Talk:Hurricane Milton

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Flagler County total rainfall to 12.5-19.14 inches.^[1] 2600:1702:4AAD:0:39DF:7942:92DE:B2F1 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Link leads to 404 error page. LizardJr8 (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Removing the AMP from the link does make the page work. Haven't checked to see if it's been changed since this edit request. – The Grid (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This could be an Andrew5 sock but I’m not sure TyphoonHurricaneCyclone (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I would like to bring attention to two issues with the article at present.

Firstly, this article contains a lengthy section about congressional hearings similar to what was removed from the Hurricane Helene page. Should whatever consensus reached on the Helene talk page apply here in regards to that section or is this substantially different?

Secondly, the Hurricane Research Division has updated its tables of US hurricanes for the 2024 season. It officially marks Milton as only bringing category 2 winds to the state, as the TCR previously hinted at. This seems to be a rather unique situation, so how should this be handled? Should this still be listed as a landfalling major hurricane despite the cat 3 winds remaining offshore? Should the costliest US hurricanes template label it as a 2 or 3? Do we keep around that climate modeling that suggested Milton would have made landfall as a 3 without climate change? MCRPY22 (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Do we think we need a separate MH page for Milton? Just a brief glimpse the other stuff makes this article pretty long, and Milton’s unusual track and such could be of benefit to expand upon in greater detail. Just want to see if anyone’s opposed to that idea or we can still expand the MH in the main page without getting too large page wise. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - this article is still under 6,000 words. There's room for expansion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hm. I’ll probably just write up what I was gonna put in that article, and just put in the section instead. I think as it stand that section could use some revising, especially after what I’ve seen so far with your revisions on Camille. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That works. My philosophy is that it doesn't hurt if an important storm article has a few paragraphs (up to five) for its met history. I used to think that sub-articles were a more efficient way of describing information, but often it leads to information becoming outdated, the links die, there's a better chance vandalism isn't fixed because it isn't viewed as much. But that's just my philosophy now, it's changed over the years. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The section heading 'possible link to climate change' casts doubts on the influence of climate change that is not reflected in the sources. None of the three cited sources state it is possible that climate change had no effect. That's not surprising: A zero-sized effect would be physically impossible, given how much ocean and atmosphere have warmed. The question is the size of the effect: different methodologies will differ in their estimates of how much and what of Milton can be attributed to climate change.

In terms of compromise, I'd be happy with:

• Influence of climate change

Or maybe (even though that's more vague)

• Climate change assessment

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

(as a small point, I always find that these sections fit better as a subsection in the meteorological history subsection) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I changed the section heading to Influences of climate change. Drdpw (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The Milton article is under 6,000 words, and the tornado outbreak is a pretty major part of it. I think for Milton to become a good or featured article, it would help having all of the tornado info in one article. Likely there should be a dedicated section to the tornadoes. But I don't see the need in having an article with so much overlap. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean, if it was merged, it would likely exceed 6,000 words. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZE, it probably shouldn't have been split off in the first place, which says: "Length alone does not justify division or trimming. 98.5% of all Wikipedia articles, and 76% of all Wikipedia:Featured articles, are shorter than this." Besides, the article already takes 400 words to talk about the tornado outbreak. Meanwhile, the whole tornado outbreak article is like 800 words (most of which is the table). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as this was a pretty significant tornado outbreak, especially when it produced a few EF3s which are awfully rare in TC-induced tornadoes. Furthermore, several deaths occurred as a result of the outbreak which would signify notability. As alluded to above I think merging would only serve to bloat the article. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:56, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose very obviously a notable event sourcing-wise; no benefit to merging besides making the main article longer than it needs to be. ^EF₅ 15:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The benefit is getting rid of the significant overlap between the Milton article and the tornado outbreak. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

if we want to do that, we can simply rearrange material to reduce such overlap (nevermind the fact that any article covering a subtopic will inevitably have some degree of overlap with the article of its parent topic). this article otherwise clearly does not fall under WP:RFORK or WP:POVFORK, nor is it a stub-length article that is unlikely to be expanded, so i fail to see why this justifies a merge. ArkHyena_woop! (she/they/it) 17:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Because the tornado outbreak article is less than 1,000 words, and the Milton article is on the short side for a retired storm article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

neither of which are critical here; see WP:SIZERULE. the article lengths here are fine, and, barring any other issues, are not a reason to merge. ArkHyena_woop! (she/they/it) 17:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The issues are the overlap between articles. See Wikipedia:Content forks. Half of the content of the tornado article is already in the Milton article, by virtue of Milton's article already covering the tornado outbreak in 400 words, which is half the length of the tornado outbreak. Half is a huge overlap. And the size rule means that the content shouldn't have been split in the first place, since the Milton article never got too long. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

which, as i stated before, is fine. WP:SPINOFF provides examples of such content forks. we can reduce the overlap if we want to (though given how milton's meteorological synopsis is responsible for the outbreak, it's questionable whether or not that would be productive).

re: SIZERULE, my point about citing it is that article size is not the problem here; the length of milton's article is simply a non-issue. ArkHyena_woop! (she/they/it) 21:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

"we can reduce the overlap if we want to (though given how milton's meteorological synopsis is responsible for the outbreak, it's questionable whether or not that would be productive)." - my point exactly! The Milton article shouldn't be shorter, it's short enough as it is. Plus, the tornado outbreak already has stuff that appears in the main article, like "WPTV-TV partnered with 7 local businesses to fundraise for tornado victims." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Every subarticle of a main event will have some level of overlap; I’m not seeing it to the degree here where the entire article needs to be merged. Milton’s article very clearly is not on the “short side” in any regard, with 220 references. The goal isn’t to beef up articles to the point where they are just below the split-out bar, as that’s unnecessarily straddling a line accessibility-wise. ^EF₅ 17:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@EF5: by my calculations it would only add about 400 words of content, since about half of the tornado article is already covered in the Milton article. Merging wouldn't beef up the article to "just below the split-out bar", there would still be plenty of room for expansion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there also might be more to write about regarding the impacts of the Yucatan if not Florida as well. Also, WP:SIZERULE really only indicates splits of less than 150 words should be remerged into parent articles, but I heavily disagree with that. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• oppose per my reply above and per others. ArkHyena_woop! (she/they/it) 17:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per EF5 and MarioProtIV Lightbulb Noob (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)