Talk:Hurricane Delta

Protect this page

Vandals are attacking this page. Protect it. 71.172.254.114 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey User:LightandDark2000 and User:ChessEric I see you guys blocked the vandal but why you guys also block me to I'm editing? I was trying to do good things! 71.172.254.114 (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That was actually an administrator, not me. Sorry, but that vandal was IP hopping (he already used two separate IPs), so the Semi-Protection was necessary. And since they are much too wide to be covered by a rangeblock, the only way to ensure that the vandalism stopped for good was a Semi-Protection. The protection was not meant to target editors like you, but unfortunately, that is a side effect of actions like this. It will automatically expire in 3 days. If you register with an account, you will be able to edit articles with this level of protection after you reach autoconfirmed status. Alternatively, you can suggest what edits you want made here, and we'll be more than happy to implement them for you. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa and LightandDark2000: The vandal that was messing with this page is clearly not done yet as they went on two talk pages and vandalized them using another IP address. Therefore, I'm requesting that there be an extension of the protection on this page until we know for sure that this mess is over because I will absolutely not stand for another 20 minute edit war with this maniac.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen the person come back to this page. You sure it was the same person? Only other activity I saw was a bogus block appeal. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: No doubt. Look here.

Class

How can this not be at least C class? It's a fairly long article that's well-referenced. Jim Michael (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The impact section is less than impressive. There needs to be more information about Mexico, Cuba, and the United States. In addition, Delta should make landfall soon which should add more impacts. A rush of addition of impacts will mean lesser-quality writing. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Peak intensity

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 was hoping this wouldn't happen because it was going to be annoying to add in, but it has, so I'm going to lay it out.

Delta reached a peak 3 different times. The first was when it reached Category 4 intensity (130 mph; 954 mb). The second came shortly after the first (145 mph; 956 mb). The final came this morning (120 mph; 953 mb). How do we list this in the article? I'm not going to act like I know how right now.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We usually go by peak wind speed. It's the same deal as with Hurricane Sandy, which had its maximum winds and lowest pressure on different dates. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The lowest pressure is officially the peak intensity, since the intensity of a TC is based on its pressure. In this case, the pictures of peak intensity all have a blob of a system that is ugly and small. The one with the lowest pressure actually has an eye. Per WP:WPTC/S, we don't always have to put the peak intensity as the picture. An important stage in the TC's lifespan, such as landfall, lowest pressure, the best "looks" (eye formation) also is fine. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

An also, the NHC redacted its peak intensity on the besttrack, and the peak intensity is now 120 kt (140 mph). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In any case, we list both the maximum winds and the lowest pressure for the peak, even if they dad different time. Again, see Hurricane Sandy. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is true TornadoLGS. I was mistaken, I was thinking about the image in the infobox. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We usually go by minimum central pressure when referring to the storm's peak intensity. But given this storm's unique behavior (including the mismatch between the intervals with maximum winds and lowest pressure), I think it would be well worth mentioning each of the storm's 3 peaks in the lead. As for the main infobox image, I personally prefer the image of the 3rd peak - it looks better and the storm is at its lowest recorded pressure at that point. We have no hardline policy regarding the main images, but even following WPTC precedent, Delta is not a clear-cut case. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As @LightandDark2000: said, we should mention all three peaks, since a Delta is such an unique storm. I do feel that the NHC will revise the peak intensity, as they already did on the BT (it was downgraded to 120 kt, 140 mph, but protocol requires us to follow the advisories until the TCR comes out). However, as the storm isn’t done now, it’s a bit too soon for us to put it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If we go by peak pressure rather than peak wind speed, then why does Hurricane Sandy's infobox image show it at peak wind speed? Is it because it was going through extratropical transition at that peak? TornadoLGS (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that was Sandy's actual peak. Sandy's minimum pressure of 940 mbars also coincided with the time at which it reached Category 2 intensity, a pattern that is typical of most tropical cyclones. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The TCR for Sandy shows peak wind speed on October 25 at 100 knots with pressure at 954 mbar. The 940 mbar pressure was on October 29 when winds were 80 knots. The page satellite image shows it at the earlier peak. So, either that image should be changed, or we can show Delta at its initial 120-knot peak. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, we don't have a hard requirement here to do either in the case of such mismatches. And Sandy was undergoing extratropical transition when it reached its peak (as measured by pressure), which is probably one of the reasons why the October 29 image wasn't used. And I see an inconsistency in the Sandy article. I'm going to have to correct that. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind, if we use peak intensity by pressure in the images here, that has many loopholes. One, Delta reached Category 4 intensity, yet we are showing an image of it while it a Category 3 hurricane, which is rather misleading. Two, Matthew's image of peak intensity is while it is at Category 5 intensity, yet the storm reached its minimum pressure as a Category 4 hurricane. Same can go for Sandy, which was a Category 1 hurricane when it reached its peak intensity, yet it was a Category 3 hurricane at its initial peak, and the image rightly used is where Sandy is a Category 3 hurricane in the Caribbean. I think that we should give this storm the Sandy treatment, because the general public considered Delta at its peak in the Caribbean, as it weakened and struck Louisiana in the gulf, because the general public doesn't care about minimum pressure whatsoever. They care about the winds and what damage it causes. Therefore, since this is an encyclopedia, I believe that we should be using Delta's peak intensity image as its wind speeds, and not the image of it at Category 3 strength, due to how misleading and confusing it is. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 13:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneGonzalo: The initial "peak" of Delta is a trash image that has no eye and isn't clear. The new peak is a better image with an eye and has a lower pressure. Also, the NHC redacted its peak intensity of 125 kt (145 mph) and instead put a new PI of 120 kt (140 mph). The Sandy treatment won't be used because Sandy was an ugly half-extratropical cyclone at the 940 mbar peak. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: The only reason Sandy didn't get its 940 mbar peak put down because that image was ugly and not representative of the storm. On the other hand, the 953 mbar peak of Delta is arguably the best image we have of the storm - an eye, outflow, lowest pressure, etc. The 956 mbar/140 mph peak image is of low quality and has no eye feature. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: There are several problems with your argument. The main one is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not to be edited with opinions, but rather facts. The image of the storm currently is misleading. And, so? Delta was 140 mph...which is still Cat 4. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 15:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Destroyeraa. Sandy and Matthew had eyes at their peak winds, but Delta showed ZERO signs of a visible eye when it had winds of 145 mph. Therefore, I don't like displaying that peak image of Delta despite the fact that the hurricane was 13 mph short of Category 5 intensity there. I'm more willing to display the image of it when it was barely a major, BUT with a clean, well-formed visible eye with an eyewall. It would give the wrong impression if we put the other image because that is not the common appearance of an intense hurricane and lay people may get confused when they see it.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Delta did have a hint of an eye feature at its wind peak, and as TornadoLGS said, we typically use wind speed peak when it comes to images. Not appearance. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 15:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Typically does not mean always. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, obviously. But keep in mind, the general public does not care about a storm's appearance. They heard that Delta was a "dangerous, Category 4 hurricane in the Caribbean", so they are going to expect to see a dangerous, Category 4 hurricane in the Caribbean when they find an image of it, not a reorganizing Category 3 in the Gulf of Mexico. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 15:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hint of an eye and eye are to different things. Also, if you want to talk about always showing peaks, look at Hurricane Michelle and Hurricane Nicole (2016), storms with images that were (a)showing peaks at minimum pressures and (b)showing a pic well after peak.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As I have now said multiple times, not a single person in the general public cares about the appearance of a storm. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 15:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

And don't forget Hurricane Sally. We have a pic of it at peak intensity, yet the image we are using for it is when it was a Category 1. Besides, how long was Delta a Category 4? Delta made both its landfalls at Category 2 intensity so just because it reached Category 4 in the Western Caribbean doesn't mean we have to show it there.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

So why are you not using images at peak? Doesn't that defeat the point of your entire argument against trying to change the image of Delta from peak pressure? HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 15:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I tried to. I was overuled.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I also tried to put it in the article itself (which is where I also put the Delta peak wind pic) and it got removed because there were too many pics. The point is that you may say putting in peak pressure is a matter of opinion, but peak winds is matter of opinion too. However, I think the biggest flaw on the Category 4 pic is the lack of an eye. People looking for a "dangerous hurricane in the Caribbean" are going to see a storm with no eye and instead inquire about whether or not the storm was as strong as they said it was. I don't want the pic to just display a hurricane; I want the pic to give a meaningful, accurate, familiar appearance to the storms we all know and come to fear (or love or whatever you do with these storms. LOL!). The Cat 4 pic ain't cutting it for me. People will remember Delta for what it did in the U.S. more then Mexico anyway.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There is zero logic to using minimum pressure for peak intensity if the winds did not peak at the same time. if we followed Destroyeraa’s flawed reasoning you’d have to go and change Matthew and Sandy’s images to much sloppier images. Omar 2008 had a ragged peak and barely an eye yet we use it’s peak image. So there’s absolutely no reason to change this so people should stop complaining about looks and deal with it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy that we need to put the peak wind intensity for every single tropical cyclone. I disagree with changing all of the systems to peak pressure intensity, such as Sandy or Michael. I just want to want a picture that accurately represents the best look of the storm, while being close to a peak intensity. See Hurricane Hugo, Hurricane Michelle, Hurricane Nicole (2016), among others. The image Mario wants to put up is sloppy and does not show an impressive hurricane. There is no eye on that picture. We don't always have to put storms at peak intensity is my point. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As for the images, they don't have to be when the storm was at peak intensity. It should just be whatever is the most iconic image of the storm, and in this case I think it should be the GoM pic. Mario brought up Sandy - maybe that should be it nearing its US landfall, as opposed to its peak. But that's for a different discussion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: The "old" picture in the Gulf is fine as it is until you changed it. And you changed it back without notifying everyone on this talk page. And you dropped several F-bombs on discord, but that doesn't matter of WP. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the first picture with the highest winds as the most important part of Delta's life. I don't buy the idea of putting the most attractive picture on there. Pretty pics to me are always subjective and people have different ideas of what's pretty. I think the time when Delta was strengthening like crazy was the best part of its journey.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

To recap my main points, we use the image most representative or iconic of a storm in the main infobox. That is usually the peak intensity, but as I've said earlier, for Delta, that is not exactly clear-cut. I'm fine with either an image around the initial peak (Cat 4) or the image of Delta in the Gulf with a more clearly-defined eye. But please, stop edit warring over this. This isn't the first such image war I've seen over the past 2 years on tropical cyclone articles either. It's ridiculous. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow. I know I started the conversation, but this has COMPLETELY blown itself out of proportion since I started it not for the infobox pic, but for the MH. All I'll say is this: I prefer the Gulf image as (a)its at peak and (b)was approaching the United States where most of the impacts were felt. But, I digress. I'm not contributing to this anymore and have decided to let the TCR have the final say so. In the meantime, I think BOTH the Cat 4 image and the Gulf image should be at the beginning of the article. This means one goes in the infobox and the other goes in MH. That is all.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a so called 'war' because only one pic can be at the top, unless we do a montage of pics instead, which I am guessing may confuse people even further... and I still prefer the Cat 4 pic before hitting Mexico by the way.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Quick side note: I just notice that an eye is indeed visible in the Cat 4 pic so I stand corrected on that regard. Sorry about not seeing it before as I though it was just a thunderstorm blowup. I still prefer the Cat 3 pic though.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous y'all. Decide on an image and leave it. This relentless edit warring is a waste of everyone's time. I've locked the page for 3 days in hopes that you can figure out what to do in the meantime. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I can't stand this anymore. I start a simple conversation about something and it turns into all out war about SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT and of all things, its a STUPID PICTURE. Whatever image is there NEEDS TO STAY UNTIL THE TCR COMES OUT! Whether its the Cat 4 image or the Cat 3 image, I really don't care, but me being in crappy mood and seeing this ridiculous stupidity still going is not helping me today. FIGURE. SOMETHING. OUT. AND. STOP. WITH. THE. PETTY. BS. I don't want see the section that I started being populated with this absurd topic anymore, especially because I DIDN'T START IT FOR PIC IN THE INFOBOX. I started to ask how we were going to put all 3 of Delta's peaks. Enough is enough. Start another section if you want to keep up this ridiculous argument. Also, I don't care if you don't like me saying this, so don't even THINK about commenting to me about me overstepping boundaries. This has gone on long enough and I WANT IT TO STOP!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if this absurdity continues, I may just look into adding an entry to WP:LAME. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering as no one wants to budge over the image to use – that the pic in the infobox gets rotated, say every week. Like one week for the first one then the following week the second one then back to the first one, etc. Haha can a Wikipedia bot do such a thing for us?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that is not a viable option. We need to agree on a single image to use for the main infobox and stick to it. By the way, this is the worst image war I've seen on TC articles in 2 or 3 years (the last one of comparable scale that I remember is the one on the article for 2017's Hurricane Ophelia). This needs to stop. We've had 2 articles getting fully protected multiple times now, over the course of at least a week. If this continues, the main editors engaged in this conflict will very likely get sanctioned at a minimum. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What would be a viable option at all when everyone on here is refusing to change their stance with no sign of a compromise?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Also, simply punishing people for engaging in war won't help at all in reaching a consensus by the way...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

We should keep all of the discussions in one place, to make everything easier to follow. The image discussion should honestly have been held on this talk page, since this article is the one most affected by the image warring. But since someone decided to host the discussion on the image issue on the main season article, I've linked it here for convenience. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Nominated for ITN

@Robloxsupersuperhappyface, ChessEric, Sausius, and Elijahandskip: Feel free to chip in and give in your two cents.~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel the ITN caption should be “After causing havoc in the resort city of Cancun, Hurricane Delta moves ashore in Louisiana as a Category 2 hurricane causing widespread destruction.” Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, I think putting Delta ITN would be a great idea. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That's too dramatic. You don't need the "havoc" part.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric and Robloxsupersuperhappyface: Feel free to put your opinions on the ITN page. Also, removed the "havoc" and replaced with "heavy damage".~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Well havoc is a little too dramatic but mention the trapping of many tourists in the region. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the blurb, please do so at WP:In the news/Candidates#Hurricane Delta Robloxsupersuperhappyface and ChessEric. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Oh. Sorry. Didn't know. LOL!

Requesting Edit

I would like to request an change to be made to Delta's article as it states that Delta was the first Greek named system to make landfall on the U.S in the "Records" section, although Beta was actually the first Greek named tropical cyclone to make landfall on the U.S, which is stated in its own article. Im just requesting an edit so that any readers that will read this aren't misinformed and become confused.WarDestroyer88 (talk)WarDestroyer88) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarDestroyer88 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Delta Landfall

I’ve noticed that the article says first Greek storm to make landfall on the us. In fact it’s the second, beta was the first Greek to hit us. Although it is the first Greek hurricane landfall on us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.109.93 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh? --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The aforementioned statement is no longer in the article; it was/is a trivial fact, not a record. Drdpw (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Arkansas

If Arkansas is significantly affected, the article should mention it. Jim Michael (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: Damage reports are on the way. How about you go and find some, and add them to the article, if you have time. Thanks! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Effects in Louisiana article

Once they find the damage, we should make an article for affects in Louisiana if severe. The storm struck as a category 2 and whizzed through the state. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Currently not enough information and deaths auto warrant an article. Maybe as the storm reports come out, we shall consider. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

In Meteorological history, please change {{convert|145|mph|abbr=on}} to 145 mph (230 km/h). We didn't use convert since it is unable to round off to the nearest 5. 219.78.190.20 (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done The convert template does have a rounding feature, which does allow for rounding to the nearest 5. It doesn't work properly in this case, though, since both values are converted from knots. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:convert can be set to round off numbers. Presently, the template's "round" parameter is set to "5" and the visible text reads: 145 mph (235 km/h). Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I changed to the requested value, since the official wind speed was posted as 125 knots, which rounds to 230 km/h. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020 (2)

Record section: tying the record set in 2002. 182.239.85.76 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Thanks for catching this. Drdpw (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

"In Destin, Florida, a 19-year-old tourist drowned, while another was rescued after they were caught in a rip current produced by Hurricane Delta."

Why does the rescued person need to be mentioned? Please replace it with "In Destin, Florida, a 19-year-old tourist drowned in a hurricane-produced rip current." 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:4041:6EC3:563B:B7A9 (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The rescued person is mentioned because water rescues are important too, and it adds to the impacts. We don't always need to put deaths. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

Can someone input a table with the deaths incurred by Delta. As far as I can read there is only 5 deaths in the Impact sections but the introduction claims 6 deaths, two of them by rip current (?)

Pierre cb (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: As far as I know, two died due to rip currents, one died in Mexico due to preparations, another died in Mexico due to being swept away. Two people died in Louisiana due to CO poisoning and a fire. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Sorry but you just repeat what is in the introduction. It would better to have a table with location (country or States) and references at the beginning of the IMPACT section (see Hurricane Laura#Impact), instead of having to read the whole Impacts sections. Pierre cb (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: Sure. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Mexico impact

• Possible indirect death from electrocution on October 15
• 266,000 left without power, no major damage
• Power mostly restored by the night of October 7
• Strong winds downed trees and broke windows across much of Cancun
• About 2,400 hectares of crops damaged

Can't add this in yet since the article's fully protected, but that expires in a few hours. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 22 October 2020

My son Maxi noticed that in the final sentence of the first paragraph in the article, "Storm" is capitalized incorrectly:

"The Storm began to weaken..."

We believe it should read,

"The storm began to weaken..."

Thanks! Kieran and Maxi Kdiggity8 (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Article's no longer protected, but done anyway. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

How dare you are. The original image was on October 6. Destroyeraa changed it without any discussion, and saying I'm disruptive. The article should be restored to this version, before the dispute occur 182.239.87.5 (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please try talking this out with Destroyeraa Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 04:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:THEWRONGVERSION, no one's going to be satisfied here so just drop it and go back to discussing. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Other users have reverted your edits also, so just leave it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

Per WP: BRD I would not just revert this(see also WP: 3RR). What are your thoughts? The tp, before this posting, is 36922 bytes. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Quite unnecessary. From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Archiving, 75kB is the usual size. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Change Image

I think we should change the image on the infobox to the image of Delta at peak intensity (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Delta_2020-10-06_1330Z.png). While delta did look better at it's second peak, most articles have the storm's image at peak intensity. HurricaneIcy (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneIcy: There is a discussion at Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season#Delta image, but unfortunately it ends up no consensus. --219.78.190.92 (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We typically include whatever image has the better satellite presentation, so not necessarily at peak intensity. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Delta's eye

I have recently recovered a VDM from the hurricane hunters that stated that the size of Delta's eye was actually 4nmi wide at its smallest, although the article states that it was 6nmi. WarDestroyer88 (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)