Talk:Hurricane Hilary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use of term "current" in section headings

I'd prefer not to see "current" per MOS:RELTIME. However, many people probably will come here for potentially lifesaving information on the storm in realtime, so perhaps it is best to WP:IAR for the time being. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Current is most frequently used class for active tropical cyclone articles. Drdpw (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

However, it appears that MX, CA, and USA projects do not use/acknowledge Current-class. Drdpw (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw: I assumed that @Bri: meant the Current Storm Information section header in the main article which is understandable, but I believe that it is used on current TC articles around the world and has been for several years.Jason Rees (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Contested deletion

• This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a topical issue that should be documented. It's the first hurricane on the west coast in almost one hundred years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:7301:FB5C:D9AB:D7F3:8179:9A09 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• This page should not be speedily deleted because... This is an ongoing severe weather event that could potentially affect the lives of 10+ million individuals, which deserves a page for the public to view

• This page should not be speedily deleted because it documents a widely covered event with plentiful reliable sources to improve the article, regardless who created it. --107.77.205.23 (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Stormchaser246 (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • This storm has the potential to be a historic event and even the first tropical cyclone to make landfall in coastal California since 1939. This is a very serious ongoing potential disaster and may have major impacts. Also many other hurricane and tropical storms have been given articles that had very little to no impact including many that never made landfall. if this article is to be deleted then there are many other articles on tropical cyclones and other subjects that should just as well be deleted.

Just to respond to all four of these contested deletions - this article on Hillary is going nowhere bar perhaps to Hurricane Hilary.Jason Rees (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Excessive citations

@세상에 열린: These citations have been removed by multiple editors as it is highly redundant and considered to be citation bombing, to have 10 seperate citations just for the words Pacific Ocean or 9 seperate citations for the words "of the 2023 Pacific hurricane season". Jason Rees (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This would clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. HurricaneEdgar 02:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

Please remove the sentence Airports across the region were affected, with Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Burbank, Long Beach, Ontario, Orange County, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and San Diego. as both unsourced and grammatically incorrect. 65.56.84.84 (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

Please add under the preparations that the San Diego Zoo was shut down due to flooding. Source: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/hurricane-hilary-whats-closed-and-canceled-in-san-diego-due-to-the-storm/3288444/?amp=1 199.76.112.12 (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, Death Valley NP is closed. 199.76.112.12 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Didn't add that it was closed due to flooding, just added that it will be closed along with a few other attractions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 August 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved. per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Hilary (2023) → Hurricane Hilary – This storm is one of only 2 storms with the name to make landfall, as well as clearly the most impactful. I understand potential arguments about recency bias and such, however, within the next several hours this will become the first Tropical Storm to end up over Southern California in nearly 100 years, and will be easily the most damaging storm of its name. AveryTheComrade (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now — If I recall correctly, we typically only give tropical cyclones the title without the year if (1) they are the only storm with that name and (2) if they get retired. There is a good chance this will get retired, hence the “for now” part. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Are you sure? EPAC rarely gets names retired I feel like. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  That’s true that EPAC doesn’t have names often retired. That said, I’m pretty sure that is the typical thing to do. In this case, there has been a ton of other Hurricane Hilary’s (List of storms named Hilary), including another category 4 system in 2011. So waiting until retirement is best. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oh year. I forgot about the other Category 4 named Hilary. LoveHop123 (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be best to wait until the decision has been made to retire the name. If retired, then we could change the article name. Otherwise, we should leave it as it is. User talk:LoveHop123 23:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Slight support Neutral (see my third comment), this definitely seems like it will be the most influential Hilary, though as of now it is still somewhat premature. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

True. It could change dramatically. They may not retire the name this year, but maybe there will be a Category 5 hurricane with that name in the next 6 years, which could be the worst. User talk:LoveHop123 00:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Further examination of each Hilary (italics means it has an article, underscore is possible contender for the Primary topic):

• TD Hilary, the only noteworthy part is that it is a TD with a name.
• 1971 HU Hilary, C2 that did not make landfall.
• 1975 TS Hilary, stayed out to sea.
• 1981 HU Hilary, C1 that doesn't look like it did anything.
• 1987 MH Hilary, C3 that looks like it might have done something.
• 1993 MH Hilary, C3 that did minimal damage but did do flash flooding across the nations.
• 1999 HU Hilary, C1 that according to the season page did no damage but might have caused minor rain in Baja California based on its track.
• 2005 HU Hilary, C2 that doesn't look like it did much.
• 2011 MH Hilary, C4, that while did affect land, only influenced Southwest Mexico. It does look the only other major Hilary though.
• 2017 HU Hilary, C2 that minimally affected land.

✶Mitch199811✶ 02:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Since death toll and damages are apparently not out of the ordinary, I am moving my vote to neutral. ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - to early to tell PRIMARTYOPIC and whether the storm name is retired or not. Wait for now, go back later. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support There have been three major hurricanes named Hilary in the Pacific but this one has received the most press coverage as it's the first to hit Southern California in a century. For this reason, I argue it's significant enough to warrant the article name change.R. J. Dockery (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Press coverage has nothing to do with this. The article should be changed only if the name is either in retirement or if enough damage has been caused, not due to the widespread media coverage it's gaining. As of right now, the name has not announced retirement yet and I don't believe enough damage has been caused for an article change. User talk:LoveHop123 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Under what authority do you unilaterally decide the discussion is over after only being published for three hours?@LoveHop123 R. J. Dockery (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the discussions above, it seems as though we decided to wait until the decision to retire the name (if so) has been made. That's why. User talk:LoveHop123 01:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you removing it so more people can respond, thank you.

@LoveHop123 R. J. Dockery (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay Fine. But I still think that waiting until retirement should be the right course of action. We don't know yet if the name will be retired or not and I think we should wait until that decision has been made. As I said earlier, "I think it would be best to wait until the decision has been made to retire the name. If retired, then we could change the article name. Otherwise, we should leave it as it is." LoveHop123 (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems too soon to consider moving the article. I think it best to keep it as is until and unless the name is retired next spring. Drdpw (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for now per above. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wait I agree with what the weather event writer says. Until the name is either strongly considered for retirement or the name is retired, I think the title should be kept as is for now. IBlazeCat (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That is what I tried to tell everyone else, but they instead want to "edit war" with me. Thank you for your support. I completely agree with you. 👍 LoveHop123 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It was decided in 2021 that retirement status should not affect page titles. Please refer to this edit for more. While retirement status might help determine which is a primary topic, it should not be the only determining factor as WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over the NHC’s decision. A similar situation is Hurricane Henri. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's supposed to be the NHC's decision, then let them decide whether or not the title should change. LoveHop123 (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m saying quite the opposite. I’m saying the NHC shouldn’t decide the title of the article, per WP:NOTBURO. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Then who should decide? Me? You? Who? LoveHop123 (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The person who closes this discussion will be the one who decides what the title will be based on the consensus of the arguments presented in this discussion and it is also worth noting that noone is editwaring with you @LoveHop123: but are presenting/discussing their views.Jason Rees (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that if there is an official entity that will or will not retire this name, then we should stay CONSISTENT with that.

Naming conventions, consistency are very important. In general, I think having the date in the title is better. Tahoekc22 (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yah but then, Typhoon Tip would have a year attached while the two last Tips (who were fish storms) might have a reasonable claim to the Typhoon Tip name. ✶Mitch199811✶ 10:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Naming conventions and consistency are important. I think we should leave it as unless the name gets officially retired. I don't think speculating on the future should be a consideration in the matter. Tahoekc22 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Partial support: I think that Hurricane Hilary (2023) can be moved to Hurricane Hilary and still be fine but it would be probably better to move it if the name gets retired in Spring 2024. HurricaneDeci (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for now: A similar situation happened with Julia of 2022; similar reasons were cited and Julia had a death toll close to 100. While Hilary was rather damaging, it's not guaranteed to be retired, and if it is, we can change it then. If it doesn't, I personally see no need to rename the article yet. Poxy4 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This discussion should now be closed. User talk:LoveHop123 02:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Discussion reopened upon your request. User talk:LoveHop123 17:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as no other usage of "Hurricane Hilary" comes close in terms of notability. Doesn't violate WP:RECENTISM to do this imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. Clearly the most notable incarnation of Hilary up until now, and there's also a strong possibility for it to be retired next year. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the above two posts. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 23:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It's definitely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the other commenters above. I think it is clear that the 2023 version of Hilary is the primary topic (at least as of this writing). If a hypothetical, more notable Hurricane Hilary would exist in the future, the title could just be reverted/returned to the one with the year (i.e. "Hurricane Hilary (2023)"), just like what was done to the Hurricane Julia (2010) and Typhoon Lan (2017) articles. Vida0007 (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the above reasons. ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 02:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support as this is the most severe Hilary, by a long shot the most notable Hilary, and the PRIMARYTOPIC. Given how the storm is historically significant already as demonstrated in the article (as well as per CBS), I don't see a reason not to move. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support for above reasons. RossoSPC (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)RossoSPC
• Support – Clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 11:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning Support. I want to see more about the impacts from this system, but I think that it's a safe bet to say that this will likely be the most memorable "Hilary" until a more destructive "Hilary" (if the name is not retired). ChessEric 20:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: If the name isn't retired, you shouldn't remove the year. Ergzay (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Many storms with the name Hilary, there was even another Hurricane Hilary that was a Category 4. If the name is retired, then I'm fine with the 2023 to be removed, but for now no. TomMasterReal^TALK 01:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@TomMasterReal: @Ergzay: It seems you both are not aware that a storm can be deemed to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC regardless if the name is retired or not. See the cases of Tropical Storm Agatha and Hurricane Agatha, both titles are now primary topics for each of those storms even though the name Agatha is still in use. Hurricane Gordon is another example. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support and comment - On the following grounds, the year can be dropped from the title of 2023's Hurricane Hilary:

1. Of all of the other storms named Hilary that Mitch mentioned, only two others (the 1993 and 2011 storms) had any impact on land. Moreover, unlike the previous two storms, only the 2023 Hilary caused any fatalities.
2. Compared with all of the other storms named Hilary, this one has the highest winds (alongside 2011's Hilary).
3. Compared with all of the other storms named Hilary, this one has the lowest barometric pressure.
4. This Hurricane Hilary broke rainfall records for four different American states. None of the other storms named Hilary accomplished such a feat anywhere else.

As for media coverage, I am hesitant to cite this in my rationale due to the fact that devastating events, such as tropical cyclones, tend to be more sensationalized if they occur in a developed country such as the United States. Fortunately, four other reasons would support a move here.

Also, even as a relatively inactive member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones (WPTC), I echo CycloneYoris's comments. I am surprised to see so many users with a perception that identifying a (sub)tropical cyclone without a year is conditioned on the retirement of that (sub)tropical cyclone's name. To my knowledge, no Wikipedia policy, guideline, or even essay encourages such a practice.

Furthermore, I quote a pertinent article title guideline from WP:WPTC, which applies to this article on 2023's Hurricane Hilary for all viewers to consult (emphasis mine):

Named hurricanes generally do not have unique names. A storm that has had its name retired may take its name for the main article (e.g. Hurricane Charley, Tropical Storm Allison, Cyclone Tracy); use the prefix appropriate for the tropical cyclone's basin. Some storms, though not being retired or being the first occurrence of a storm with that name, may be enough of a primary topic to warrant forgoing the parenthetical disambiguation, i.e. they are highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. In cases where a retired storm is not nearly as notable as another storm with the same name, the retired storm will keep the year in its title; the more notable, non-retired storm may or may not have its the year left off, depending on whether or not it is the primary topic.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 01:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I feel like you kinda exaggerate the number of fatalities which is currently 2 indirect. Also, I have seen at least an article saying that Hilary didn't do anything much out of the ordinary (at least to San Diego). Other than that I would say that these are pretty decent points to make.✶Mitch199811✶ 01:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Important to note that WikiProjects, including WikiProject Tropical Cyclones doesn't have the jurisdiction to trump a policy or create a policy, so I would be careful calling it "pertinent article title guideline", as it cannot be a true guideline unless voted on by members outside the WikiProject. What you quoted would be classified a solid suggestion from the topic's WikiProject, which has a consensus from that WikiProject. But, it isn't a true guideline. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The !opposes stating that the storm isn't retired, therefore this should have the year attached, are not supported by WP-wide policy and last I knew it was debated within WPTC. I think it's a complete misunderstanding of policy to say that a storm has to be retired to remove the disambiguator – the main thing we look for when removing a disambiguator is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the question here is whether this storm has enough long-term significance over the other Hilarys to be primary, since it's certainly getting the most views right now; I think its track will be important enough, especially considering none of the other Hilarys seem to have done much more than minimal damage. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure

The closure of this discussion was highly inappropriate as it was done after less than a day of discussion by a user who should not have closed the discussion. The discussion should be reopened and be allowed to last 7 days.--97.64.79.143 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has not been formally closed; it was inappropriate for User:LoveHop123 to declare it closed. Drdpw (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

• I request that the following sentences be removed: A 5.1-magintude earthquake occurred southeast of Ojai, California, followed by numerous aftershocks of 3.0-magnitude and greater.[73] The earthquake was felt in portions of Malibu, Porter Ranch, Manhattan Beach, and Los Angeles:
• The earthquake is unrelated to the hurricane:

Pizzaguy875 (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC) <

I feel like if two disasters happen concurrently, we ought to at least mention it. Looking up the earthquake, several sources are also mentioning the irony of the hurricane and earthquake at the same time. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Hurricanes don't create earthquakes. I'm sure that was just a coincidence. User talk:LoveHop123 23:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pizzaguy875 and @LoveHop123, I found two articles about earthquakes and their aftershocks being caused by hurricanes, are you sure about that? Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 00:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

To me, that doesn't make sense. Who knows? Maybe I am wrong. User talk:LoveHop123 00:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The universe doesn't care that you can't understand something, it still is. And to an extent, it seems somewhat reasonable as they are huge systems shifting land and relieving pressure off the plates. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

That's true. LoveHop123 (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Just noting for reference, that the sentences were re-added/kept and an additional sentence was added, since an academically peer-reviewed article in 2013 was about how hurricanes can cause earthquakes. The sentences now read: A 5.1-magintude earthquake occurred southeast of Ojai, California, followed by numerous aftershocks of 3.0-magnitude and greater.[75] The earthquake was felt in portions of Malibu, Porter Ranch, Manhattan Beach, and Los Angeles.[75] In 2013, Richard A. Lovett, published an academically peer-reviewed article in Nature, where it was discussed that hurricanes may have the ability to trigger earthquake aftershocks.[76] The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Was this earthquake caused by the earthquake though or was it just a coincidence? ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It had to be a coincidence. I don't see any reason why a hurricane should cause an earthquake. Earthquakes are "underground". We're talking about a hurricane, which is making landfall "above" the ground. That's my reasoning. User talk:LoveHop123 00:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This article makes it look like Hilary probably had a hand in the earthquakes as the area it happened had no other earthquakes. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Just looked up the definition of aftershock. It said that it's a smaller earthquake caused by the main or bigger one. Also looked at the article, which didn't make much sense to me. User talk:LoveHop123 00:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

A 5.1 followed by multiple 3.0s would easily clear that definition. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Do so and I'll look at it. :) LoveHop123 (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - The article still includes that sentence. I would take it out. (Please see discussions below for details on why.) User talk:LoveHop123 01:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Guys, we don't need that sentence in there. There is nothing related to hurricanes and earthquakes. I don't want to continue this discussion about the sentence any longer. Thank you very much, from LoveHop123. User talk:LoveHop123 01:50 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123: Just noting that the "Not done" tag doesn't just mean it isn't completed, but rather than you disagree with the reason. The reason I did the "not done" tag earlier was because I reviewed it and added another sentence so inclusion could be kept. "Done" can only be done by someone when the requested edit is completed and "Not done" is used by someone who has reviewed the requested edit and decides to not complete it. You saying "not done" is, in short, saying you want the sentences included. You might want to go back through and WP:STRIKE (not remove/delete) the comments where you mentioned "Not done". I say that because people have commented to these comments, so removing them will not create a complete talk page history in the archives. Striking the comments is how to manage errors like that. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Makes no sense. Sorry. LoveHop123 (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Sigh...@LoveHop123, are you not getting the point WeatherWriter is trying to explain to you? Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 02:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Fine. Forget about the sentence. If you want to leave it in there, that is fine. LoveHop123 (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Fork everything I've written if I'm so wrong. LoveHop123 (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking that sentence out of the article. User talk:LoveHop123 02:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Drdpw:, Since you are wanting to keep it off the article, you need to do the formal "Done" tag...Please note that I am not strike my "Not done" tag, since the info relating earthquakes to hurricanes comes from peer-reviewed journals. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Uh. Excuse me? I never said that. User talk:LoveHop123 02:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Mention of the earthquake does not belong in this article as they are completely unrelated, now if the NHC and the USGS come out and say that there is a connection, that is different. Or if someone like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell (and yes I know both of them are dead) start talking about how this natural coincidence is a sign of divine wrath, that is different too. Drdpw (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Mention of the earthquake should not be included in the article itself. How do you like that for a change? Ha Ha Ha! LoveHop123 (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Several news stations have discussed the earthquake, are you getting rid of it for fear mongering reasons or something else? ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It was the making a connection between 2 specific naturl events where there is none apparent, and the use of a decade-old study to imply that there might be a cause-&-effect relationship between these two events. But regardless, your point was well taken and bore fruit, so to speak, in a proposed paragraph suggested down-page. Drdpw (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Now I'm finished. This discussion is closed. Under my authority, I will remove any discussion after this time. Thank you very much. Hope Hurricane Hilary sweeps you away any time soon. User talk:LoveHop123 03:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, since LoveHop123 is finished with the discussion, is there anyone else opposed to mentioning the earthquake? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - WRONG. Ha! [User talk:LoveHop123] 23:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hurricanehink mobile: I have an idea for how to mention it, which I will post about in the "Earthquake" section below later this tonight when I have more time, evening meeting first. Drdpw (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

B See down-page comment. Drdpw (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is this sentence in here?

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 request that the following senetnce should be removed: In 2013, Richard A. Lovett, published an academically peer-reviewed article in Nature, where it was discussed that hurricanes may have the ability to trigger earthquake aftershocks.
• We are talking about a specific hurricane, not hurricanes in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveHop123 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done — See discussion directly above this one, which is where that sentence was added. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the Google definition, an aftershock is a small earthquake caused by a bigger earthquake, not a hurricane. Please take out the sentence. Again, the article is about a specific hurricane, not a earthquake. This discussion is now finished. User talk:LoveHop123 00:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You can't "done" your own question, given this is a big FORK from the discussion mentioned directly above and the reason for my not done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:01, 21 August 2023 (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.

Why is this sentence in here?

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 request that the following senetnce should be removed: In 2013, Richard A. Lovett, published an academically peer-reviewed article in Nature, where it was discussed that hurricanes may have the ability to trigger earthquake aftershocks.
• We are talking about a specific hurricane, not hurricanes in general.

By the way, you didn't have the right to close this discussion like that. User talk:LoveHop123 01:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes he did, please discuss this at the original thread. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't start a dispute with me. Not today. Okay? User talk:LoveHop123 01:40, 20 August 2023 (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.

Makes no sense at all.

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 request that the following senetnce should be removed: In 2013, Richard A. Lovett, published an academically peer-reviewed article in Nature, where it was discussed that hurricanes may have the ability to trigger earthquake aftershocks.
• We are talking about a specific hurricane, not hurricanes in general.

Also, I have requested a location change below. User talk:LoveHop123 01:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123 What's changed in your mind since yesterday an hour ago, when you effectively said not to change it, based on your "not done" tagging of the extended edit request to remove the sentence and another one? It would be easier to follow if you put this comment in the thread with that one—and if you would make sure to date your messages correctly, since you initially had this message time-stamped as being left 24 hours ago. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) (updated after reviewing timestamps in edit request section 02:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC))

First of all, sorry for the incorrect date. Also, this sentence in the article makes no sense. An aftershock is when a smaller earthquake is caused by a bigger earthquake. Everyone else is saying that the earthquake in Ojai, California, was caused by Hurricane Hilary, which is not true according to the definition found in Google. Earthquakes and hurricanes are not related, so that is why I requested the sentence be taken off. There you go. User talk:LoveHop123 02:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

LoveHop123, I think you missed what the exact source for that sentence is. The source for that sentence is a peer reviewed paper in the scientific journal Nature. A peer-reviewed paper is one of the best sources that can be used on Wikipedia, as it goes through intense review by subject experts in the field and can be reviewed by any scientist in the world easily. Basically, the paper trumps any google search/definition and generally would trump a media article, due to the intense scrutiny it undergoes. Hope that helps! Also, please stop creating multiple discussions. This could be discussed easily in the original thread above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred, Lovehop123 has created multiple discussions (this is the third one) in the last few hours, and doesn't wish to discuss the topic in the original discussion. I'm not going to close this one immediately since you asked them a question, however, just note this discussion is a content/discussion fork from a discussion (now 3 discussions) above this one. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It's LoveHop123, with a capital H. Thank you. User talk:LoveHop123 02:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done - If everyone wants to argue with me about some stupid sentence in an article, then this conversation will be over. I'm not starting any disputes or arguments today. So sorry. Go ahead and fork it if you think I'm wrong. Whatever. User talk:LoveHop123 02:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)  Done - This discussion is closed. User talk:LoveHop123 02:17, 21 August 2023 (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.

Location should now be changed.

The location of the now tropical storm should be changed. According to the map on the article, it is now just north of San Diego. User talk:LoveHop123 00:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So far, no changes. Guys, Hilary is now over San Bernardino/Riverside and yet the location on the article has still not been changed. Please do so. It is not 115 mi SSE of San Diego anymore. User talk:LoveHop123 01:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

For the third time now, I ask that the location be changed. It is not near San Diego anymore. User talk:LoveHop123 02:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123 I'm working on the 00:00Z update. There's something squirrelly with the windspeeds. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks to Tails Wx for helping to solve that knotty problem. 😃 (The infobox wants windspeeds in knots, not mph.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Knotty"-haha! Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 02:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I literally just said that Hilary is over San Bernardino, NOT Palm Springs. My goodness. User talk:LoveHop123 02:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

We're only going with what the latest NHC advisory is stating with the location, so it's 25 miles SSW of Palm Springs. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 02:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Send me the link, then. Ha! LoveHop123 (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

NHC advisory 18A. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 02:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Permalink: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2023/ep09/ep092023.public_a.018.shtml? —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Do what you all want then. User talk:LoveHop123 02:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123 What's your reliable source that the center of the storm is over San Bernardino, and as of what time was that accurate? —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hilary_(2023)#/media/File:2023_NHC_EP092023_5day_cone_no_line_and_wind.png User talk:LoveHop123 02:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123 That's the same center location in the advisory: 33.5N, 116.7W. NHC describes that as 25 miles SSW of Palm Springs. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Fine. Leave me out of this conversation. User talk:LoveHop123 02:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - We are now having more issues. User talk:LoveHop123 06:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Earthquake

I was glad when the earthquake was mentioned so soon after the event, particularly when emergency managers are dealing with another natural disaster. But now it's gone. Any thoughts on adding the quake in? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I think enough secondary sources do mention the "hurriquake" that it should be at least mentioned if that is what you mean. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as the discussion was closed, and doesn't have any other open topics, can we discuss the wording on the earthquake? There were early comments that, at the very least, the article should mention the earthquake as happening concurrently. That joins a rare list of earthquakes that occurred during tropical cyclones, which perhaps could be a list on its own, and could include the research into the relationship between both events. Just a thought about the hurriquakes, and maybe figuring out the best way to include it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I propose that a subsection—In popular culture—be added to the impact section stating something like: Hilary's push toward Southern California coincided with a 5.1 magnitude earthquake that struck north of Los Angeles near Ojai, California; numerous aftershocks of 3.0‑magnitude and greater followed. No damage or injuries were reported from the quakes.[1] As a result, the term "hurriquake" trended on social media.[2][3] Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd support, sounds good, no issues. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 04:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I like this version the most yet. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Drdpw (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Tornado Warning

Why is there a sentence saying a tornado warning was issued in Alpine and Descanso in California? Tornadoes do not occur in California, especially in the mountains (Alpine & Descanso). This makes no sense. That sentence better be taken off soon. Also, as I mentioned earlier, Hilary went over San Bernardino & Riverside. It did not strike Palm Springs. And another thing. The earthquake that was mentioned during our what I call the "Earthquake Dispute" was not caused by the hurricane, but rather an aftershock. According to Google, an aftershock is a smaller earthquake caused by a bigger earthquake. Instead, you all gave us ridiculous reasons that Hurricane Hilary, which is ABOVE GROUND, caused the earthquake, which is BELOW GROUND, which I tried explaining to you all during the RIDICULOUS "Earthquake Dispute." Anyway, how can a tornado occur in the mountains? Explain it to me. Otherwise, get rid of it. Again, they don't occur in California. Thank you very much.

LoveHop123 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123: Tornado Warning including Alpine CA and Descanso CA until 4:00 PM PDT (@NWSTornado) & Use extreme caution if you are in this area. Radar has indicated rotation and possible Tornado in eastern San Diego County near Alpine and Descanso. (@NWS San Diego). So just being honest, you are wrong and tornadoes do occur in California, hence the List of California tornadoes article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It did not strike Palm Springs. No, but Palm Springs is what was given as the reference point for its position by the National Hurricane Center and NOAA. No reliable source was ever provided to indicate that the center passed over San Bernardino and Riverside (although the center coordinates from the 00:00Z update appear to have been in Riverside County?).

For what it's worth, for the 09:00Z update, the center of the storm is in Nevada, but it's described as 390 miles north of San Diego in Public Advisory 20.[4] —C.Fred (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

MORE ISSUES! TORNADO WARNING MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!

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.

---

 Not done - Unless the tornado warning is taken off, as I have requested, we are going to have some serious trouble brewing up here. Now take out that nonsense sentence. Thank you very much. That is all. No arguments. User talk:LoveHop123 06:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123: Tornado Warning including Alpine CA and Descanso CA until 4:00 PM PDT (@NWSTornado) & Use extreme caution if you are in this area. Radar has indicated rotation and possible Tornado in eastern San Diego County near Alpine and Descanso. (@NWS San Diego). So just being honest, you are wrong and tornadoes do occur in California, hence the List of California tornadoes article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:46, 21 August 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

Please add in the impact section that numerous records for rainiest august days were broken in places like San Diego, Los Angeles and Palm Springs. Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/hilary-rainfall-totals-california-areas-almost-met-the-yearly-average-for-rain-inches/ 97.64.79.143 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Later – Such details will be added over the next few days. Drdpw (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Added as requested. Drdpw (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

School closures - preparation or impact?

I was looking through the "preparations" section of the article and noticed that various school closures throughout impacted areas were listed there, "On August 20, 2023, the Los Angeles Unified School District announced that campuses would be closed the following day..." However, since those school closures were announced on the day/just after the storm hit SoCal, and were based on the fact that it may be dangerous for students to get to school when roads are flooded and trees are blown down, shouldn't they be considered to be impacts of the storm instead? I am not too sure about the guidelines on this kind of stuff, so I'm trying to get some sort of input here before moving the school closures from the "preparations" section to "impacts". Thanks! David Jiang (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@DJTechYT, I think it should remain in the "preparations" section, since the school closures were announced in advance and anticipation of Hilary, as the Deadline reports. Thanks for bringing this up, though! Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 17:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

ah ok, thanks for the clarification. David Jiang (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

If something is trying to save lives, it's a preparation. If something kills or damages you, it is an impact. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That's true. Good point. LoveHop123 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2023 (2)

Please add in the impact section that the 2.20 in (56 mm) of rain that fell in Death Valley preliminary broke the all time rainfall record for a single day. Source: https://www.fox5vegas.com/2023/08/21/death-valley-sees-possible-new-record-single-day-rainfall/ 4.4.139.206 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@4.4.139.206:  Done, thank you. PurpleLights 02:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2023

A second angels game was postponed, though I’m not sure if it should be added to preparations or impacts. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/hurricane-hilary-forces-mlb-schedule-tweaks-angels-postpone-another-game-monday-night/amp/ 173.23.45.183 (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 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. M.Bitton (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough to add.  Done, added to "Impacts" section since the wet conditions at the stadium which the baseball game was supposed to be held was impacted by Hilary. Tails Wx 14:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)