Talk:Hurricane Melissa

Climate change

@MarioProtIV: I strongly disagree with your removal of that section, which wasn't inserted by me. Firstly, it wasn't vague: the given climate change influence metrics were well-defined. Secondly, this is not undue weight. Numerous reliable sources have reported on this rapid attribution study. This sort of thing used to not be possible, requiring long-after-the-fact attribution studies, but no longer. In addition to the source cited:

• Jeff Masters
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

I thus request that you undo your removal, and do a better job of actually determining what is and isn't due weight. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

As part of the bold/revert/discuss cycle, I object to restoring the "Climate change" section. I suggest the material be incorporated into the MH, rather than having its own section. The MH is far too short as it is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

We can put it in there but the content should still live in the article. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. IMO the MH should be set up so the first paragraph is its origins, the second paragraph is the first few days up to hurricane status, and then have an entire paragraph on the rapid intensification up to the peak intensity. These sources will go a way to expanding the met history beyond just NHC advisories, at least until there are research papers inevitably written on the storm someday. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I just saw this section (after I added the now-subsection "Extreme event attribution:..."). Definitely, there is now ~always a wealth of sources that describe, and even quantify, the link between climate change and specific extreme weather events. Such content is reliable, valuable and essential to this article. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: If you do not object, I will assume you are okay with reinstating the material. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I've posted content re the three rapid attribution studies, citing the most technical sources that are pointed to by CNN, Wired, Weather.com etc. I think the content belongs in its own separate section, but that issue is secondary and I won't argue either way. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV reverted my edit moving the section from the impact to the meteorological history. While it does not perfectly match there, it is far better than in the effects as it discusses the science behind the mechanics of the hurricane. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Can the climate change section be incorporated into the met history? There's no need for its own section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Climate change deals with the causation of the intensity of the hurricane. Causation is distinct from history per se. I think it warrants its own section. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That per se is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It would be the same as during the timeline of world war one, one briefly diverges into the alliances and rivalries of Europe. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yea, and I think that same factor involving intensity (Climate change evidently) should be mentioned alongside other factors in Melissa’s intensification. To have its own section is either pushing an agenda, or putting outsized focus on a certain aspect. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Whoa. Causation is distinct from characteristics/statistics. Re the World War I analogy: the pre-war alliances are distinct from WWI itself; see the Background section—a separate section! Water warming's 500-900x greater likelihood, damages up to 50% greater, and 4x greater overall likelihood, proves that causation is not an "outsized" focus. Innumerable sources are finally recognizing extreme event attribution's implications re causation: just Google "hurricane melissa" "more likely"; it's science, not an "agenda". If anything, calling science emphasis an "agenda" reflects a denialist agenda. I wasn't originally arguing for a separate section, but encountering arguments like these from seasoned editors shows that a separate section is exactly what's needed for educating lay readers about extreme weather events. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I just checked the section again and it is within Met Hist, I am content right now. Previously, it was in within impacts. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why it has its own section though. To RCraig09 (talk · contribs), I'm not sure why you keep bringing up causation and World War I. I'm not disputing including this information as part of the meteorological history. In fact, I wish the met history was a bit longer, while also incorporating this information. The only thing Climate Change-related is the sea surface temperatures. So why not mention this information in the 2nd paragraph, when sea surface temperatures were mentioned already? Similarly, when the MH gets to the part about the peak, why not mention the bit about the winds being 10% stronger there, rather than in its own section? It would be one thing if there was an article on Meteorological history of Hurricane Melissa, with sections discussing various aspects of the storm's met history. It's giving outsized attention by putting it in its own section, rather than including it with the rest of the narrative. These sorts of "climate change role" happen with almost every intense storm. It's not unusual with Melissa. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The World War I thing was my fault, sorry. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I bring up causation because, as I explained, causation is distinct from characteristics/statistics. Spreading out climate change-related content as you suggest, buries causation in statistics. Please see the Google search results for "hurricane melissa" "more likely" for how important causation has become in reliable sources. I fully agree with you that These sorts of "climate change role" happen with almost every intense storm—that's the point! —RCraig09 (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I fully believe in climate change but that last part really sounds like you are trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. If it is happening with every storm, that decreases the notability of the connection to climate change. Should there be a mention that climate change influenced Melissa? Of course. However, I do not see how Melissa or the vast majority is so groundbreaking that it needs a section dedicated to climate change, especially when based on a couple of studies using vague metrics like "Melissa-type storm". ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

We can make it more precise but it definitely needs its own section. The amount of coverage is quite significant, almost on par with impact articles.l Jasper Deng (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

What extreme event attribution (EEA) compares

EEA quantifies the effects of climate change on the frequency, intensity, duration, and impacts of various categories of extreme weather events

And how can it possibly be true that "If it is happening with every storm, that decreases the notability of the connection to climate change."??? See the WWA report summarized here, titled Climate change enhanced intensity of Hurricane Melissa, whose 67 pages are not "vague metrics". It's not a "soapbox" to report consistently and broadly reported science. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to respond but it does decrease the notability of the connection to climate change in each storm-specific article. A bit more extreme, but it would be like stating that a hurricane was made out of cumulonimbus clouds. That is not necessarily a notable fact and is generally presumed. Similarly, if nearly every single tropical cyclone is partially attributed to climate change, it should be somewhat presumed. At this point, I do not think that tropical cyclones are to the point that the connection to climate change has reached the level of cloud composition, especially with major hurricanes. However, I can still see some arguments supporting that climate change is simply not notable to a specific storm but should be put onto more broader pages like tropical cyclones and climate change. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Quxyz: Again: this Google search proves that sources are overflowing with attribution studies re Melissa in particular. (Please glance at the Google result titles, at least.) The fact that attribution studies have been applied to other recent hurricanes does not "decrease the WP:notability" of anything; per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, once notability is established, it endures. I'm simply not following your digression re clouds; extreme event attribution compares metrics of specific events in two different climates (please see chart at right), not about clouds. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I am very aware of what Google says and NOTTEMPORARY seems to more address GNG. You also seem to be missing the point of my argument. To boil it down to a movie quote: "And when everyone's super, no one will be". If climate change makes every hurricane exceptional, then those hurricanes are not exceptional individually. It becomes a trend and routine.

I would also not go as far as to strip Hurricane Sandy's climate change section or those of any other established hurricanes. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Quxyz: Each different attribute of each different hurricane will have a different degree of causation from climate change, which should be included for the same reason that wind speeds, category number, deaths, etc. are cited for each hurricane even if they're what you call "routine". No, I'm not only saying "people" (?) are "writing about it" (establishing notability); I have also repeatedly explained how degree of causation is qualitatively distinct from basic statistics that are included in hurricane articles. Can you not see that? 06:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

If the article was on "Examples of climate change in hurricanes", sure, it might have its own section there, but almost every major hurricane landfall has a global warming mention. I don't see why it needs its own section and you haven't really argued why other than people are writing about it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The way Mario tried to integrate it interrupted the flow of the storm's story. Also, record-breaking storms like Melissa will always get more attention on the climate change front since they usually demonstrate the most extreme effects of climate change. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, the climate change bits can be mentioned within the narrative, such as mentioning it alongside when the sea surface temps are measured. Would that be OK? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

No. Like I said, it interrupts the flow of the story. It's too much to explain in-line, especially the part about damage potential. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

"thus increasing its potential damages by up to 50%." - this is pretty vague, especially the "up to 50%" part. 50% more relative to a storm with peak winds 10 mph lower? 50% more compared to pre-climate change era? If the information interrupts the flow of the story, maybe it's irrelevant to the story. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Jasper Deng: the causation description shouldn't be distributed piecemeal throughout the narrative of statistics. See this WWA study for the techy details—which are not "vague". —RCraig09 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

To answer your question: Extreme event attribution compares events in the current climate to events in the pre-industrial world. That is understood. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

"thus increasing its potential damages by up to 50%." - this is the best example of what I'm talking about, how just because there are sources talking about it, doesn't mean the information needs to be included. What does this even mean? "up to 50%" is too vague to even be useful, not to mention the pre-industrial world had a lot less infrastructure than there is now. Also, "One of the studies also estimated that a Melissa-type hurricane (Category 5 at landfall) is about four times more likely in the 2025 climate compared to a pre-industrial baseline." - what even is a Melissa-type hurricane? This is too vague to even be useful in this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

That sentence in particular gives no pertinent information about this specific system, and thus does not neccarily need to be said here. Drdpw (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

— A "Melissa-type hurricane" is explained in the parenthetic phrase that immediately follows: "Category 5 at landfall". I made that clear by recent edit.

— Melissa is by definition a "Melissa-type hurricane". Melissa was made four times more likely by climate change, increased damages ~50%, etc. etc. Please understand: one more time: the content is not vague, but refers to a comparison of events in today's climate compared to those in a pre-industrial climate. It is specifically applicable to Melissa. This is clear from Extreme event attribution and the chart above. I have explained these things multiple times above, but it does not seem to be sinking in. Again: for concrete details please refer to the source added here. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

But a Category 5 landfall is going to be destructive regardless of where it happens. That's not a Melissa type hurricane, that's any Category 5 landfall. The extra 10 mph might well be based on Global Warming, but the "up to 50%" is absolutely meaningless. It's not even "50%", it's "up to 50%", and it still doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of storm damage. A pre-industrial storm isn't going to have $4 billion worth of storm damage (50% of the $8 billion in damage that it caused). The environmental factors that climate change helped fuel Melissa, sure, those should get a mention alongside the rest of the content. But parts of the section just feels like it's trying too hard to justify being included. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

You are arguing against the science. It's not our place as editors to do so. It is not "meaningless". One more time: causation is distinct from "rest of the content. PS I have just made one sentence more specific to Melissa. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

"thus increasing its potential damages by up to 50%" - this still means nothing. It's fluff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure it does. Damage is quantifiable as a monetary amount. Potential means maximum possible. Also, we should also cover the fact that island countries like Jamaica disproportionately get the brunt of such storms, something also seeing widespread coverage in reliable sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) + There are scientific methods for gauging how much damage is caused by particular wind speeds. It is not fluff. It's science. PS Extreme event attribution does not try to compute how much damage would have been caused in 1800; it compares climate scenarios to pre-industrial, not economic scenarios. You may know hurricanes, but this content is about extreme event attribution, about which your comments (Hurricanehink) do not reflect an understanding. Please read the various things I've linked before commenting again. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

” and increased its potential damages by up to 50%.” - this is the part that most bothers me, since it means nothing. Especially the “up to” is wishywashy writing. I read up on extreme event attribution. This is not that. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Again: you as a Wikipedia editor are arguing against Climate Central's exact wording. Extreme event attribution isn't exact in its comparison of factual and counter-factual climates (see chart above), so it is expected that EEA would result in statements such as "increased its potential damages by up to 50%" (emphasis added); it merely expresses a maximum. Yes, this is what EEA is. If their language "bothers you", you can try to take it up with them, and not on Wikipedia. If you can get Climate Central to change their wording, then Wikipedia will follow. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Why not put it in quotes? If a source is not clear on its meaning we should leave the reader to decide. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

What is "not clear" about Climate Central's text, "These unusually warm ocean temperatures, combined with overall tropical climate warming, are projected to have strengthened Melissa’s top wind speed by about 10 mph, and increased its potential damages by up to 50%."? The language is in common English and is readily understood, even by laymen. What "it" should be in quotes? In any event, this is a tangent away from the "four times more likely" issue that is the subject of what you wrongly call an edit war. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

That you repeatedly inserted material when you knew someone else objected, even though you changed the exact text inserted, constitutes edit warring. That's not debatable.

Hurricanehink is raising the valid point that "potential damages" is not well-defined. As it is a bit of mouthful to make it well-defined, I'm suggesting a quote instead of us trying to interpret that. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably, "potential damages" is meant to distinguish from measured damages which are hard to determine so soon after the event, so the term is clear. Nevertheless, if you want to add quotation marks, I would not revert, though adding quotation marks would unreasonably draw suspicion to the quoted text—in the same manner as when someone says so-called X or supposed X.

I did not merely "change the exact text"; my change dealt with the objection... after I discussed it in detail here on this very Talk Page. (details here). —RCraig09 (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

My biggest problem is the "up to 50%". We wouldn't include if a news source said "up to 10,000 deaths" or "up to $100 billion in damage" since that's an unacceptable range to be of any use. The rest of the climate change parts are just regular parts of an intense storm's met history, such as the high water temperatures. Further, the first part, it says that climate change made Melissa 400-900 more times likely, but Melissa drifted over warm waters. The studies here are focusing on the warm sea surface temperatures, but Melissa was only able to intensify so much because it drifted. So these studies are suggesting things that really don't make sense. It's using "climate change" as a buzzword rather than anything specific for Melissa. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Here, "up to 50%" shows the top of a range, which is meaningful as an upper limit. If a reliable source cites a figure, it's not the place of WP editors to say it's "unacceptable" or not "of any use".

Again: you are trying to criticize the science, which is not the place of WP editors. It's interesting that all the references in this Google search don't agree with your WP Editor claim that attribution studies "suggest things that really don't make sense". —RCraig09 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to deal with facts, what storms do, how they affect people, and why they happen. No, the "up to 50%" is not meaningful in terms of inclusion in the article, since it doesn't add anything about "Melissa". It's an estimate in one study comparing Melissa to pre-industrial conditions, and that's relevant to Melissa because... why? There are tons of stories on Melissa out there about a variety of topic, but it doesn't mean they all need to be included in the article. The relevant parts, sure. I even said that the parts of climate change involving the storm, such as the increased water temperatures, is useful information, and would make sense when the rest of the narrative discusses the water temperatures. I am criticizing the inclusion of content, not the science. That is my place as a Wikipedia editor. Articles use to include every single storm's individual Accumulated cyclone energy, and their naming history, and things like "The storm did not affect [X area]", or "did not cause any fatalities." There are a ton of links out there about Melissa that could be added to the article, and I'm not trying to discouraging adding this sort of information. My biggest beef is the outsized focus on having an entire section, especially when one of the sentences sounds more like an insurance model estimate than a useful piece of concrete information worth including in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Climate models are used in extreme event attribution. Here, water temperature would be an "Energy" input and hurricanes would fall under the "Storms" output.

If you, personally, criticize the language of a scientific source, you are indeed criticizing the science. Both the attribution studies and the bountiful secondary news sources prove the "relevance" that you speak of. The water temperature content of which you seem to approve, are only a part of the climate models (see diagram) underlying the attribution studies that are the subject of so many reliable sources. You as a WP editor clearly grant little recognition to how extreme event attribution is taking on increasing importance in government policy and climate communication (Extreme event attribution#Purpose), as EEA explains specific, tangible, human-experienced events.

Re the source's "as-much-as-50%" description: this WP article has five instances of the text string "at least", which, usefully, shows a lower bound, which in no way suggests the upper bound is an unlimited number of deaths, homes, hectares, etc. Likewise, the "50%" upper bound does not suggest to any reasonable person that the actual amount of damage increase is close to 0%. Reasonable readers will conclude the damage increase from the cited wind speeds is close to 50%, not uselessly near 0% as you strain to insinuate. One more time: there are established methods for estimating how much damage that different wind speeds cause—which is the subject of that sentence—if you read it in its entirety. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If Extreme event attribution is important in government policy, then government/people would look up that specific article. Just like they would about hurricane evacuation. Or scientists researching the eye of a storm, they would expect the information would be at the eye article, and not have a specific section just about the eye. As for the "as-much-as-50%" part, my whole beef is there being no concrete data point here, if it's "up to 50%", that's even worth mentioning in this article. I'm not discounting whether they should exist in science research papers, but for this article, I believe it distracts the reader by changing the focus of the article to something entirely different. But that this point, this discussion has spent a lot of time over a small part of the article. I'd still prefer the article gets expanded, and since I fear that my words are risking people from even wanting to expand the article, I will drop out of the discussion at this point, and focus on other articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hink, any responsibility for potentially dissuading editors from expanding this article does not, in this instance, rest on your shoulders. Rather, it rests upon the shoulders of the editor not listening to the input from others who are suggesting that the information they wish to add is ill-fitting for this article. I would like to see this article expanded, but with pertinent facts and information (from reliable secondary sources). The information under discussion belongs elsewhere. Drdpw (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink and Drdpw: The content belongs here and in other articles. You can't presume to limit where people look for what; given the broad coverage of EEA's causation of Melissa's characteristics and a desire to understand the reasons behind Melissa's destructiveness (i.e., causation), readers will look here. Why do several of you not understand that causation of individual hurricanes is notable and important and unique to each hurricane, in the same way as the speed/death/damage statistics themselves are? The content is not "ill-fitting", for reasons I have repeated after dealing with, I believe, each of your posts throughout. And, yes, the EEA content re causation constitutes exactly the "pertinent facts and information (from reliable secondary sources)" that you refer to. Why is this fact not getting through? —RCraig09 (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Causation: Four times more likely

Perhaps the single most important result of extreme event attribution's (EEA's) calculations re Melissa is how climate change made it four times more likely to be a Category 5 hurricane than it would have been in a pre-industrial climate. To avoid what was wrongly called an edit war, I propose the following text, now removing the source's language about "Melissa-type hurricanes" that someone found objectionable (even though it's obvious that Melissa is a Melissa-type hurricane).

Proposed text, please !vote "Include", "Exclude", or add alternate wording here

(A) One of the studies also estimated that Melissa is about four times more likely in the 2025 climate compared to a pre-industrial baseline. (withdrawn)

(B) One of the studies also estimated that Melissa's being a Category 5 hurricane was about four times more likely in the 2025 climate compared to a pre-industrial baseline. (—RCraig09 later agrees that "(C)" is preferable)

(C) One of the studies also estimated that a hurricane with wind speeds as fast as Melissa is about four times more likely in the 2025 climate compared to a pre-industrial baseline. (—Femke 🐦)

(Imperial College source).

Keeping in mind that EEA is about degree of causation, comment below and/or propose alternative text. —07:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Updated —RCraig09 (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an edit war and that's not debatable. You don't get to attempt to build "consensus" by repeatedly changing the text you inserted. It's hard to defend your viewpoint when you are continually WP:BLUDGEONING this conversation even though I agree in principle with having a section. Please just stop mentioning that. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

That's nice that Melissa is a Melissa-type hurricane; I bet you could figure out that T Tauri is a T Tauri star but one could not explain what one is without looking at the article or other sources, making it a useless detail. The article makes it seem like it might have something to do with rainfall and wind speed at landfall, but no definition is given. I think that stating the actual figures might be more useful than stating how often a Melissa-type hurricane should occur because of that lack of definition. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I am responding. I previously changed text to deal with objections, eliminating the "Melissa-like" terminology. I mentioned this fact above at 07:21, 15 Nov but you now pursue the moot point. Factually: the Imperial College source states "In the case of Melissa, a Category 5 at landfall, we estimate that this type of event was about four times more likely compared to pre-industrial times" so there is no "useless detail" and my proposed text contains the "actual figures" that you describe and there is no need for readers to "look[] at the article or other sources". I am responding. These Talk Page conversations are permeated with misconceptions about EEA from seasoned editors as I've rarely seen in sixteen years, but you accuse me of "bludgeoning"? —RCraig09 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I have not accused you of bludgeoning yet, and frankly the fact that you are saying that I am is a sign that you are bludgeoning.

So basically, a Melissa-type storm is just one at Category 5 strength at landfall? Why not just state that instead of using Melissa as a confusing prototype? Describing a storm as X-type without clarification as to what it means is effectively useless. The reader has no clue what that means and frankly it seems like neither do we. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

This section was designed to discuss the proposed text in the quote box above, which, as I stated does not contain "X-type" language. !Vote Include, Exclude, or Modify, etc. Please. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not need to. Anyone who closes it can read my messages to decide consensus. As of right now, it needs to be essentially totally refactored to explain what is being counted as similar to Melissa. If anything, the idea is just generally unhelpful and should instead be replaced with the specific comparisons to the strength of Melissa to the 2° mark and the pre-industrial baseline. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Quxyz: They're responding to my comment above yours, where I do accuse them of bludgeoning, which they have been by sticking to the untenable idea that their behavior did not constitute edit warring. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Include proposed text: as original poster. I'm open to alternate text. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  This text is actually worse than what is already written. Firstly, it should be written in the past tense. Secondly, it easily implies the incorrect notion that Melissa's formation was four times more likely due to CC. That's not what EEA is, because Melissa's formation was not the extreme event in question. Its high intensity was. Stick to what the source says Jasper Deng (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

In context, your interpretation is unlikely, but per your observation I've added suggestion "(B)" above. Things will progress faster if you were to suggest specific language yourself, here or in the quote box itself. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

That is not an unlikely interpretation. As I said before, I think the current text is fine as-is. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Reading the source again, it is specifically a Category 5 hurricane at landfall, presumably in Jamaica based on the fact that Category 5 landfalls happen once in around half a decade. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• There is also option "C", which is that no statement asserting that Melissa's being a Category 5 hurricane was about four times more likely in the 2025 climate compared to a pre-industrial baseline be included in this article. There is no reason for including such a statement in this article. It does nothing to help the reader better understand how this storm became so powerful and destructive. The current paragraph relating climate change to Melissa does do this. Drdpw (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The suggested sentence is not even intended to show "how" the storm became powerful as you describe. The sentence shows that climate change caused such a powerful hurricane to be four times (!) more likely, placing Melissa in important scientific and human context showing how climate change affects people in specific events. This lack of understanding permeates this Talk Page discussion. Unequivocally: "causes of X" are always essential to "X" articles, whether "X" is World War I, lung cancer, or Melissa. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

While reading through this NOAA article to confirm I was understanding EEA correct, I found that it specifically states "...such a general question—did global warming affect a particular extreme weather event?—isn’t especially scientifically interesting or useful." Overall, what I got from the article is that EEA should be a climatological matter, not a mesoscale meteorological manner. This is how I think how several editors are viewing the climate change connections. Also, the comparison to lung cancer is exactly why I believe that this information is hard to pin when we are considering a specific case. Moving the goalpost slightly, one could say that a person's melanoma risk was heightened due to them not putting on sunscreen based on trends across a population, but it would be disingenuous to say that this specific tumour was caused by not putting on sunscreen. The person might have just gotten extremely unlucky but no one will know because the tumour isn't going to say "Yah, it was that photon with a wavelength of 300 nm that did it".

In short, EEA isn't necessarily useful with specific events, but is better when dealing with trends. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The very next sentence (!) in the NOAA source says: "What’s useful—for improving our understanding of the climate system and guiding decisions—is being able to say specifically how and how much global warming affected an event at a particular time and place. For that, we need extreme event attribution. The "climatological/mesoscale/melanoma/..." comments are digressions from the fact that your final conclusion—that "EEA isn't necessarily useful with specific events"—is 180 degrees off the mark. Gross misunderstandings permeate this Talk Page. Again: Please focus on the content to include in the quotebox above so we don't have yet another wall of words. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, there are two main factors to my opposition; individual storms probably should not have climate change sections (though I don't really care if they are there) and that the wording proposed is factually incorrect. The easier one to get out of the way is that the wording misrepresents what the study actually stated, that a Category 5 hurricane making landfall on Jamaica has been made four times more likely due to climate change. Melissa is used as an example, but the storm doesn't need to be Melissa. If anything, the information is better suited for climate change in the Caribbean. The second reason is more broad but is relevant and connected to my first. My general belief is that it is somewhat disingenuous to say that a given storm is caused by climate change. Most of the discussion I have seen about EEA is climatological, not necessarily under mesoscale meteorology. One can say that, based on statistics from yesteryear and applying it to today, that a storm or season is rather anomalous, but it could be basically luck. The Labor Day storm that Melissa is compared to happened in a world with significantly less global warming. There is a chance that Melissa was just that storm. It's basically nil due to how everywhere climate change is, but it is hard to separate what exactly what was climate change-caused. Essentially, this argument is the opposite of the senator bringing a snowball into Congress to argue that climate change doesn't exist. There is also an aspect of notability since every storm is affected by it, but that is a different discussion. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  It might be a valid argument for more moderate-intensity storms, but storms that reach near-record intensity like Melissa absolutely should have "climate change" sections. Readers often come here for information on the storms' relationships to climate change. Also, "CC caused Melissa to form" is absolutely not what is being said here, nor what should be said. As for "There is a chance that Melissa was just that storm", the study RCraig cites directly disproves that with a large increase in the chance of what happened. A 10-knot increase due to climate change is no small deal. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  What I believe the study is doing is estimating that a Melissa-type hurricane, 80 m/s (180 mph) landfall in Jamaica, went from a 8,000 year occurence to a 2,000 year occurrence. With that, the study then estimates what intensity the old 2,000 year return period hurricane (75 m/s, 160 mph) would be, which is a certain intensity less than what Melissa was. There is no way to say that climate change just caused Melissa to be X mph stronger. There might be a way to word that into the article, but I am not sure how accessible it will be since it took me a second to figure it out and my major is in earth sciences and physics (though not statistics and climatology). ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• Include. Not including the likely ultimate cause of the event is like not mentioning that somebody smoked their whole life when developing lung cancer. Or in a murder of a domestic abuser, only mentioning the thing that caused the abused to snap rather than the years of abuse leading up to it.
  It is wrong to say, like Quxyz, that EEA looks at climatological rather than mesoscale meteorology. What these studies do is to run weather models where they first run it as today, and then change the initial conditions to be colder. The language in the source about 'Melissa type' is intentional. They don't study the likelihood of a general category-5 hurricane landing in Jamaica. That kind of research is also done, but is called event-class attribution or simply detection and attribution. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  My issue with using Melissa-type as a class of hurricane, as stated above, is that it has no definition, or at least none that I saw in the study, besides being a Category 5 hurricane landfalling in Jamaica. Describing that the occurrence of Category 5 landfalls in Jamaica seems fine to me, but I just feel not good saying that it was Melissa specifically that got more common. Also, it falls under climatology instead of mesoscale meteorology because of the scale and length of the analysis. The simulation in the study was over 10,000 years, which is far beyond the general separation between meteorology and climatology, fluid it may be. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Reading in more detail. It's not just any category 5, it's one with the specific wind speed at landfall that Melissa had (see Figure 2). It's for 80 m/s, whereas I believe standard Cat5 is 70 m/s or above. I was wrong to say this is a weather model, it's different methodology than I'm used to.

  @RCraig09: this means that the wording in B is incorrect. A is closer, but it's specially about wind speed. The rainfall is "only" 43% more likely.

  What about the following wording:

  (C) One of the studies also estimated that a hurricane with wind speeds as fast as Melissa is about four times more likely in the 2025 climate compared to a pre-industrial baseline. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Landfall in Jamaica is an important detail; make sure it is added. These storms certainly occur more often than once every millennium across the entire basin. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  — I agree with suggestion "(C)" of Femke, who, if you don't know, is a subject matter expert. "(C)" is more specific than "(B"), which I submitted because of the narrative text rather than Fig. 2. PS - I added Femke's "(C)" to the quote box above, for easy comparison. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Your agreement with Femke is all well and good, but that does not change the fact that the information you wish to add to the article is better suited for 'climate change in the Caribbean' or 'Tropical cyclones and climate change', than for this article, for reasons stated previously by multiple editors, myself included. Drdpw (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  The content relates specifically to Melissa. EEA attributes characteristics of specific weather events to climate change. Content can be appropriate in multiple articles. These are basic facts that would avoid this wall of words. Why would you cherry-pick an irrelevant sentence from a work and ignore the very next sentence? etc. etc. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  That last point is totally irrelevant to what Drdpw was writing about and gives off elements of a reverse Gish gallop. Besides, the whole article built up to essentially state that while climate change can influence and strengthen weather, it is difficult to separate what climate change did to a specific event and what was just innate due to the fact that climate change focuses on a larger scale.

  Also, I'm going to be honest, you repeatedly indirectly insulting our intelligence whenever we give an opinion that you disagree with is a bit of an asshole move. I am sure that we all understand what EEA is on some level; you do not need to comment on how we supposedly do not understand "basic" details and how "gross" our misunderstandings are several times over. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Factually, the "last point I was talking about" related specifically to my second fact, namely, " EEA attributes characteristics of specific weather events to climate change." I listed three basic facts. One more fact: Your 19:41 claim that it's "difficult to separate what climate change did to a specific event" is exactly what EEA accomplishes. Exactly. Facts should terminate this wall of words. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have explained that while EEA's goal is to explain what the effects of climate change are, the methods are not directly tackling that issue. The methods involve using return rates to explain what proportion of an event can be attributed to climate change. These return rates are risks, not specific storms. The studies simulate thousands of years of hurricane seasons with given conditions to see how often a hurricane with the qualities of a prototype should occur. Those simulated hurricanes are not Melissa and therefore it is debatable if these studies should be included in a specific storm's article. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  This is similar to how disease risk factors are determined: from epidemiology rather than from an individual disease trajectory. When reliable sources repeatedly make a link between an individual's habits and a death, we include it. The studies are the climatologist view on Melissa, which is equally important as the meteorological view. It's not up to us to ignore reliable sources. Instead, they should be given due weight. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Femke, who is a subject matter expert, recognizes what I was going to write: when it is "arguable" between a Wikipedia editor and a reliable source, the reliable source wins. Here, the source states "In the case of Melissa, a Category 5 at landfall, we estimate that this type of event was about four times more likely compared to pre-industrial times", which is indeed specific to Melissa. This is what EEA does. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  The article's 'Effect of climate change' section does give due weight to the studies; you are falsely asserting that a reliable source is being ignored. Drdpw (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Does it? The section is very minimal compared to the meteorological history. This study, from one of the top institutes on EEA, is not included. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  Factually: I wrote that "when it is "arguable" between a Wikipedia editor and a reliable source, the reliable source wins", which does not imply I said a "source is being ignored"; again with the misunderstandings. Separately, I assume Femke was referring to Imperial College as "this study"; I also point to World Weather Attribution publication which describes consistency with other named rapid analyses (content that was deleted by another editor). EEA coverage of Melissa has been extensive. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• One thing I would like to add is that the circumstances behind it could be described as unseasonably warm water by X°. This is a lot more solid and clear than describing the immense statistics that goes into calculating the return rates and the increase in intensity. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  No. The whole point of the EEA study was that this was more than just a mere seasonal anomaly. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Summary: On the specific topic at hand—the proposed text "C" in the quote box—it should be clear after this wall of words that:

• the following statements are based based on a fundamental misunderstanding of EEA or a personal editorial disagreement with reliable sources: ● "EEA isn't necessarily useful with specific events" (false) ● "it is somewhat disingenuous to say that a given storm is caused by climate change" (straw man) ● "There is no way to say that climate change just caused Melissa to be X mph stronger" (false) ● "it is difficult to separate what climate change did to a specific event" (false).
• what is "similar to Melissa" or "Melissa-like" storms is resolved
• the objection to "up to 50%" is irrelevant to this sentence
• the claim that the EEA content—which is specific to Melissa—is "better suited for" more generic articles is both irrelevant and wrong

Since we have complied with WP:BRD (BRDDDDD, actually), I add Femke's proposed text to the article. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I undid your reinsertion of the text. Your above summary just restates your position and declares victory, as if you were in a debate, which it is not. This is a place for consensus building, and there is not a consensus to add the text. Drdpw (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Adding on, you nor anyone else in this discussion should not be the one to close the discussion. You can request for closure and get an unbiased editor to decide what the consensus is. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, the text you added is wrong, as I have stated before. Those windspeeds in a hurricane are not four-times more common, it is specifically a landfall at 80 m/s on Jamaica that is four times as common. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

After several days without specific refutation of my specific statements, I inserted the sentence proposed by a subject matter expert. Again and again, you do not deal with what I specifically wrote but instead digress with your own personal theories based on a fundamental misunderstanding of EEA. The latest: it is dead wrong to imply the inserted sentence means "windspeeds in a hurricane are not four-times more common"; that's not what the sentence or the reference say—another straw man argument. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Are we reading the same sentences? There is nothing in that sentence discussing landfalling in Jamaica or 80 m/s windspeeds, which is what the paper was measuring for being four times as common. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Of all the different event attribution studies, the attribution of how likely such as a storm is, the ultimate cause, feels like the most important analysis to add. Would a compromise work where we switch it with another EEA figure, that is the sea surface temperature likelihood? That's more about the background than the actual storm. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I have become generally softer towards the section, but I do like that compromise (and that information probably should be in the article anyways). ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

How would that umprove upon what is already in the subsection?

Melissa experienced extreme rapid intensification as it drifted slowly over waters that were 2.5 °F (1.4 °C) warmer than average, sea conditions that two rapid attribution studies[25][38] estimated to be 500–900 times more likely to be that warm because of human-caused climate change.[39][40]

–Drdpw (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh jeez, I forgot about that, ignore my comment. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with User:Femke that the overall increased likelihood of cyclones of Melissa's strength is the most important figure to communicate. This concept is based on each source's concept of what is "Melissa-like" or "similar to Melissa"—peak wind? rainfall? category? a combination?—which some editor(s) here have objected to as not being well defined. I do not find it objectionable: reliable sources recite such phrases according to their standards of what is "Melissa-like" or "similar to Melissa" etc., which we editors have no business rejecting or excluding. S&P Global study (archive) describes "Melissa-like hurricane", "Melissa-like intensity", "Melissa-like return period". See Table 1 for details (hurricanes "of Melissa's strength") and later comparison with two other studies: "5-fold and 10-fold increase in likelihood". —RCraig09 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

See "Proposed compromise #2" section. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed compromise #2

Further to my 18:44, 22 Nov post above, let's focus on overall likelihood, which I believe is the single most important attribute.

Proposed compromise #2. Please !vote "Include", "Exclude", or add alternate wording here

(A) Three scientific studies attributed to climate change, a 16–19 km/h (10–12 mph) increase in intensity, and a 5- to 10-fold increase in overall likelihood. (—RCraig09)

(Source: S&P Global section, "Comparison to other Melissa attribution estimates") (archive)

• Include Previous objections to sources' wording are avoided. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep current statement: Additionally, climate change is estimated by these studies to have strengthened the hurricane's top wind speed by about 10 mph (16 km/h), thus increasing its potential to inflict damage by up to 50%.[39][40] Also, rainfall was estimated to be up to 10% higher due to climate change.[41]. The statement says what needs to be said about the influence of climate change upon Melissa, and says it well. Drdpw (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Where do you get your standard for "what needs to be said"? The existing text omits the critical concept of overall likelihood that is central to EEA studies. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I see. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Leptospirosis deaths

I saw @GrenadinesDes added the 6 deaths due to Leptospirosis, which I do thank you for adding that it happened, but I would think that it would go in the aftermath section of the storm and also wouldn't be included in the infobox, as I'm pretty sure post-storm disease outbreaks are not included in deaths due to the storm in most cases, at least in a direct sense. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. AutisticYapper (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Officials said Melissa was the caused of this outbreak, "The Category 5 hurricane slammed into the Caribbean island on October 28, causing catastrophic flooding and landslides with some 30 inches (76 cm) of rain. The resulting stagnant, contaminated water has created a breeding ground for the disease, officials said." [1] GrenadinesDes (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@AutisticYapper GrenadinesDes (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I see they said that, but I still feel like the deaths are indirect and not direct. I'm fine with including them in the infobox if we separate direct and indirect deaths, but I really don't think they're direct deaths. I look at Typhoon Nina (1975) as an example of where aftermath deaths are included, but listed as indirect. AutisticYapper (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I did list as indirect, since the direct death count still remains at 45 GrenadinesDes (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean even in the infobox I feel like we should separate indirect and direct deaths, and not just with the Leptospirosis deaths, I mean with all indirect deaths, whether in preparation for the storm, evacuation, or other reasons. Basically what is normally done with storms. AutisticYapper (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

For the lead, I changed it to include the breakdown on how many of those deaths in Jamaica were direct/indirect GrenadinesDes (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

alrighty, sounds good for now. Changes will def end up being necessary when the TCR comes out tho AutisticYapper (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@GrenadinesDes@AutisticYapper

14 leptospirosis-related deaths, 6 confirmed — Dr Webster-Kerr - Jamaica Observer 🥏FrizzBTalk🥏 01:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

4 of those it says were pre-Melissa, but 10 after. There were 6 Leptospirosis deaths before, so that would raise the death toll to 106 total I would think. AutisticYapper (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I added dengue fever and other disease related information in Cuba to impacts. I think that it belongs there, but that is based totally on vibes than any other reason. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

in the article for the joplin tornado the deaths from the resulting fungal infection are in the infobox as further indirect deaths. Stormy Sound (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Death by leptospirosis

Hi:

The reference cited does not says that 10 deaths from leptospirosis are related to Melissa, it says : "We have had 14 leptospirosis-related deaths, six of which have been confirmed, four pre-Melissa and 10 post-Melissa, with six confirmed cases all being from post-Melissa". This means that 4 of the deaths post-Melissa are not related to the hurricane. Pierre cb (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I might suggest resetting Jamaica's death count to 45 as that is the most commonly cited number and I don't know what is included in that number. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The leptospriosis deaths were included in the death toll. And also it should be 48 if youre resetting it due to indirect deaths from preparing for Melissa GrenadinesDes (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

45 is the amount that Melissa directly killed so far GrenadinesDes (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Now I'm seeing how 54 is being achieved. I would suggest adding citations or explanatory notes to the table. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Its Wikipedia:CALC, its combining direct deaths and indirect deaths from Melissa GrenadinesDes (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Does this count as indirect death?

https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20251127/health-ministry-confirms-tetanus-death-probes-second-case-linked-nail-puncture MCRPY22 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess, it might not have happened without Melissa ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Death Update

So I know we're counting the Leptospirosis deaths as of right now, but a recent article from Radio Jamaica News has the death toll at 45 rather than 54 (likely not counting the Leptospirosis deaths), with 32 more "under investigation". I'm still unsure as to if the Leptospirosis deaths should be counted in the death toll, and if they are they should be counted as indirect IMO rather than direct. The missing persons count has also dropped to 13 according to said article.

https://radiojamaicanewsonline.com/local/hurricane-melissa-death-toll-still-at-45-as-32-more-deaths-under-probe AutisticYapper (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I will incorporate the info into the article while also leaving open the Leptospirosis question for more senior editors. AutisticYapper (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Headings

@Drdpw, I would like to consolidate headings as currently most of the ones in the impacts section have a paragraph. I think they should either be expanded or merged as a result. Do you have any other input or proposals? ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Of note: as of writing, Puerto Rico and the Lesser Antilles each only have two sentences; they would be my first to axe. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I Concur; neither PR nor LA need individual subsections, they could both go into the "Elsewhere" grouping. Regarding Haiti and the DR, they could be be grouped under "Hispaniola", and perhaps place after "Cuba", given given that there is less information there. (or the three nations combined as "Cuba and Hispaniola"). Drdpw (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Drdpw I would keep Hisponola ahead to maintain chronology. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. Drdpw (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you think that the Lucayan Archipelago or Bermuda could be released from "Elsewhere"? I believe you were also the one that put them there in the first place before they got expanded. The listed impacts are both relatively sizable. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The Bahamas paragraph could be separated, with or without the Turks and Caicos sentence, but Bermuda ought to remain given the limited impact there. Drdpw (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Tense for strongest of 2025 claim

@Drdpw and @MarioProtIV, I believe that my revision used the corrected tense, even though Melissa is very much dead, per MOS:TENSE as it will always be the strongest hurricane in 2025. The only case I could see it flipping to was per MOS:TENSE is in a case like "Hurricane Melissa was the strongest tropical cyclone in 2025 until post-seasonal review found Hurricane Erin to be more intense." ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

“Is” gives the impression that it’s still active, which is not. This is formatted with “was” across the strongest globally with other years too so I don’t think it’s too much an issue. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE allows using past tense in a sentence for a past event, which Hurricane Melissa is. Drdpw (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Is a Melissa Meteorological history, and Effects in Jamacia article necessary?

I am here to ask whether making a Meteorological history and Effects in Jamacia is necessary for this storm

Firstly, Melissa had a complex meteorological history for intensifying into a category 5 storm, undergoing rapid intensification, and breaking records. Examples include tied with 1935 Labor Day Hurricane as strongest landfalling hurricane, as well as the 3rd most intense Atlantic Hurricane. It was also the first time a hurricane that strong made landfall in Jamaica.

Secondly, Melissa also had profound impacts in Jamacia with lots of coverage about this, including damage infrastructure and its impact and aftermath.

Overall, would a separate Meteorological history or Effects of Hurricane Melissa Jamaica be necessary? Owen is the best GG (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait until the TCR is released and then we can revisit this. Additionally the current size of the article still seems to fall within the boundaries for not splitting at the current time. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait until the article has at least 6,000 words. If you can add that many words (preferably without harming the quality of the article), I will support this proposal. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• No to both proposals, no need for either. The article can easily handle all of the content, and still have room for expansion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with @Hurricanehink ans the others on this, Wait until TCR is released. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Good point. We'll wait first for the TCR then we will expand this discussion and come back to this Owen is the best GG (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

With the TCR out, the only reason I can see for a MH article will be to talk more in depth about the observations, such as the drone observations (of 241 kt instantaneous for example), but otherwise I still do not see the need.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Image

@MarioProtIV: There's no good reason to change back to the 1430z picture, with the 1230z one being more representative of the peak intensity. It had already clearly started filling as per reconnaissance fixes by the time of the 1430z picture. The 1230z one has less-harsh lighting (with the lower sun angle better for seeing cloud features) and is closer to the TCR's peak time of 12z. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

@Lightbulb Noob: Please retract this clear personal attack (doesn't matter if at me or Mario).--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't at you, but okay. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

To do before GAN

Given Melissa's likely retirement (not to mention its importance), I wanted to add a few notes on what the article needs.

• Reorganize preparations

• At the beginning, focus less on the watches and warnings, and more on the anticipated future of Melissa. The preparation section starts by focusing on Haiti's tropical storm watch on a certain date. Instead, something like "Upon Melissa's formation, computer models anticipated that the storm would threaten countries in the western Caribbean, leading to tropical cyclone watches and warnings across multiple countries." That gives it more of an introduction. Also, maybe focus on Jamaica in the first paragraph (due to it being the area of greatest impact), and then basically "elsewhere", starting with Haiti, then Cuba, etc. The exact progression of TS watch to TS warning to Hurricane warning is boring to read in retrospect, so if a watch was upgraded to a warning, I'd just list the warning.
• More order to how Jamaica responded to the hurricane's threat. It starts by talking about buses.
• The Bermuda section mentions October 30 or 31st a total of six times across 50 words, or once every eight words. Keep the info interesting, not boring.

• Reorganize impact

• Move content that belongs in aftermath
• Expand Haiti if possible
• Use ReliefWeb, there are 633 documents to go through. A lot will repeat, so go with final figures whenever possible.
• The first paragraph of Jamaica should introduce the storm. The infobox says that it was the costliest storm in Jamaica's history, but the impact section doesn't! The section should start with the most interesting information, as if it was the start of an article for "Effects of Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica". I suggest something like - "As the island's strongest landfalling hurricane on record, Melissa also became the costliest in Jamaica's history."

• Expand aftermath

• Again, the info needs to start out as more of an intro. "The devastating passage of Melissa through Jamaica required significant national and international resources."
• Focus more on the human aspect. A lot of the aftermath is about what other countries sent to Jamaica, but what about the people on the ground? The article mentions - "On December 23, the World Food Programme began a program to distribute food to 123,000 Jamaicans in the west of the nation." So there was nothing between the landfall and December 23rd?
• Speaking of misplaced aftermath priorities, it's fitting that the aftermath only talks about power restoration to Montego Bay. When did power get restored nationwide? What about water service?

I don't know how much more interest there will be in Melissa, now that the TCR is out, but I wanted to get ahead of any potential GA nominations by highlighting some issues in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

By any chance, do you have some sources for Haiti? I have one source (Le Nouvelliste) after another one of mine got turned into an Indonesian gambling website. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliefweb probably has some good info. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

These are all of the sources that I could find about Haiti (all in French):

• UNOCHA situation report in Haiti (05/02/2026);
• UNICEF on a cholera outbreak in Haiti (11/02/2026);
• UNICEF on the reconstruction of local places in Haiti (20/02/2026);
• The Food and Agriculture Organization's analysis on the agricultural impact of the hurricane in Haiti.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Here's one more dated from 16/01/2026; Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Smaller issues I have here:

The TCR doesn't have any monetary damage estimates for Cuba, Haiti, Bahamas etc, let's see if we can find some. Maybe some insurance payout information at least.

• $23.3 million in damage in the DR. I'm adding it to the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

A lot of "as of" in impact sections, "as of January 1 2026" "as of December 10 2025" let's see what we can do about that.

Information on peak winds, wind gusts etc, there's a lot of great info in the TCR.

The TCR and none of the storm event reports relate Melissa to flooding in New York, do we keep that section? MCRPY22 (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I removed the part about New England, since TCR and NCDC don't connect the event to Melissa. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that might have been A5's addition. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Illustration by photos is one of the GAC, and the current amount of pictures doesn't adequately accomplish that, especially without a picture of the damage in Black River where buildings were often totally destroyed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  How about the NOAA emergency response imagery? https://storms.ngs.noaa.gov/ Not on the ground but it paints a good picture. MCRPY22 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  The World Central Kitchen has a Flickr album uploaded under CC-BY-4.0 (which is acceptable on Commons) containing images and drone footage of damage, though it's unclear where exactly in Jamaica they were at. Their website lists a number of parishes in the west of the island near the landfall point, at least. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  There's a few in there that do a really good job of displaying the damage, but it's not clear where they were taken. Should they still be used without specifying that do you think? MCRPY22 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Honestly, the average person doesn't know Kingstown from Montego Bay, and I tricked you, it's Kingston, Jamaica. I think whatever is the best example of storm damage that is with an appropriate license would be best, and if there are multiple examples, then the article could have a gallery. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Great, I put some on commons, maybe not enough for a gallery, but some good ones. MCRPY22 (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  I have taken the liberty to add one of the images ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've made a little headway into this, changed around that bermuda section to avoid overusing dates, reorganized some things. I added an intro for the jamaica section but it got removed at some point. There's still a lot more to do about Haiti, though the impact from Melissa is hard to extract from the overall issues in that country. MCRPY22 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Gusts

Re: the wind gust measurmeent. Melissa's measured wind gust is the highest measured by a dropsonde, but I think this needs clarification as to why it's different than Olivia 1996's wind gust measurement, which is in 10-min winds and still listed as the highest gust speed. Sria-72 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Disregard this, the 255 mph reading I saw was not true. Sria-72 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)