peak intensity exactly on the hour every single time? It's rounded to the nearest advisory etc. so since Master0Garfield's image is the better one (better defined eye, much clearer etc.) and is still within an acceptable time frame I'm putting my support behind him and reinstating it. Buttons0603 ( talk) 16:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@ MarioProtIV:, why did you undo me when I added a comma to the image description? I felt that the comma was needed to set off a parenthetical phrase. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@ LightandDark2000 and MarioProtIV:, why must you resume edit-warring over the infobox image? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hurricane_Ophelia_(2017)&diff=next&oldid=831606906 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hurricane_Ophelia_(2017)&diff=next&oldid=832425009 Remember that @ Callanecc: said that anyone who changes the image, even if it's just a revert, without consensus, which neither or you two had, would be blocked. Here's a thought: Why can't the infobox show both? And so you don't get into an even more petty edit war about which one should be first (and appear by default), I think that commons:File:Ophelia 2017 track.png would be an unbiased option. What do others think? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@ 109.155.167.10:, did you not see the comment in the infobox specifically saying to not change the image without obtaining talk page consensus first? @ Xyklone:, while 109.155.167.10 shouldn't have changed the image him/herself in the first place, @ Callanecc: said that anyone who changes the image without consensus would be block, even if the user was just reverting another edit. This slow-moving edit war has been doing on for too long, and I think that I've finally thought of a compromise. What if the infobox allows visitors to the page to switch between the two images, and to prevent an edit war over which image appears by default, also put the track in the infobox and have that display by default. @ Jasper Deng and Jason Rees:, what are your opinions? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Jasper Deng: Are you edit-warring over the same thing in Hurricane Juliette (2001) and Hurricane Carlotta (2000)? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Jasper Deng: Can you give me one good reason for not including the latest advisory on a Category 1-force cyclone? There is no established policy saying "remove all information" just because a system is not tropical, and this definitely seems counterproductive. The only sense I can rationalize this is at the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season article because the system is not tropical, but this is a serious system that you are removing current information from despite it having its own dedicated article. Master of Time (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
Infobox hurricane current}}
and removing all current information?
Master of Time
(talk)
03:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)I would advise against doing so until the storm is not threatening land. Figfires Send me a message! 03:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
|time=
parameter) before removing it permanently.
Master of Time
(talk)
04:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)I see no reason why we shouldnt adapt the infobox and continue using it in this situation advisories are being issued under the heading WONT54 EGRR. Oh and @ Yellow Evan: AFAIK the UKMO are a WMO appointed RSMC for the Atlantic basin (RSMC Exeter), in the same way that the NCEP is. Jason Rees ( talk)
Surely this storm has dissipated now? ( Paul237 ( talk) 19:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC))
Many news related the extremely high temperatures and strong winds in mainland Portugal and Spain with hurricane Ophelia: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/15/deadly-spanish-wildfires-bear-town-vigo-hundreds-evacuated/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/portugal-spain-wildfires-forest-fires-ophelia-villages-evacuated https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/world/europe/portugal-spain-fires.html
This Sunday has been classified the worst wild fire day of the year, which is highly uncommon since the fire season has already finished. The toll death is already at 31 and unfortunately will rise since large areas of the country are uncommunicable. Is it appropriate to include this information? Japf ( talk) 12:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
IMO the wildfires shouldn't be in the article at all, since they're not caused by Ophelia but by arson, and it is arguable how many casulties the wildfires would have caused with and how many without Ophelia. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 03:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Correlation does not equate causation, so I think it is wrong to attribute wildfire deaths to Ophelia in the way the article does at present. I'm pleased the info box makes the distinction. Lacunae ( talk) 23:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I know this may seem trivial, but what is the grammatical point in these commas? The sentence is not a run-on without the commas since there are not two independent clauses. Master of Time (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Since when do we use the DMY format on Atlantic hurricanes? We usually use the MDY format and besides the fact that is impacting the UK and Ireland, I see no reason to have it in DMY format. Alternate proposal would be to convert to MDY for the US-based parts (infobox, MH). -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 21:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Auree ★ ★ 10:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus/revisit in Spring if name is retired. Arguments on both sides are about even in terms of weight and support from Wikipedia policy. There does not appear to be consensus on whether or not the title should be changed, so it will remain as "Hurricane Ophelia (2017)". The Portugal wildfires shouldn't be weighted heavily as part of the direct impacts of Ophelia, and when excluded the system doesn't stand out much from other windstorms that strike the British Isles regularly. As a side note, there is some support for moving the article to "Storm Ophelia" based on its name in Ireland and the United Kingdom. There isn't enough commentary on that aspect for me to make a decision with the third possible title so if editors wish to move it to "Storm Ophelia", they are welcome to start up another discussion. Keeping Storm Ophelia as a redirect to this article suffices for now. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 17:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hurricane Ophelia (2017) → Hurricane Ophelia – Honestly this one looks to be the notorious one, given it did over a billion in the UK/Ireland. Although 2011 was stronger, that one did minimal damage. Small chance this is like Isaac 2012 again where it does the most damage (as C1) in the billions but not the main topic. Thoughts? MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 16:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose It's only the second day after and the storm already dropped off the news outlets. There's no further destruction like with any other European windstorm. The effects on the iberian wildfires are only indirect. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 03:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Neutral This may be an excessively long response for a !vote without a position one way or the other, but hopefully the rationale behind it is useful. It's difficult to determine to what extent this meets our precedents for primary articles right now. This storm does have many characteristics that I'd say warrant being the primary, such as causing a significant amount of structural damage as well as significant loss of life, and this storm also has many unique factors such as being a rare tropical/post-tropical cyclone to strike Europe (and even more rare is that it struck at hurricane force despite being extra-tropical). That being said, ambiguity does remain. I wouldn't support "Storm Ophelia," "Ex-Hurricane Ophelia," or "Windstorm Ophelia" unless I knew with confidence that we had an established precedent that the common name applies here and, as said by CycloneIsaac, would likely necessitate that Hurricane Sandy be referred to as Superstorm Sandy due to its common name rather than its official name. I offer conditional support with the condition being that the name is retired. When considering that many of the comparable storms to Ophelia occurred in the 19th century, one certainly could make the argument that an event as uncommon as this wouldn't be quickly forgotten, but we can't know what people will think of this storm in the next decade. Ophelia certainly can't be grouped with highly recognizable and catastrophic storms such as Katrina, Wilma, Sandy, and this season's Harvey, Irma, Maria, etc. With that in mind, there have also been far less catastrophic and far less recognizable storms that still warrant being the primaries of their respective names because they were destructive enough to be retired. I recommend reopening this rename request after the season has ended because the clearest determining factor in this instance should be whether or not the name is retired. If there will never be another Atlantic storm named Ophelia, we can make it the primary (unless a Pacific storm causes the name to be retired twice). If it does not get retired, the current name should be sufficient. BrendonTheWizard ( talk) 05:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Considering this is clearly no consensus I’m wishing someone can close this. Will wait to see what WMO says in March/April. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 11:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Once again pinging @ Cyclonebiskit: to close this since there is clearly no consensus to move the page. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 11:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Can person who reverted my edit back to 'a third man died' please not repeat this and acknowledge that this wording is rude and insensitive to the family of teh woman who died? There is a word in the English language for human individuals regardless of gender and that word is 'person'. No 'third man' died, the tragedy is that three people died. The gender of the third person to lose their life is made clear by teh secon part of teh sentence which states that a tree fell on his car. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 16:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I've protected the page to sop the disruption. Please discuss edits here before changing.
At a glance, I'd say we probably want to keep UK European date format as the thing hit the UK/Ireland Europe. That is to say rather than the US format. That's something you can discuss here.
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
22:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
My sourced report of RTE's article on a possible link with Global Warming was reverted, with the edit description:
I have reverted it back with the edit description Per Talk, so I am now givng my reasons here.
Tlhslobus ( talk) 20:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
We must not forget, Ophelia did all of this in mid 70s water temperatures. There are other factors besides this. Caesar Panda I ( talk) 00:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"...We must not forget, Ophelia did all of this in mid 70s water temperatures...." - Which immediately puts the kibosh on "warming" nonsense (however "reliable" one's hysterical and possibly politically-motivated source is). The National Hurricane Center's own discussions noted a COLD upper troposphere over the north Atlantic at the time (resulting in an unstable environment over the not-as-cold ocean). Cold atmospheric "heights", if anomalous and global, are a result of diminished solar activity. It should also be noted that Ophilia was probably not any stronger than Debbie, which hit Ireland in 1961 (Ophellia had lower maximum gusts despite hitting the island directly). We just have better satellites now.
Hi:
I find very overblown the estimated cost of the storm as indicated in the Infobox (1.8 billion US$). This comes from and article citing a panel of expert estimating the economical losses mostly on the basis of the lack of economic activity (close businesses, factories, etc...), as very little actual physical damages are expected. This large amount should not appear there or be qualified as hypothetical.
Furthermore, the death in the Iberian fires are not the result of Ophelia. They were mostly deliberatly set before the passage of the hurricane. Only an increase of the wind far away from the system has helped fan the flames. According to the distance from the system the wind should not have be some strong either (see these analysis maps where the strongest winds are 30 knots). This is just journalistic houpla! How can it be counted as Ophelia's fault?
Pierre cb ( talk) 13:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I still think it would be a good idea to just change the name to Hurricane Ophelia without the (2017) it did far more damage and caused far more deaths than either the 2005 or 2011 one. Over 1 billion pounds of damage, the biggest storm in 30 years. Even if it's not retired, this is the one people will probably be looking for. BananaIAm ( talk) 18:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm including the link to the discussion in the title because this article and talk page are going to get more views. Please only state your opinion on the talk page for Windstorm Ophelia (2017), not here, or else your opinion won't be counted. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 00:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)