Talk:Hurricane Lane (2018)

Requested move 22 August 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is strong consensus that it is simply too early to gauge whether or not this storm will be the primary topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Lane (2018) → Hurricane Lane – WP:PRIMARY and presents extremely rare threat to Hawaii and the latest cone has it on top of Honolulu, which is a popular city. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hold until impact No reason to move until after it has an impact. If it is deemed to be severe, we can then move it. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hold off until impact imminent. Let's see what happens. Perhaps by this time tomorrow the move might be warranted. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• It's going to take a lot for me to be convinced the year should be dropped off one of the more important EPAC landfalling majors. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Yellow Evan. At the moment, there is a threat from Lane (that likely will be borne out in the coming week), but 2006's incarnation of the storm had major damage in Mexico. I think it's just too early to justify moving this year's storm until it actually produces any impact in Hawai‘i while the 2006 storm did $230 million in Mexico (which seems pretty impactful for an East Pacific storm). — Iunetalk 03:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hold until Spring - Not guaranteed to have more impact than the Lane of 2006, so it should be made sure it is actually retired. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hold until TCR as 2006 incarnation was very notable. Grammarguruguy (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well that's at least a three-year wait. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hold until Impact - This would be about a week or so. This is way too early. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Hold until impact analysis is done - I agree with Nova Crystallis. 2006's edition of Hurricane Lane did quite a lot of damage; we should wait until it is clear how much damage this year's hurricane does. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support - Catastrophic flooding is occurring now on the Big Island, up to 31 inches of rain have already been recorded. Time to move it IMO. Jdcomix (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you ever consider that Lane 06 also brought significant effects and at this point it might be premature to already call this catastrophic - signficantly and substantially more so than the 06 edition given the overall lack of impact available? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 13:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Normally I'd agree with you but numerous reliable sources, including the CPHC (http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/tcpages/archive/2018/TCPCP2.EP142018.39A.201808241146), are calling the flooding "catastrophic". Jdcomix (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
      • "Catastrophic", especially while a storm is ongoing, is subjective in terms of how much damage that implies and it's not entirely clear how widespread this is. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Hold until Impact - While the outlook is certainly grim (for Oahu in particular), as per WP: Crystal Ball we really should wait until the storm dissipates and a full analysis of damages has been conducted. Lane '06 caused well over $200 Million USD in damages, and was itself a very significant storm. If the name is retired, then I will change this to a Support. BearGlyph (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Hold until Impact – Just wait until it is catastrophic enough to change the name. 70.190.21.73 (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Hold until Dissipation - In my opinion, we should only configure the title name of this article after we visualize its impacts, possibly after Lane dissipates. Derpdadoodle (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Hold until impact – for all we know, the next Lane could be worse.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Hold until Impact - Reading the 2006 article these 2 are more or less somewhat identical in terms of how things have progressed so far although this years obviously looks more worse, Best to wait until impact before moving. –Davey2010^Talk 16:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reopening discussion now as the storm has made its impact known.

• Oppose since this storm failed to distinguish itself from others in terms of impact (it had less than Lane 2006).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Jasper Deng: Still too early to tell as the damage has not been assessed. Lane did break Iniki's record after lingering moisture from the system contributed to a lot more rainfall. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No. It's pretty clear already that the impacts were less than the 2006 incarnation of Lane.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jasper Deng: It is quite questionable now which did higher damage. A report about disasters in August recently came out that said hundreds of millions in damages. However, no official estimate has been released as of yet. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Hold until Spring - Less impact than Lane 2006 so far. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Now that Lane is Cat 5

Lane is now Cat 5, so we’ll need to improve its article to GA/FA to be part of List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes. Grammarguruguy (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't pass this at GA unless the TCR came out so we may have a few years. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: It's a featured topic, you don't have the few years, few months at best. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The 3 month retention period shouldn't kick in since I don't think in this case this could be made a GA until the TCR comes out. There's precedent (see Celia 10 and Rick 09) for this. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Where in the GA requirements does it require the TCR to be out? If this were the NHC, then sure, but the CPHC is almost certainly going to be extremely tardy with this one, so the stability argument does not apply.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well before I go further, you do realize that the NHC will be issuing a TCR on this as well, right? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Yes and the most important part of the storm's lifetime (over 75% of its ACE after all) is by far the Central Pacific portion. NHC's revisions will be minor compared to what CPHC will do. Is it really that hard to revise for that portion once we have it? I really do not see why it would be much different. This again is not, was not, and never will be part of the GA requirements.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The idea (and precedent) to wait for the TCR prior to GAN was based on a 2008 era notion that an article would not be complete enough to pass the GA criteria. Given that I've seen editors re-write MH's post-TCR from time to time, it's not an unreasonable take. Now to be fair, one could argue that due to the CPHC slowness, it makes waiting not worthwhile (in a manner similar to how we moved through the Atlantic 1950's decade GT a few years before re-analysis). But I do for sure do not think it's reasonable to expect this to be able to pass a GA without in three months of when the article was created. Perhaps when August 2018 stormdata comes out would be a good time to enforce the 3 month retention period, when we'll have a better idea on a damage total and is probably the best way structurally to flesh out the impact? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, it was only cat 5 for a few hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpdadoodle (talk • contribs) 15:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Even if it was only a few hours, it still counts as a Cat 5 because that's what it was at peak strength. BearGlyph (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cat 3?

Some news reports are showing it's now a category 3. GeekInParadise (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@GeekInParadise: The official advisory http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/tcpages/archive/2018/TCPCP2.EP142018.37A.201808240002 Remember this isn't a place for general discussion/questions regarding Lane. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 01:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Current storm status [link to noaa.gov] which seems to update every few hours.

Please add <REF> link to http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/tcpages/?storm=Lane

which seems to update every few hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copeland.James.H (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Current storm status [link to http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/tcpages/?storm=Lane] which seems to update every few hours.

Please add a link to http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/tcpages/?storm=Lane which seems to update every few hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copeland.James.H (talk • contribs) 17:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Subsections in the Impact Section

I have added 2 subsections to the impact section. I know there isn't a lot of content in the impact section right now, but with the impact this storm had, subsections are warranted. There is a lot of content out there that can be added to fill out those subsections. The current subsections are Hawaii and Maui. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 00:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hurricane Lane landslide in Oahu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism

Seriously, does anybody have any idea who was responsible for the lime green text vandalism back last August? Early on August 29, 2018 (UTC time), I noticed that all of the text on this article below Template:Wettest tropical cyclones in Hawaii was lime green, which I found extremely irritating. It turns out that this same problem affected the List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States article as well, and probably every other article employing the said template. I looked for quite some time, but I couldn't find out where exactly (or on what page, for that matter) the vandalism had happened. The vandalism eventually reverted - several hours later. It was probably on some template or module page, since only those kind of pages can result in the kind of widespread font vandalism that had happened then, and this kind of sneaky vandalism requires the skill and experience that only an LTA is capable of. Does anyone know exactly who did the vandalism back then? I still haven't figured it out, and it really bothers me. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

922

I've undone the change to 926 since while the TCR is out, its central Pacific portion is only parroting the operational best track, which explicitly is declared to not be reanalyzed. Thus we should stick to the advisory value of 922, which comes from a special advisory issued at a nonsynoptic time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The operational best track is a post-advisory assessment, and is inherently more refined than operational advisories. The TCR is the final word on any storm intensities and it clearly shows 140kt/926mb as the peak. We always defer to the TCR over operational advisories even when incomplete. There is no mention of 922mb anywhere in the report, thus until the CPHC finalizes the report the 926mb is the most recent minimum pressure estimate. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No, CPHC had that point at 926 even before the 922 was measured, and never changed it post-advisory. Furthermore, the 922 came at a nonsynoptic time omitted by the TCR and nonsynoptic peak intensities are not guaranteed to be entered into the operational best track. The NHC didn't do that with Maria's 908 at 4z: [1].--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Another way to view it is, just because NHC (which isn't the RSMC for the central Pacific) published a document does not have any bearing on what CPHC considers to be its official view.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting dilemma. Normally, I agree that the tropical cyclone report supersedes any and all operational information, and is effectively the final word. The report giving 926 mb as a peak intensity—and TCR peaks are not bound to synoptic times—would seem to suggest the 922 is obsolete, but that may not be the case in this unusual circumstance. The report notes in footnote 1 that the report's updated information only reflects post-analysis data associated with Lane within the National Hurricane Center's area of responsibility and will be updated once the Central Pacific Hurricane Center completes its analyses of Lane within its respective area of responsibility. To me, this is an indication that the CPHC portion of the track—which includes the peak—has not been reviewed, and I consider the advisory and pre-CPHC TCR smoothed best track as equivalent in priority, particularly because they don't necessarily contradict each other (advisory and track points are at different times). Acknowledging the time differences, 922 is still the lowest published undisputed value so I'd stick with that. I note that the TCR's "Meteorological Statistics" section, which usually has a paragraph dedicated to justifying the peak intensity, makes no justification of the storm's peak intensity within the CPHC area of responsibility. --TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 03:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Per an email to the CPHC by Jason Rees "it appears that the 926 mb is going to be the final lowest pressure". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Lane (2018)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 16:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• There's a lot in the first two lede sentences. I think the second one should be split in half just for navigation/flow purposes.

• Split/fixed up Noah^Talk 16:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• "repairs continued into April 2019." - any update? That's almost a year ago now

• The aftermath states repairs wrapped up in that month. Changed to concluded in Noah^Talk 16:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Favorable environmental conditions, including high sea surface temperatures and low wind shear fostered intensification." - either there's a missing comma, or you should put the "fostered" part after "conditions"

• There was a missing comma. Noah^Talk 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Could you mention how close Lane got to Hawaii?

• Done Noah^Talk 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Link "hurricane watch"

• Done in lead and preps. Noah^Talk 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• I was confused when the first impact section said "Hawaii", thinking it was the state, and then you refer it as the Big Island. Maybe call it as such in the header for the section?

• Changed. Noah^Talk 17:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Some of the lines sparked fires in areas with dry brush" - I was thinking at first "what lines". Maybe put the wind measurement first, so this reference to the power lines can be right after you mentioning the downed trees and power lines?

• Done. Noah^Talk 00:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• "At one point, a hurricane shelter had to be evacuated for encroaching flames while 600 people were evacuated overall." - the shelter evacuating part is interesting. however, the 600 people overall evacuated should be in the preps section. Or, does it mean that 600 people evacuated because of the fire?

• The news article states that 600 were evacuated due to the wildfires. Also rescued the source. Noah^Talk 00:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• "The storm left approximately 11,450 customers without electricity across Maui and Molokai, including 4,000 in West Maui." - after most of the paragraph was about fires, I felt like this bit was an add on. I think this should be earlier in the paragraph, ditto the following one, that there'll be good flow to the bit about the fires.

• moved em. Noah^Talk 00:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Heavy rains later affected the island" - since this is starting a paragraph, and the section header is two islands, I'm not sure what island you're referring to here

• Done. Noah^Talk 17:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• "primarily limited felled trees and fences." - grammar

• Done. Noah^Talk 17:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

All in all the article is in really good shape. Great work by the editors. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: That should be it. Please let me know how it looks. Also, how does it look for a future FAC run? Noah^Talk 00:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Maui/Oʻahu wildfires

Chanced across this paper https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0104.1 while reading about the ongoing wildfires, which has more details (e.g. area burnt by the fires is smaller than currently stated in the article) and some commentary about difficulties emergency responders faced dealing with simultaneous hurricane and wildfire hazards. Leaving it here so I don't forget about it (or if anyone else wants to incorporate it into the article first go ahead). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)